alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40063 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus ESTEBAN GONZALEZ-CUELLAR, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-CR-94-154
- - - - - - - - - - August 23, 1995 Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Esteban Gonzalez-Cuellar argues that the district court erred when it increased his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(2) because of his prior deportation after committing an aggravated felony. Gonzalez-Cuellar contends that the burglary of a nonresidential building is not a "crime ofNo. 95-40063 -2- violence" as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16, which is referenced by § 2L1.2, comment. (n. 7). Id
. A sentence imposed under the guidelines will be upheld unless it is imposed in violation of the law, is the result of an incorrect application of the guidelines, or is an unreasonable departure from the applicable guideline range. United States v. Anderson, 5 F.3d 795, 798 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 1118 (1994). A Texas conviction for a burglary of a non-residential building constitutes a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), and is thus an aggravated felony justifying a 16-level increase under § 2L1.2(b)(2). United States v. Rodriguez-Guzman , 56 F.3d 18, 20-21 (5th Cir. 1995). The sentence imposed was not unreasonable nor the result of an incorrect application of the Guidelines. AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Transitional Research for the Prevention and Control of diabetes.                    

*Date:*                         March 23, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 6 p.m.                              ( print page 5193)    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Marriott Bethesda North Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Michele L. Barnard, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 753, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-8898,@                        *barnardmextra.niddk.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 25, 2005.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-1823  Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2009180EN.01000702.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen, on the application of Generics (UK) Ltd v Licensing Authority (acting through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency)

(Case C-527/07) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/83/EC - Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation - Grounds of refusal - Generic medicinal products - Concept of ‘reference medicinal product’)

2009/C 180/11

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Queen, on the application of Generics (UK) Ltd

Applicant:

Defendant: Licensing Authority, acting through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

Defendant:

Supported by: Shire Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Janssen-Cilag AB

Supported by:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Interpretation of Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67) — Marketing authorisation — Abridged procedure — Application for authorisation of a generic of a reference medicinal product — Concept of reference medicinal product when examining the application

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

A medicinal product, such as Nivalin at issue in the main proceedings, which falls outside the scope of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, and the placing of which on the market in a Member State was not authorised in accordance with the applicable Community law, cannot be considered to be a reference medicinal product within the meaning of Article 10(2)(a) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136798 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136798 

 COA: 276766 

Monroe CC: 06-035432-FC 

SHAWN NICHOLAS-WILLIAM KERSEN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 13, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0915 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
Exhibit 32

                                 BIOCORAL, INC.
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the amended Annual Report of Biocoral, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nasser
Nassiri, the President, CEO, Chairman of the Board of the Company and the
Principal Accounting Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
of my knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and result of operations of the Company.


                                          /s/ Nasser Nassiri
                                          ------------------
                                          Nasser Nassiri
                                          President, CEO, Chairman of the Board
                                          and Principal Accounting Officer

Date: April 19, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3686 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3686

 To require official White House meals and meals served at White House 
 or Department of Agriculture cafeterias to be in compliance with the 
nutrition requirements for the school breakfast program and the school 
                             lunch program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 10, 2013

Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois (for himself, Mr. Joyce, and Mr. Graves of 
  Missouri) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the 
Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require official White House meals and meals served at White House 
 or Department of Agriculture cafeterias to be in compliance with the 
nutrition requirements for the school breakfast program and the school 
                             lunch program.

    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 ``School Nutrition Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. NUTRITION REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each 
official meal served at the White House, and each meal served at a 
cafeteria located at the White House or at the Department of 
Agriculture shall be in compliance with the nutrition requirements for 
school meals under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 
U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 
1771 et seq.).
    (b) Definition.--For purposes of this Act, the phrase ``official 
meal'' means a lunch or dinner served at an official White House 
function and funded by annual appropriation Acts.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [FDA 225-05-3000]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is providing notice of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between FDA and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).  The purpose of this MOU is to extend an existing formal collaboration between FDA and VHA for the purpose of developing and implementing terminology standards for medication information.

# DATES:

The agreement became effective June 28, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randy Levin, Health and Regulatory Data Standards (HFD-001), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD  20857, 301-594-5411.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which states that all written agreements and MOUs between FDA and others shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    , the agency is publishing notice of this MOU.                

Dated: September 8, 2005.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

      ( print page 54943)          ( print page 54944)          ( print page 54945)    

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

[FR Doc. 05-18513 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-C
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007 – Antartica v OHIM – Nasdaq Stock Market (nasdaq)**

**(Case T-47/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark nasdaq – Earlier Community word mark NASDAQ – Relative ground for refusal – Reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94,
Art. 8(5)) (see para. 61)

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 December 2005 (Case R 752/2004-2), relating to opposition proceedings between The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. and Antartica Srl. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Antartica Srl |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark nasdaq for goods in Classes 9, 12, 14, 25 and 28 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Community word mark NASDAQ for goods in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 et 42, and the earlier trade mark NASDAQ, generally recognised in all the Member States of the European Union |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Decision of the Opposition Division set aside and application for registration dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders Antartica Srl to pay the costs. |
----

(2004/C 65 E/259)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2898/03

by Helmut Kuhne (PSE) to the Commission

(1 October 2003)

Subject:   Possible unjustified use of EU funds in Spain

A letter from an EU citizen has drawn my attention to the fact that, when the private housing estate on the Spanish coast known as ‘Alhama Candela’ was being expanded, EU funds were possibly used for a purpose other than the one for which they were actually intended.

According to my informant, the planning permission issued 30 years ago was granted solely on condition that the infrastructure was extended and improved. The then amount of DEM 2 million put up for that project by a German real estate purchaser was not used. In 1997, work was actually begun, but it was not completed. Nevertheless, the housing estate is being extended to include a new development involving the construction of more than 64 dwellings.

Electricity supply and road network conditions are described as catastrophic, with Iberdola, the electricity supply company, refusing to supply electricity. The apparent reason for its refusal to do so is that EU infrastructure payments were not paid as agreed.

The Commission:

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2003)

The information provided by the Honourable Member does not allow the time (the programming period) or place (the exact location, i.e. the region and site) of the project to be identified. As a result, it is not possible for the Commission to examine whether the project involved EU funding or not.

Nevertheless, given that this project appears to be in the housing sector, it should be pointed out that this sector is not eligible under the Structural Funds.

----
**Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2008 – Commission v Germany**

**(Case C‐39/06)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – State aid – Subsidies for investment and employment – Obligation to recover – Non-compliance – Principle of protection of legitimate expectations

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Non-compliance with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Defences – Legality
of the decision called in question – Inadmissibility – Limits – Non‐existent measure (Arts 88(2), second para., EC, 226 EC,
227 EC, 230 EC and 232 EC) (see paras 18-20)*

2.                     *State aid – Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its repayment – Commission’s
power to leave the calculation of the exact amount to be repaid to the national authorities (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 37)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 249 EC and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/643/EC of 13 May 2003 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (notified under document number C(2003) 1520; Aid No C-62/00, ex NN 142/99) (OJ 2003 L 227, p. 12) – Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to recover aid which was declared incompatible with the common market. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to recover certain aid declared incompatible with the common market by Article 1(2)(d) and (g) of the Commission Decision of 30 October 2002, as it appears in Decision 2003/643/EC of 13 May 2003 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 to 3 of that decision; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
State v. Charles Everette Hinton

449P11-13

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Mr. Charles E. Hinton, Pro Se.

Mr. Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of February 2016 by Petitioner for Joinder of Claims and Remedies:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Milton A. Alpern, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                       /s/ Milton A. Alpern
                                          --------------------------------------
Dated: May 14, 2004                        Milton A. Alpern
                                           Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 2008 – Demp v OHIM – BAU HOW (BAU HOW)**

**(Case T-106/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark BAU HOW – Earlier figurative marks BAUHAUS – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(a) and (b), and Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 43, 47-48)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2006 (Case R 92/2004-4) on opposition proceedings between Demp BV and BAU HOW GmbH. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | BAU HOW GmbH |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark BAU HOW for goods and services in Classes 7, 8, 11, 19, 20, 36, 37 and 40 – Application No 1740133 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Demp BV |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Figurative mark BAUHAUS as Benelux trade mark No 570351 and International mark No 646757 for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 6 to 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19 to 21, 25, 27, 31 and 40 and the application for registration of Irish mark No 2000/03158 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejection of the opposition |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Demp BV to pay the costs. |