alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. James Frederick BURRISS.

No. COA15-346.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Plain Error In Part; Dismissed In Part.
SEABOLT v. NORRIS.

No. S15A1692.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 1, 2016.
# C_2010234EN.01000301.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — European Commission v Alrosa Company Ltd

(Case C-441/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Dominant position - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - World market in rough diamonds - Individual commitments by a company to cease purchasing rough diamonds from another company - Decision making a company’s individual commitments binding and terminating the proceedings)

2010/C 234/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Alrosa Company Ltd (represented by: R. Subiotto QC, K. Jones, solicitor-advocate, and S. Mobley, solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 July 2007 in Case T-170/06 Alrosa v Commission, annulling Decision 2006/520/EC of 22 February 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 82 EC and 54 EEA (Case COMP/B-2/38.381 — De Beers), making binding the commitments given by De Beers to bring to an end its purchases of rough diamonds from Alrosa with effect from 2009, after a period of progressive reduction of the amounts purchased by it from 2006 to 2008, and bringing the proceedings to an end in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 11 July 2007 in Case T-170/06 Alrosa v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 11 July 2007 in Case T-170/06 Alrosa v Commission;

| 2. | Dismisses the action brought by Alrosa Company Ltd before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action brought by Alrosa Company Ltd before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

| 3. | Orders Alrosa Company Ltd to pay the costs both of the appeal and of the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Alrosa Company Ltd to pay the costs both of the appeal and of the proceedings at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
# C_2010024EN.01006902.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/69

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2009 — Sellafield v Commission

(Case T-121/06) (1)

1

2010/C 24/123

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  C 154, 1.7.2006.

1

---
STATE v. POLEY.

No. COA07-157.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 5, 2008.

Certification Date February 25, 2008.

Appeal from Henderson (05CRS51899, 05CRS51900).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
# C_2012006EN.01001201.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Sachsa Verpackung v Commission

(Case T-79/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing - Allocation of sales quotas by geographic area - Allocation of customers - Exchange of individualised information - Proof of the infringement - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Proportionality - Attenuating circumstances - Follow-my-leader role)

2012/C 6/18

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sachsa Verpackung GmbH (Wieda, Germany) (represented by: F. Puel and L. François-Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Arbault, then by F. Castillo de la Torre and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for amendment of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

1

---
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 782 

To designate the United States courthouse to be constructed in Jackson, 

Mississippi, as the ‘‘Thad Cochran United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 6, 2007 

Mr. LOTT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse to be constructed 

in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ‘‘Thad Cochran United 

States Courthouse’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The United States courthouse to be constructed at 

5 the site bounded on the north by Court Street, on the west 

6 by West Street, on the south by South Street, and on the 

7 east by President Street in Jackson, Mississippi, shall be 

8 known and designated as the ‘‘Thad Cochran United 

9 States Courthouse’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 782 IS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the court4 house referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a ref5 erence to the ‘‘Thad Cochran United States Courthouse’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF M.T.E., JR. and

T.L.E., MINOR CHILDREN

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00032-CV

Appeal from the

330th Judicial District Court

of Dallas County, Texas 

(TC# 06-20518-Y) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion for determination whether the appeal

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Finding that Appellant did not timely file a notice

of appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

A civil appeal is perfected when the notice of appeal is filed. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1;

Restrepo v. First Nat’l Bank of Dona Ana County, N.M., 892 S.W.2d 237, 238 (Tex.App.--

El Paso 1995, no writ)(applying former TEX.R.APP.P. 40(a)(1)). When no motion for new trial

or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law is filed, the notice of appeal must be filed

within thirty days after the judgment is signed. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1; Restrepo, 892 S.W.2d at 238.

When motion for new trial is timely filed, or a party timely files a request for findings of fact and

conclusions of law, the notice of appeal is due ninety days after the judgment is signed. See

TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1(a). An untimely notice of appeal will be considered timely if it is filed within

fifteen days after the due date and includes a reasonable explanation for the appellant’s failure to

file on the due date. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.3; Vergburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex.
-2-

1997).

The judgment in this case was entered August 8, 2007. Appellant did not file a motion

for new trial, or a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Therefore, the notice of

appeal was due to be filed not later than September 7, 2007. Appellant did not file a notice of

appeal until October 5, 2007, and was therefore untimely. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1. By letter

dated June 5, 2008, the clerk of this Court notified Appellant in writing of our intent to dismiss

the appeal for want of jurisdiction absent a response, within ten days of the notice, showing

grounds why the appeal should continue. Appellant has not responded to our notice. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

September 11, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.
# C_2009141EN.01002002.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/20

---

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel Hasselt (Belgium)) — NV de Nationale Loterij v BVBA Customer Service Agency

(Case C-525/06) (1)

1

(Appeal against a judgment making a reference for a preliminary ruling - Appeal court giving judgment itself in the main proceedings - No need to reply)

2009/C 141/34

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank van koophandel Hasselt

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NV de Nationale Loterij

Applicant:

Defendant: BVBA Customer Service Agency

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van koophandel te Hasselt — Interpretation of Article 49 EC — National lottery holding on the territory of a Member State a statutory monopoly seeking to limit addiction to gambling but advertising regularly in order to promote participation in the lottery — National legislation prohibiting the sale by other undertakings seeking to make a profit, without authorisation of the national lottery, of group participation forms

Operative part

Operative part

There is no need to reply to the reference for a preliminary ruling in Case C-525/06.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136055 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: 136055 

 COA: 283275 

Montcalm CC: 01-000300-FH 

TERRY LEE CRATER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 29, 2008 

order 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. 

p0828 

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
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I,Dirk A. Sodestrom, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this amendment to Form 10-Qof Westaff, Inc.

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to take the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

 
| Date: September 15, 2005                     |
|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                              |
|                                              |
| /s/ Dirk A. Sodestrom                             |   |
| Dirk A. Sodestrom                                 |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| Westaff, Inc.                                |
| (Principal Financial Officer)                     |

 

----
# C_2012355EN.01001602.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — BAM NBM Wegenbouw and HBG Civiel v Commission

(Case T-354/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Existence and classification of an agreement - Restriction of competition - Guidelines on horizontal cooperation agreements - Rights of the defence - Fines - Duration of the infringement)

2012/C 355/30

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicants: BAM NBM Wegenbouw BV (Bunnik, Netherlands); and HBG Civiel BV (Gouda, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Biesheuvel and J. de Pree, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BAM NBM Wegenbouw BV and HBG Civiel BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BAM NBM Wegenbouw BV and HBG Civiel BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
# CE2004088EN.01032902.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/329 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/329

---

(2004/C 88 E/0335)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0612/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject:   EU/Cape Verde 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc.

Subject:

For the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 and with regard to Cape Verde, can the Commission provide information on the following: What programmes have been or are being undertaken by the EU with Cape Verde? What are the funds allocated? What is the expected duration of the individual programmes? What results have been obtained by the programmes, and what assessment has been made of their success or otherwise? What particular developments have characterised each of the programmes?

---
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 RG Global Lifestyles, 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 "Report"), I,
      Grant King, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2001, that:





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





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





Dated:
      November 14, 2008





/s/
                Grant KingGrant
                KingChief
                Executive Officer
# CE2004078EN.01010201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/102 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/102

---

(2004/C 78 E/0102)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2301/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 July 2003)

Subject:   Implementation of Directive 1999/70/EC

Subject:

In her reply to my Question H-0293/03 (1) on the implementation by Greece of Council Directive 1999/70/EC (2) (on the abuse of fixed-term contracts), Commissioner Diamantopoulou, the Commissioner responsible, referred to Presidential Decree 81/2003 which transposes the Directive in question into Greek law and stated that the Commission services were examining it and that ‘we shall be able to give an evaluation before the summer’.

1

2

Given that the Greek courts are called upon to rule on hundreds of appeals by employees with contracts and that the summer has already begun, will the Commissioner say whether the evaluation of the above Presidential Decree has already taken place?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 August 2003)

(20 August 2003)

The European Commission is currently examining the transposition of Directive 1999/70/EC in the 15 Member States.

An initial examination of Presidential Decree 81/2003 suggests the possibility of problems of conformity in the transposition of this Directive in Greece.

If, once the Greek authorities have been given the opportunity to provide an explanation, this proves to be the case, the Commission will have to consider initiating the procedure provided for in Article 226 of the EC Treaty against Greece.

---

(1)  Oral reply of 3.6.2003.

1

(2)  OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.

2

---
Exhibit 1


[DELOITTE GRAPHIC OMITTED]






CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the use of our report dated November 7, 2005 on the consolidated
balance sheets of Hummingbird Ltd. as at September 30, 2005 and 2004 and the
consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the two-year period ended September 30, 2005 which appear
in this Annual Report on Form 40-F.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Independent Registered Chartered Accountants
Toronto, November 7, 2005





                                                                     Member of
                                                      Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
# C_2008037EN.01003401.xml

| 9.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/34

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 November 2007 — Jacques Hinderyckx v Council

(Case F-57/06) (1)

1

(Officials - Promotion - 2005 Promotion Exercise - Non-inclusion in list of promoted officials - Infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Consideration of comparative merits - Staff reports from different institutions)

(2008/C 37/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jacques Hinderyckx (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.Martin, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and M. Bauer, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade B*8 in the 2005 promotion exercise, and application for compensation

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders the Council of the European Union, in addition to its own costs, to bear one third of the costs of Mr Hinderyckx |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Council of the European Union, in addition to its own costs, to bear one third of the costs of Mr Hinderyckx

| 3. | orders Mr Hinderyckx to bear two thirds of his costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders Mr Hinderyckx to bear two thirds of his costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178 of 29.7.2006, p. 34.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 ofChapter 63**

**Of Title 18 of the United States Code**

 

I, Patricia M.Newman, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as theprincipal executive officer of Westaff, Inc. (the “Company”), that, to the bestof my knowledge;

 

(1)                                  The Quarterly Reportof the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 15, 2006 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date:       May 30, 2006

 
|   | By:                                   | /s/ Patricia M. Newman         |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                  |   Patricia M. Newman |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906

 hasbeen provided to Westaff, Inc. and will be retained by Westaff, Inc. andfurnished to the 

Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 13, 2016.

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, April 13, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16I0176. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., d/b/a WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE v.

MICHAEL G. LATOUCHE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

13CV05232
# C_2010161EN.01003802.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2010 — Union Investment Privatfonds v OHIM — Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito (unibanco)

(Case T-392/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for the figurative Community mark unibanco - Prior national figurative marks UniFLEXIO, UniVARIO and UniZERO - Late production of documents - Discretion conferred by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2010/C 161/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Keller, later by J. Zindel, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito S.A. (Lisbon, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2006 (Case R 442/2004-2) concerning an opposition procedure between Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH and Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

---
STATE v. Jose Luis DOMINGUEZ.

No. 15P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Jose Luis Dominguez, Lumberton, for Dominguez, Jose Luis.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of January 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

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

JACKSON, J. recused.