alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Hanesbrands Inc. v. Kathleen Fowler

438A15-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 28, 2016

David C. Pishko, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Fowler, Kathleen.

Robin E. Shea, Attorney at Law, Jill S. Stricklin, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Hanesbrand Inc.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of June 2016 by Defendant for Continuance of Oral Argument:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of June 2016."
STATE v. Walter LEMLEY, Jr.

No. 62P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Walter Lemley, Badin, for Lemley, Walter (Jr.).

Kristin Jo Uicker, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of February 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
# C_2008197EN.01002102.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/21

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2008 — Otto v OHIM

(Case T-224/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark l'Altra Moda - Earlier national figurative mark Alba Moda - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 73 and Article 74(1) and (2) of Regulation No 40/94)

(2008/C 197/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Otto GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Rohnke and M. Munz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and P. Bullock, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: L'Altra Moda SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina and M. Bucarelli, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2006 (Case R 793/2005-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Otto GmbH & Co. KG and l'Altra Moda SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Otto GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and of l'Altra Moda SpA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Otto GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and of l'Altra Moda SpA.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 of Captaris, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, David P. Anastasi, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ DAVID P. ANASTASI                                                   
|David P. Anastasi President and Chief
Executive Officer October 31, 2008
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Order No. 1413]

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

*Whereas*, the Capital Region Airport Commission, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 207, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand FTZ 207 to include a site (Site 2 - 221 acres) within the 345-acre SouthPoint Business Park in Prince George (Prince George County), Virginia, within the Richmond Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 14-2005; filed 3/14/05);                

*Whereas*, notice inviting public comment was given in the                     **Federal Register**                     (70 FR 13451, 3/21/05) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,                

*Whereas*, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest;                

*Now, therefore*, the Board hereby orders:                

The application to expand FTZ 207 is approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and subject to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall zone project.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of September 2005.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Attest:

Dennis Puccinelli,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05-18719 Filed 9-19-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
Order filed, June 4, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00445-CR

NO. 14-19-00446-CR

____________

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

JULIE ANN FAIRCHILD-PORCHE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 183rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1581954, 1627541

ORDER

The reporter’s record in these cases were due May 7, 2019. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Marcia Barnett, the official court reporter, to file the record in 

these appeals within 10 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
----

(2004/C 33 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1888/03

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   International air transport

A report in an Athens newspaper claims that Commissioner de Palacio has expressed the view that there should be only 5 or 6 major air carriers in the EU, whereas there are currently 14 national airlines.

Is Mrs de Palacio's view a personal one or is it Commission policy? In the latter case, what provisions have been made for dealing with unemployment in the air transport sector?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

The Commission does not in any way plan to set the number of air carriers in the EU. This number depends on the market, which has been fully opened up since 1997. The figure cited by the Honourable Member refers to the view expressed by most of the experts in the industry, one which the Vice-President responsible for transport and energy and the entire Commission have repeated on several occasions. Many analysts agree that there is not room in the European market for some fifteen intercontinental airlines and that the industry needs consolidation, especially during a crisis like the one currently facing the industry. Since the attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001, the air transport sector has been going through an unprecedented crisis brought about by a number of destabilising factors (fears of further terrorist attacks, conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)) in a climate of general economic downturn. The concentration of players in this sector to achieve a critical size and boost their efficiency and economic viability in the market constitutes a natural trend, especially since many European carriers are too small compared with their international competitors.

However, this trend is not irreconcilable with increased activity, which liberalisation has made possible, on the part of European regional air carriers or with the emergence of new carriers (like the low-cost airlines), which lead to the creation of jobs. A number of new companies have appeared over the last few years and are obtaining excellent economic results.

For its part, the Commission intends to leave the companies to develop in the framework of the competitive European market. As Guardian of the Treaties, it will exercise vigilance and take action in respect of any unlawful State aid which might favour some companies to the detriment of others.

----
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 132674 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132674 COA: 273382 Wayne CC: 01-003908-01 LAVERE D. LEE-BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2006 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

d0521 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.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 726 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 726

 To amend section 42 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the 
          importation and shipment of certain species of carp.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 1, 2007

  Mr. Levin (for himself, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Brown, Mr. 
   Obama, Mr. Coleman, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Durbin) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 42 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the 
          importation and shipment of certain species of carp.

    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 ``Asian Carp Prevention and Control 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ADDITION OF SPECIES OF CARP TO THE LIST OF INJURIOUS SPECIES 
              THAT ARE PROHIBITED FROM BEING IMPORTED OR SHIPPED.

    Section 42(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting after ``Dreissena polymorpha;'' the following: ``of the black 
carp of the species Mylopharyngodon piceus; of the bighead carp of the 
species Hypophthalmichthys nobilis; of the silver carp of the species 
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix; of the largescale silver carp of the 
species Hypophthalmichthys harmandi;''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2008171EN.01003002.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/30

---

Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 7 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-424/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 171/49)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.

1

---
**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 Annual report of IGIA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB
      for the period ending February 28, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Prem Ramchandani,
      President and Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





|(3) | The
              Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
              of
              the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|(4) | The
              information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
              respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
              Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------










Date:
                July 13, 2007
            By:*/s/*Prem
                RamchandaniPrem
                RamchandaniPresident
                and Interim Chief Financial Officer
----

(2004/C 65 E/189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2544/03

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 July 2003)

Subject:   Building work in the regional nature reserve of Partenio

The territory of the municipalities of Summonte and Ospedaletto d'Alpinolo, in the province of Avellino in Italy is inside the perimeter of the Patenio regional nature reserve, which is subject to various forms of environmental protection order.

In particular:

Despite these safeguards and in contravention of the provisions of Article 3(6) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the local authorities of Ospedaletto d'Alpinolo and Summonte — after obtaining funding from the Region of Campania — are carrying out major works projects with a significant impact on the conservation area, without the necessary environmental impact assessment stipulated in the directive.

Does the Commission agree that in the absence of respect for the Community legislation referred to, the permits issued by the competent Italian authorities for these projects are unlawful?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Under Article 6, paragraph 3, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, with reference to the sites which, according to the procedure laid down by the Directive, will be listed as Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and which will be designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC):

However, the information given by the Honourable Member has not revealed any specific grounds on possible breach of Directive 92/43/EEC in the specific case. In particular, no detail is given as regards the works which are claimed to have a significant effect on the proposed Site of Community Importance IT 8040006 ‘Dorsale Monti del Partenio’. Therefore, in the light of the above, no breach of the above mentioned Directive can be identified at present. Should the Honourable Member provide detailed information enabling the Commission to assess the issue in relation to Directive 92/43/EEC, the Commission would be able to investigate this matter.

----

(1)OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

----
# C_2008301EN.01006301.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/63

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-157/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 301/113)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.

1

---
Affirmed an d Memorandum Opinion filed December 6 , 2011

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 1 0

- 0 1106

- CR

____________ VALENTINE FACUNDO , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 0 698837



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to thirty years in prison. This co urt affirmed his conviction in 1998. See Facundo v. State
, 971 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d). Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for DNA testing.
Appellant ’ s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement s of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of2

the record a nd demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
A copy of counsel ’ s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than forty

- five days has passed and no pro se response has been filed.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel ’ s brief and agree the ap peal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record

. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review

. See Bledsoe v. State
, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce, and McCally. Do Not Publish

— T ex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
State v. Bernard George Lamp, Jr.

222A14-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Anne M. Gomez, Kathleen M. Joyce, Constance E. Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defenders, G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law, For Lamp, Bernard George (Jr.).

*917Robert C. Montgomery, Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, Sarah M. Kirkman, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorneys, Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of June 2016 by Defendant to Withdraw Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
STATE of North Carolina, v. Bibian NWANGUMA, Defendant.

No. COA15-313.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No error in part; vacated and remanded in part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      15,050,869
<SECURITIES>                                 2,680,983
<RECEIVABLES>                               81,316,325
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 73,998,729
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           208,446,217
<PP&E>                                     740,706,762
<DEPRECIATION>                            (65,091,001)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             898,957,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      181,801,644
<BONDS>                                    430,604,954
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       169,279
<OTHER-SE>                                 182,520,869
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               182,690,148
<SALES>                                    478,229,573
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           478,229,573
<CGS>                                      408,982,865
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              408,982,865
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               990,648
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          28,714,925
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,478,721
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,306,704
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,172,017
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,172,017
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                          25
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   1,426
<ALLOWANCES>                    (261)
<INVENTORY>                     4,382
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                5,860
<PP&E>                          2,547
<DEPRECIATION>                  (1,422)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  7,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           7,909
<BONDS>                         1,033
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        71
<OTHER-SE>                      (1,282)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    7,732
<SALES>                         2,264
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                2,264
<CGS>                           1,803
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   825
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                35
<LOSS-PROVISION>                10
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              728
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (1,137)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (1,137)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (1,137)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (0.16)
        


</TABLE>