alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023338EN.01004001.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/40

---

Action brought on 31 July 2023 — Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale v SRB

(Case T-487/23)

(2023/C 338/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale (represented by: H. Berger, M. Weber and D. Schoo, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as the contested decision together with Annexes I, II and III concern the applicant’s contribution, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as the contested decision together with Annexes I, II and III concern the applicant’s contribution,

| — | order the SRB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the SRB to pay the costs.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the SRB and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

| — | order the SRB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the SRB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-440/23, Berlin Hyp v SRB.

---
# C_2023112EN.01004601.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/46

---

Action brought on 9 February 2023 — Ilovepdf v EUIPO (ILOVEPDF)

(Case T-60/23)

(2023/C 112/59)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ilovepdf, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Oriol Asensio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the word mark ILOVEPDF — Application for registration No 18 142 577

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2022 in Case R 641/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision (and the decision at issue dated 12 February 2021) and issue a new decision replacing the previous decisions in order to progress the publication procedure of the sign applied for in the European Union Trade Marks Bulletin, with a view to granting registration of the sign ILOVEPDF, and impose on EUIPO the costs incurred and the reimbursement of the fees paid to EUIPO for the appeal before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Failure to rule on an important preliminary procedural issue concerning the revision of decisions and subsequent repetition of the grounds for refusal, which was omitted from the decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to rule on an important preliminary procedural issue concerning the revision of decisions and subsequent repetition of the grounds for refusal, which was omitted from the decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# CE2004084EN.01003201.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/32

---

(2004/C 84 E/0035)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2609/03

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 August 2003)

Subject:   Products in respect of which payment of premiums is directly linked to per-hectare yield

Subject:

The consequences of the persistent drought in Europe are becoming increasingly clear. As a result of the drought, European agricultural yields are well below the annual average. In anticipation of the decoupling scheduled for 2004 in respect of those products where payment of premiums is directly linked to per-hectare yield (such as starch potatoes), is the Commission prepared to make payment of the premium not dependent on per-hectare yield but to make payments on the basis of average harvests in previous years?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

(12 September 2003)

The reform of the common agricultural policy adopted by the Council in June 2003 will enter into force in 2005.

Therefore, the specific provisions on decoupling, the detailed rules for the application of which are currently being drawn up so that the Commission can adopt a decision in the near future, may not be applied before then.

It should be pointed out that, with the exception of starch potatoes, all arable crops already qualify for per-hectare aid decoupled from actual yield.

The Honourable Member's suggestion to anticipate the decisions on decoupling in the case of starch potatoes cannot be followed. On the one hand, farmers would receive higher premiums but on the other, farmers with few or no historical reference amounts would be heavily penalised.

It should also be pointed out that the Commission proposed that the reform should apply from 2004. However, the Council insisted on postponing it by one year, with the possibility of extending this to 2007.

---
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 963/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 963/2014 of 29 August 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Zázrivské vojky (PGI)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 963/2014                     

# of 29 August 2014

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Zázrivské vojky                        (PGI)]                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Slovakia's application to register the name ‘Zázrivské vojky’                              was published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (2).

(2)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name                              ‘Zázrivské vojky’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name ‘Zázrivské vojky’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.3. Cheeses, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing                     Regulation (EU) No 668/2014(3).                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 August 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Tonio Borg                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 109, 11.4.2014, p. 27.                           

3

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU)                              No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 686 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 686

  To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Washington-
        Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 26, 2007

  Mr. Lieberman (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
    Biden, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Specter) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Washington-
        Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary 
Route National Historic Trail Designation Act''.

SEC. 2. ADDITION TO NATIONAL SCENIC AND NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS.

    Section 5(a) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(26) Washington-rochambeau revolutionary route national 
        historic trail.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The Washington-Rochambeau 
                Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail, a corridor 
                of approximately 600 miles following the route taken by 
                the armies of General George Washington and Count 
                Rochambeau between Newport, Rhode Island, and Yorktown, 
                Virginia, in 1781 and 1782, as generally depicted on 
                the map entitled `WASHINGTON-ROCHAMBEAU REVOLUTIONARY 
                ROUTE NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL', numbered T01/80,000, 
                and dated July 2006.
                    ``(B) Map.--The map referred to in subparagraph (A) 
                shall be on file and available for public inspection in 
                the appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
                    ``(C) Administration.--The trail shall be 
                administered by the Secretary of the Interior, in 
                consultation with--
                            ``(i) other Federal, State, tribal, 
                        regional, and local agencies; and
                            ``(ii) the private sector.
                    ``(D) Land acquisition.--The United States shall 
                not acquire for the trail any land or interest in land 
                outside the exterior boundary of any federally-managed 
                area without the consent of the owner of the land or 
                interest in land.''.
                                 <all>
```
NUMBER 13-05-00397-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

HUMBERTO GARZA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 370th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

Appellant Humberto Garza was indicted for two counts of capital murder. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 19.02(b) (Vernon 2003), 19.03(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2007). In March

2005, a jury convicted Garza of the lesser-included offense of murder in Count One and

assessed a life sentence. The jury also convicted Garza of capital murder in Count Two,
 This Court abated Garza’s appeal of his conviction for Count One until the court of criminal appeals 1

decided his appeal for the Count Two conviction.

2

and based on the jury’s answers to special issues set forth in the code of criminal

procedure, the trial court sentenced Garza to death for Count Two. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 37.071 (Vernon 2006). Garza’s conviction for Count One was appealed

to this Court. 

Garza’s sentence for his conviction of Count Two was directly appealed to the court

of criminal appeals. Id. art. 37.071, § 2(h) (Vernon 2006). In his direct appeal to the court 1

of criminal appeals, Garza raised thirty-three points of error, including a contention that the

trial court violated the federal and state constitutional protections against double-jeopardy

by subjecting him to multiple prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.

Garza v. State, No. AP-75,217, 2008 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 340, at *1-4 (Tex.

Crim. App. Apr. 30, 2008). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals sustained Garza’s

double-jeopardy point of error and held that “[i]t is clearly apparent from the face of the

record that appellant was subjected to multiple punishments for the same offense in

violation of the federal and state constitutional protections against double-jeopardy.” Id.

at *11. Additionally, the court of criminal appeals instructed us to consider reversing

Garza’s murder conviction for Count One. Id. at *11 n.21. 

When a defendant's double jeopardy rights are violated, the remedy is to vacate one

of the convictions. Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864-65 (1985); Landers v. State,

957 S.W.2d 558, 559 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The court of criminal appeals retained “the

most serious offense” and affirmed the trial court’s judgment and sentence of death in
3

Count Two. Because of the court of criminal appeals’ holding and the sentence in Count

Two, we hereby reverse and render an acquittal in Count One.

 ____________________ 

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 28 day of August, 2008. th
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-22-00397-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

Denton County, Texas

Before Kerr, Bassel, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE ALISON MAGUIRE, KERI CARUTHERS, TRACY RUNNELS, AND 

EMILY MEISNER, Relators
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relators’ petition for writ of injunction and motion 

for emergency injunctive relief, respondents’ responses,

1 and relators’ reply, and is of 

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ of 

injunction and motion for emergency injunctive relief are denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: October 18, 2022

1

All other pending motions are moot.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 129856 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129856 COA: 254639 Wayne CC: 03-011072-01 LESLIE GORDON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e September 22, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0221 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2006

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           8,501
<SECURITIES>                                    12,201
<RECEIVABLES>                                      266
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        557
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,928
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,031
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,042
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,024
<SALES>                                            115
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   115
<CGS>                                              951
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      951
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,239
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  19
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,940)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,940)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,940)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.32)
        

</TABLE>
Johnny L. STOUTAMIRE v. Daniel BAILEY, in his individual and official capacity as Sheriff of Mecklenburg County, and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company.

No. 126P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th of April 2015 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1372

CAROLYN YVONNE MURPHY TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WALTER TODD, Esq., in his official capacity as Assistant City

Attorney and his individual capacity; DANA MARIE THYE, Esq.,

in her official capacity as Assistant City Attorney and her

individual capacity; HUNTER P. SWANSON, Esq., in her official

capacity as Assistant City Attorney and her individual

capacity,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CHARLES AUSTIN, in his official capacity as City Manager and his

individual capacity; DONNIE BALZEIGLER, in his official capacity as

Code Enforcement Officer and his individual capacity; CITY OF

COLUMBIA, LARRY MCCALL, in his official capacity as Chief Code

Enforcement Officer and his individual capacity.

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (3:07-cv-00983-JFA-JRM)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carolyn Yvonne Murphy Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Gordon

Cooper, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Carolyn Yvonne Murphy Taylor appeals the district court’s

order accepting in part and declining in part the magistrate

judge’s recommendation, and dismissing her action filed under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and the South Carolina Torts Claims Act. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Taylor v. Todd, No. 3:07-cv-00983-JFA-JRM (D.S.C. Feb. 29,

2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 11.1

                               AMF BOWLING, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Period Ended     Year Ended
                                                        December 31,     December 31,
                                                          1996 (a)           1997
                                                        ------------     ------------
<S>   <C>
Shares
  Weighted average number of common shares outstanding      39,713          45,249
                                                        ============     ============

Net loss before extraordinary items                     $  (19,484)      $ (32,198)
                                                        ============     ============
Net loss                                                $  (19,484)      $ (55,564)
                                                        ============     ============

Net loss per share before extraordinary items (b)       $    (0.49)      $   (0.71)
Per share effect of extraordinary items (b)                     --           (0.52)
                                                        ------------     ------------
Basic and diluted loss per common share (b)             $    (0.49)      $   (1.23)
                                                        ============     ============
</TABLE>

(a) For the period from the inception date of January 12, 1996 which includes
    results of operations of the acquired business from May 1, 1996 through
    the period ended December 31, 1996.

(b) Outstanding stock options and warrants are not considered as their effect
    is antidilutive.
STATE v. Walic Christopher THOMAS.

No. 435A96-5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Steven Bryant, Bryson City, for State of N.C.

Marvin Sparrow, Raleigh, for Thomas, Walic Christopher.

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Durham, for Thomas, Walic Christopher.

Walic C. Thomas, for Thomas, Walic Christopher.

Jess D. Mekeel, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of October 2015 by Kathryn Vandenberg and Marvin Sparrow to Withdraw:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."