alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008022EN.01005402.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/54

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Basili v Commission

(Case F-108/06) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Assessment - Career development report - Assessment year 2004 - Action for annulment - Staff representatives - Opinion of the ad hoc working party)

ad hoc

(2008/C 22/103)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Tamara Diomede Basili (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers, then by T. Bontinck, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and H. Kraemer, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the career development report notified to the applicant on 10 November 2005, in so far as it did not take into account the opinion of the ‘ad hoc working party and the staff representatives' suggestions for promotion’.

ad hoc

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261 of 28.10.2006, p. 37.

1

---
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 – K‐Swiss v OHIM (Parallel stripes on a shoe)**

**(Case T‐14/06)**

Community trade mark – Procedural issues – Plea of inadmissibility – Notification of the decision of the Board of Appeal – Time-limit for bringing an action

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 61(2), 62(1) and (3) and 68) (see paras 22, 25-26,
28)

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2005 (Case R 1109/2004-1), concerning registration of a mark in the form of five parallel stripes placed on the lateral part of a representation of a shoe as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | K‐Swiss, Inc. |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark representing a shoe with five parallel stripes on the side for goods in Class 25 – Application No 2788511 |
| Decision of the Examiner: | Application dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 719 

To amend section 10501 of title 49, United States Code, to exclude solid 

waste disposal from the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2007 

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr. 

REED) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend section 10501 of title 49, United States Code, 

to exclude solid waste disposal from the jurisdiction of 

the Surface Transportation Board. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Clean Railroads Act 

5 of 2007’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 719 IS 

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO EXCLUDE SOLID WASTE FACILI2 TIES FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE 

3 BOARD. 

4 Section 10501 of title 49, United States Code, is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘facilities,’’ in subsection (b)(2) 

7 and inserting ‘‘facilities (except solid waste manage8 ment facilities (as defined in section 1004 of the 

9 Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6903))),’’; and 

10 (2) by striking ‘‘over mass transportation pro11 vided by a local governmental authority.’’ in sub12 section (c)(2) and inserting ‘‘over— 

13 ‘‘(A) mass transportation provided by a local 

14 governmental authority; or 

15 ‘‘(B) the processing or sorting of solid waste.’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 28 August 2007 – Galileo Lebensmittel v Commission**

**(Case T-46/06)**

Action for annulment – Implementation of the Top Level Domain ‘eu’ – Registration of the domain name ‘galileo.eu’ – Use restricted to the institutions and bodies of the Community – Locus standi – Inadmissibility

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Direction issued to an institution – Not permissible (Arts
231 EC and 233 EC) (see paras 25-26)*

2.                     *Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para.,
EC; Commission Regulation No 874/2004, Art. 9, second para.) (see paras 32, 44-56)*

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| ACTION for annulment of the Commission’s decision, pursuant to Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration (OJ 2004 L 162, p. 40), to reserve the domain name ‘galileo.eu’ for Community institutions and bodies. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission. |
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00258

- CR

V ICTOR L

AWRENCE B AXTER

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 371st District Court

of Tarrant County ( 1694289R )

November 30, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the t rial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By / s / Dana Womack

Justice Dana Womack
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3771 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3771

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions 
   for the relief of victims of the Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines.

    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 ``Philippines Charitable Giving 
Assistance Act''.
SEC. 2. ACCELERATION OF INCOME TAX BENEFITS FOR CHARITABLE CASH 
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR RELIEF OF VICTIMS OF TYPHOON HAIYAN IN THE 
PHILIPPINES.
    (a) In General.--For purposes of section 170 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, a taxpayer may treat any contribution described 
in subsection (b) made after the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
before April 15, 2014, as if such contribution was made on December 31, 
2013, and not in 2014.
    (b) Contribution Described.--A contribution is described in this 
subsection if such contribution is a cash contribution made for the 
relief of victims in areas affected by Typhoon Haiyan, for which a 
charitable contribution deduction is allowable under section 170 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
    (c) Recordkeeping.--In the case of a contribution described in 
subsection (b), a telephone bill showing the name of the donee 
organization, the date of the contribution, and the amount of the 
contribution shall be treated as meeting the recordkeeping requirements 
of section 170(f)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
WILKES v. CITY OF GREENVILLE.

No. 368PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Anita B. Hunt, Durham, for Wilkes, Johnnie.

Matthew P. Blake, Cary, for City of Greenville, et al.

J. William Crone, IV, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

J. Timothy Wilson, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Bruce A. Hamilton, Raleigh, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Tracey L. Jones, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, For N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Allison B. Schafer, Legal Counsel/Director of Policy, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Christine Teresa Scheef, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Kimberly S. Hibbard, General Counsel, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

M. Duane Jones, Charlotte, for N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys, et al.

Angela Farag Craddock, Raleigh, for N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of December 2015 by NC Association of Self-Insurers, NC Association of County Commissioners, NC League of Municipalities, and NC School *470Boards Association for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 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).
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7

                               FIFTH AMENDMENT TO
                             PC SERVICE SOURCE, INC.
                                STOCK OPTION PLAN


     PC Service Source, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), adopted a
Stock Option Plan dated as of August 28, 1992 (the "Plan"), providing for shares
of the Company's common stock, $.01 par value per share (the "Common Stock"), to
be issued under the Plan pursuant to the terms and conditions stated in the
Plan. Subject to stockholder approval, at a meeting held on October 21, 1998,
the Board of Directors of the Company adopted resolutions amending the Plan to
increase the aggregate number of shares subject to issuance under the Plan from
1,000,000 to 1,750,000. On December 7, 1998, the Board of Directors amended the
resolution adopted by it at the October 21, 1998, meeting by adopting a
resolution to increase the aggregate number of shares subject to issuance under
the plan from 1,000,000 to 1,500,000. Also, at a Special Meeting of stockholders
of the Company held on December 18, 1998, the stockholders of the Company
approved the amendment to the Plan.

     As a result of the approval by the Company's Board of Directors and the
stockholders, the Plan is hereby amended to increase the total number of shares
subject to issuance under the Plan from 1,000,000 to 1,500,000.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, acting by and through its officers
hereunto duly authorized, has executed this instrument as of the 18th day of
December, 1998.


                                     PC SERVICE SOURCE, INC.



                                     By: /s/ Robert J. Boutin
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Robert J. Boutin, Senior Vice President,
                                        Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Argued and submitted December 14,

ballot title certified December 30, 1999

#### Bill SIZEMORE, *Petitioner, v.*Hardy MYERS, Attorney General, State of Oregon, *Respondent, and*C. Peter SORENSON, *Intervenor.*Tim NASHIF, *Petitioner, v.*Hardy MYERS, Attorney General, State of Oregon, *Respondent, and*C. Peter SORENSON, *Intervenor.*

(SC S46984)

(SC S46985)

(Cases Consolidated for Argument and Opinion)

994 P2d 792

*578Gregory W. Byrne, of Byrne & Associates, Portland, filed the petition for petitioner Bill Sizemore.

Kevin L. Mannix, Salem, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner Tim Nashif.

C. Peter Sorenson, *intevenorpro se,*argued the cause and filed the memoranda.

Jas. Jeffrey Adams, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and filed the memoranda for respondent.

PER CURIAM

*580PER CURIAM

These two ballot title review proceedings, which have been consolidated for the purposes of argument and opinion, are brought under ORS 250.085(2). Petitioners are electors who timely submitted written comments concerning the content of the draft ballot title submitted to the Secretary of State and who therefore are entitled to seek review of the ballot title certified by the Attorney General. *See*ORS 250.085(2) (setting that requirement).

We have considered each of petitioners’ arguments concerning the ballot title certified by the Attorney General. We conclude that none establishes that the Attorney General’s certified ballot title fails substantially to comply with the standards for such ballot titles set out in ORS 250.035(2)(a) to (d) (1997). Accordingly, we certify to the Secretary of State the following ballot title:

> DECLARES SPECIFIED HUMAN RIGHTS; CREATES COMMISSION; AUTHORIZES ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT

> RESULT OF “YES” VOTE: *“Yes”*vote declares specified human rights; creates commission to enforce rights through administrative, judicial processes.

> RESULT OF “NO” VOTE: “No” vote rejects declaring specified human rights, creating commission; leaves existing laws, protections in place.

> SUMMARY: Adopts statute declaring specified human rights, including provisions relating to torture, inhuman treatment, equal rights, “social security,” health care, collective bargaining, environment, employment conditions, discrimination, disabilities, education, tolerance. Creates seven-member commission appointed by governor. Authorizes commission to: investigate complaints against persons alleged to have violated rights; hold contested case hearings; compel testimony; impose civil penalties up to $10,000 for violations; initiate court actions for civil penalty, injunction; adopt administrative rules. Authorizes suspension of occupational, professional, driving, liquor licenses, until violations cease. Other provisions.

Ballot title certified. This decision shall become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).
STATE of North Carolina v. Tracey Donnell COUSIN.

No. 527P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Tracey D. Cousin, Pro Se.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 26th day of November 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 26th day of November 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Alamance County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."
STATE of North Carolina v. Trequan Cortez BRUTON.

No. COA15-942.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reversed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40619

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR ANIBAL MATEO-TAVAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:19-CR-270-1

Before ELROD, COSTA and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Anibal 

Mateo-Tavarez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mateo-Tavarez has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 15, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40619 Document: 00515273247 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2020
No. 19-40619

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-40619 Document: 00515273247 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2020
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 19 June 2008 – Mülhens v OHIM – Spa Monopole (MINERAL SPA)**

**(Case T-93/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark MINERAL SPA – Earlier national word mark SPA – Relative ground for refusal – Reputation – Unfair advantage taken of the repute of the earlier mark – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

1.                     *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
paras 41-43)*

2.                     *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. 33)*

3.                     *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(1)(b)
and (5)) (see para. 38)*

4.                     *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 (see para. 39)*

5.                     *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. 40)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 825/2004-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV, and Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark MINERAL SPA for goods in Class 3 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Several marks containing the word SPA, registered in Benelux for goods in Class 32 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
----

(2004/C 65 E/260)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2912/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject:   The European Union's cohesion policies

Cohesion policy has for years been a fundamental part of the Union's political activities. The policy's instruments of solidarity are the four Structural Funds (the ERDF, ESF, FIFG and EAGGF), the Cohesion Fund and the Community initiatives (Interreg III, Urban II, Leader+ and Equal).

Of the Community initiatives, Interreg III is the one with a truly European dimension in the sense that it lessens the effects on our continent of centuries of the existence of national borders. It comes under the European Regional Development Fund and promotes interregional cooperation in the European Union. The aim of the new phase of Interreg is to strengthen economic and social cohesion in the EU by increasing crossborder, transnational and interregional cooperation and fostering balanced regional development. The EU launched these four programmes, the Community initiatives (to which 5,35 % of monies under the Structural Funds are allocated), in order to find common solutions to problems that exist throughout the EU.

The European scale of this initiative cannot, however, be compared with the boost to cohesion given by the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund. The Cohesion Fund, a special aid fund, was set up in 1993 to assist the four least prosperous Member States: Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain. It is used throughout these countries to finance large-scale environmental and transport projects. Similarly, the Structural Funds focus on clear priority objectives: 70 % of funding is allocated to help the least developed regions catch up, regions where 22 % of the Union's population live (Objective 1); 11,5 % supports economic and social conversion in areas facing structural difficulties, inhabited by 18 % of the EU population (Objective 2), and 12,3 % of funding is used to modernise systems of training and promote unemployment (Objective 3).

Has the Commission considered separating into different programmes the policies corresponding to the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund and those relating to the Community initiatives?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Interventions under the Community Initiatives are currently programmed entirely separately from the programmes supported under Objectives 1 and 2 of the Structural Funds and from the projects supported by the Cohesion Fund.

These arrangements will apply until the expiry of the financial perspective for the period 2000-2006. For the next period, it is the role of the Commission to propose to the Parliament and to the Council a new financial perspective and a new generation of policies for support from the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund. These proposals are planned for adoption by the Commission before the end of this year. It is therefore too early at this stage to speculate on the arrangements for the implementation of new policies.

----
Christy READY, Plaintiff, v. Patrick READY, Defendant.

No. COA15-412.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.