alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008128EN.01001502.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/15

---

Order of the Court of 20 February 2008 — Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-363/06) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice - Representation by a lawyer - Compliance with the essential procedural requirements of the Rules of Procedure - Principle of non-discrimination - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2008/C 128/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, M.J. Rodríguez Blasco, abogados, and J.V. Sánchez-Tarazaga Marcelino)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and L. Escobar Guerrero, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Intervener in support of the appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Días Abad)

Intervener in support of the other party to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by:I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 5 July January 2006 in Case T-357/05 Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana v Commission, by which the Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the appellant's application to annul Commission Decision C(2005) 1867 final of 27 June 2005 concerning the reduction of the financial assistance initially granted from the Cohesion Fund to Project Group No 97/11/61/028, concerning the collection and treatment of waste waters on the Mediterranean coast of the Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia (Spain) — Representation by a lawyer — Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice

Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia

Generalidad Valenciana

Commission

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | The Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.

1

---
Exhibit
      31.1


CERTIFICATION





I,
      Ronald
      L. Wilder, the principal executive and financial officer, of Titan Technologies,
      Inc., certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Titan Technologies, Inc.,
      SEC


file
      No.
      0-25024, for the quarter ended January 31, 2007





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
      fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
      in
      light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, is not
      misleading with respect dot the period covered by this report..





3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
      condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
      for, the periods presented in this report.





4.
      I am
      responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
      (as defined in Exchange Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and
      have:





a)
      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
      information relating to the registrant is made known to me by others within
      this
      entity, particularly during the period in which this report is
      prepared.





b)
      Omitted





c)
      Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness
      of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
      by the report based on such evaluation; and





d)
      Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
      quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially
      affect the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;





5.
      I have
      disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
      reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
      registrant's Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent
      functions):





a)
      All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of
      internal control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to
      adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize an
      report financial information; and





b)
      Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial
      reporting; and





Date
      March 13, 2007





__ /s/
      Ronald L. Wilder ____________


Ronald
      L.
      Wilder, Principal Executive


and
      Financial Officer








There
      are
      no other certifying officers.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 19, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 19, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17A1742. RONNETTA BABATUND v. FOURTEENTH STREET VENTURE L. P. et al..
The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On June 20, 2017, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than June 30, 2017. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
|   | EXHIBIT 32.1 |
|--------|--------------|

|   | CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 |
|--------|---------------------------------------|

|   | OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 |
|--------|-----------------------------------|

|   | 1)  I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Titan Technologies, Inc.; |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2)  Based in my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; and |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3)  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other information contained in this quarterly report fairly present, in all material respects, thefinancial condition, results of operations  and cash flows of the Company, as of and for the period presented in this quarterly report. |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | June 25, 2010 |
|--------|---------------|

|   | /s/ Ronald L. Wilder |
|--------|----------------------|

|   | Ronald L. Wilder, President |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | (Chief Executive Officer) |
|--------|---------------------------|

|   | (Chief Financial Officer) |
|--------|---------------------------|
EXHIBIT 99.2



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 of Captaris, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Jeffrey B. deCillia, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial 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/    JEFFREY B.
DECILLIA                                                        
|Jeffrey B. deCillia Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer May 15, 2003



A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Captaris, Inc. and will be retained by Captaris, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Diedra SOLOMON, Individually, and Diedra Solomon, as Gal for Raheem Solomon-Meekins, a Minor, Plaintiffs, v. SCOPE SERVICES, INC. and Douglas McClary, Defendants.

No. COA15-851.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 2, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Wilkes v. City of Greenville

368PA15-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2016

Ms. Anita B. Hunt, Attorney at Law, For Wilkes, Johnnie.

Mr. Matthew P. Blake, Attorney at Law, For City of Greenville, et al.

Mr. J. William Crone, IV, Attorney at Law, Mr. J. Timothy Wilson, Attorney at Law, Mr. Bruce A. Hamilton, Attorney at Law, Ms. Tracey L. Jones, Attorney at Law, Ms. Allison B. Schafer, Legal Counsel/Director of Policy, Ms. Christine Teresa Scheef, Attorney at Law, Ms. Kimberly S. Hibbard, General Counsel, Mr. M. Duane Jones, Attorney at Law, Ms. Angela Farag Craddock, Attorney at Law, For N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Ms. Kathleen G. Sumner, Attorney at Law, For Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of June 2016 by Workers Injury Law & Advocacy Group for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of June 2016."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
# CE2004070EN.01013401.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/134 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/134

---

(2004/C 70 E/136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2734/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Encryption of EU communications

Subject:

In light of the report on echelon that recommended the Commission encrypt its communications, can the Commission inform us of the progress made in ensuring the encryption of its communications especially for overseas offices?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

(4 November 2003)

The Commission has taken all necessary steps to ensure that the security features of its communications are developed in order to deal with the risks properly identified by the report on Echelon.

The Commission is working in close co-operation with competent authorities from Member States on the choice of systems. The Honourable Member will understand that, for security reasons, the Commission is unable to communicate any further details in the context of a Parliamentary question. However, the Commission offers to inform the Honourable Member more comprehensively if he wishes to make direct contact with the relevant Service.

---
# C_2008158EN.01001601.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/16

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2008 — Sonia Rykiel création et diffusion de modèles v OHIM — Cuadrado (SONIA SONIA RYKIEL)

(Case T-131/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark SONIA SONIA RYKIEL - Earlier national word mark SONIA - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 158/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sonia Rykiel création et diffusion de modèles (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Baud and S. Strittmatter, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Cuadrado, SA (Seville, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2006 (Case R 329/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Cuadrado, SA and Sonia Rykiel création et diffusion de modèles.

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 January 2006 (Case R 329/2005-1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 January 2006 (Case R 329/2005-1).

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

1

---
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 12 November 2008 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission**

**(Case T-406/06)**

Public service contracts – Invitation to tender concerning support services for the system of registries established under Directive 2003/87/EC – Rejection of a tender – Decision to award the contract to another tenderer – Manifest error of assessment – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Claim for damages

1.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision in an award procedure for a public service
contract, to reject a tender (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002,
Art. 149(2) and (3), third para.) (see paras 47-50, 99-100, 106-107, 110-111)*

2.                     *European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions
– Judicial review – Limits (see para. 64)*

3.                     *European Communities’ public procurement – Tendering procedure – Duty to comply with the principles of equal treatment of
tenderers and transparency in order to ensure an undistorted system of competition (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art.
89(1)) (see paras 82-86)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 October 2006 to reject the applicant’s offer in a call for tenders for support services for the system of registries established under Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32), the Community independent transaction log (CITL), with technical maintenance and user support (OJ 2006 S 102), and an application for annulment of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, a claim for damages. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Commission. |
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00113-CR

MICHAEL VINCENT GALLARDO,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 04-05094-CRF-85

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a); 

McClain v. State, 17 S.W.3d 310, 311 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, no pet.). We have not 

issued a decision in this appeal. Appellant personally signed the motion. Accordingly, 

the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 17, 2008

Do not publish

[CR25]
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136169 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136169 

 COA: 279882 

Wayne CC: 03-008620-01

BOBBY WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0828 

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 9, 2008 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1952

NORMAN WILLIAMS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DONALD F. WADE, Doctor; THOMAS F. ALLGOOD,

JR.; JOHN D. KASSELL; JOHN R. ETHRIDGE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge.

(CA-00-360-4-12)

Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 12, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Norman Williams, Jr., appeals the district court’s order that

construed his civil action as filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West

Supp. 2001) and dismissed it without prejudice. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Williams v. Wade, No. CA-00-360-4-12 (D.S.C. July 6, 2001). 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
State of North Carolina v. George W. Baldwin

No. 47P02-17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 28, 2016

George W. Baldwin, for Baldwin, George W.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 28th of June 2016 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Alamance County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of June 2016."

Ervin, J. recused
1420.

#### Howell *v.*The State.

Accusation of stabbing, from city court of Dalton — Judge Longley. August 22, 1908.

Argued October 27,

Decided November 10, 1908.

*William E. Mann,*for plaintiff in error.

*Samuel P. Maddox, solicitor-general,*contra.

Powell, J.

1. An affidavit charging the defendant with the “offense of assault with a knife [upon -a named person] to murder” may legally furnish the basis for an accusation in a city court, charging the defendant with the offense of stabbing.

2. The defendant was arrested and brought before a magistrate on a warrant for assault with intent to murder. On June 8 the magistrate, on that charge, committed him in default 'of bail for his appearance at the next term of the superior court, to be held on the second Monday in October. On August 18 the solicitor-general of the circuit, who by law was also solicitor of the city court, filed in the city court an accusation, based upon the same affidavit upon which the warrant was issued, charging the defendant with stabbing. The defendant was in jail, and neither he nor his counsel knew of the accusation until August 20th or 21st. On August 22, when the case was called in the city court, the defendant moved' for a continuance, on the ground that he had a material witness who was then in another county, about fifty miles away, whom he had not subpoenaed, because he did not expect the case to be tried until the superior court convened; and the court overruled the motion. *Held,*that the defendant was entitled to a continuance. *Judgment reversed.*.