alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008313EN.01003003.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/30

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — Air Products and Chemicals v OHIM — Messer (Ferromix, Inomix and Alumix)

(Joined Cases T-305/06 to T-307/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for the Community word marks Ferromix, Inomix and Alumix - Earlier Community word marks FERROMAXX, INOMAXX and ALUMAXX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 313/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (Allentown, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: S. Heurung and C. Probst, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Messer Group GmbH (Sulzbach, Germany) (represented by: W. Graf v. Schwerin and J. Schmidt, lawyers)

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

Re:

Actions brought against three decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 1270/2005-2 and R 1408/2005-2; R 1226/2005-2 and R 1398/2005-2; R 1225/2005-2 and R 1397/2005-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. and Messer Group GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 1270/2005-2 and R 1408/2005-2; R 1226/2005-2 and R 1398/2005-2; R 1225/2005-2 and R 1397/2005-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 1270/2005-2 and R 1408/2005-2; R 1226/2005-2 and R 1398/2005-2; R 1225/2005-2 and R 1397/2005-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs of Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs of Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.;

| 3. | Orders Messer Group GmbH to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Messer Group GmbH to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
EXHIBIT II


                      UNIVERSAL AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                 Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                               --------------------------------
                                                                     2003               2002
                                                               ------------        ------------
<S>                                                            <C>                 <C>
(Loss) earnings per share:

BASIC NET (LOSS) INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
Numerator:
       (Loss) income from continuing operations                 $  (974,470)        $   151,911

Denominator:
       Weighted average common shares outstanding                 8,224,949           8,120,406
       Effect of dilutive securities
             Conversion of preferred stock                        3,014,380           3,014,380
              Common stock equivalents from                                           1,030,965
               warrants and options
                                                               ------------        ------------
Denominator for diluted earnings per common share                11,239,329          12,165,751
                                                               ============        ============

       Basic net income (loss) per common share                 $     (0.12)        $      0.02
       Diluted net income (loss) per common share               $     (0.09)        $      0.01
</Table>
# C_2013325EN.01001901.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-402/06) (1)

1

(Cohesion fund - Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Environmental infrastructure projects under way in the territory of Catalonia (Spain) - Partial withdrawal of financial assistance - Public works and services contracts - Award criteria - Economically most advantageous tender - Equal treatment - Transparency - Abnormally low offer - Eligibility of expenditure - Determination of the financial corrections - Article H(2) of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Proportionality)

2013/C 325/30

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by J. M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, then A. Rubio González, lawyers in the State legal service)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Steiblytė and L. Escobar Guerrero, then A. Steiblytė and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5105 of 20 October 2006 reducing the financial assistance granted by the Cohesion Fund for eight projects under way in the territory of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia (Spain).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. William Charles COMPTON.

No. COA15-567.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
|                                                        |   | 2010   |    |   | 2009   |   |    | 2008   |   |   | 2007    |   |   | 2006   |    |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------|--------|--------|--------|---------|--------|--------|--------|---------|--------|--------|--------|---------|
| Earnings      before fixed charges:                         |   |   |    |   |   |   |    |   |   |   |    |   |   |   |    |
| Income      before income taxes and discontinued operations |   | $      | 63,176  |   |   | $      | 58,489  |   |   | $      | 59,731  |   |   | $      | 88,213  |   |   | $ | 59,747 |   |
| Fixed      charges                                          |   |   | 49,647  |   |   |   | 58,683  |   |   |   | 62,232  |   |   |   | 49,447  |   |   |   | 52,650 |   |
|                                                        |   | $      | 112,823 |   |   | $      | 117,172 |   |   | $      | 121,963 |   |   | $      | 137,660 |   |   | $ | 112,397 |   |
|                                                        |   |   |    |   |   |   |    |   |   |   |    |   |   |   |    |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed      charges:                                         |   |   |    |   |   |   |    |   |   |   |    |   |   |   |    |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest      expense                                       |   | $      | 19,254  |   |   | $      | 28,609  |   |   | $      | 33,033  |   |   | $      | 19,768  |   |   | $ | 22,988 |   |
| Interest      component of rent expense                     |   |   | 30,393  |   |   |   | 30,074  |   |   |   | 29,199  |   |   |   | 29,679  |   |   |   | 29,662 |   |
|                                                        |   | $      | 49,647  |   |   | $      | 58,683  |   |   | $      | 62,232  |   |   | $      | 49,447  |   |   | $ | 52,650 |   |
|                                                        |   |   |    |   |   |   |    |   |   |   |    |   |   |   |    |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio      of earnings to fixed charges                     |   |   | 2.3     |   |   |   | 2.0     |   |   |   | 2.0     |   |   |   | 2.8     |   |   |   | 2.1 |   |
|                                                        |   |   |    |   |   |   |    |   |   |   |    |   |   |   |    |   |   |   |   |   |
| Deficiency      (if any)                                    |   | $      | — |   |   | $      | — |   |   | $      | — |   |   | $      | — |   |   | $ | — |   |
| Rent      expense                                           |   |   | 91,178  |   |   |   | 90,221  |   |   |   | 87,597  |   |   |   | 89,038  |   |   |   | 88,985 |   |
| Interest      component (1/3 of rent expense)               |   |   | 30,393  |   |   |   | 30,074  |   |   |   | 29,199  |   |   |   | 29,679  |   |   |   | 29,662 |   |
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW PASQUALE CHAFFER,  No. 07-16853

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No.

v. CV-06-00950-LKK

Eastern District K. PROSPER; BILL LOCKYER,

of California, Attorney General,

Sacramento Respondents-Appellees.  ORDER

PUBLISHING

ORDER

CERTIFYING

QUESTIONS TO

THE CALIFORNIA

SUPREME COURT 

Filed September 9, 2008

Before: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain and Barry G. Silverman,

Circuit Judges, and James K. Singleton,*

Senior District Judge.

ORDER

The Order Certifying Questions to the California Supreme

Court, filed on September 2, 2008, is hereby published. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

*The Honorable James K. Singleton, United States District Judge for

the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. 

12475
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.
# C_2011145EN.01002301.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Pegler v Commission

(Case T-386/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Fines - Deterrent effect)

2011/C 145/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pegler Ltd (Doncaster, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Thompson QC and A. Collinson, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and by S. Kinsella and K. Daly, Solicitors)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings) in so far as it finds that Pegler Ltd participated in the infringement in the period from 31 December 1988 to 29 October 1993; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings) in so far as it finds that Pegler Ltd participated in the infringement in the period from 31 December 1988 to 29 October 1993;

| 2. | Sets the amount of the fine for which Pegler Ltd is jointly and severally liable under Article 2(h) of Decision C(2006) 4180 at EUR 3,4 million; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount of the fine for which Pegler Ltd is jointly and severally liable under Article 2(h) of Decision C(2006) 4180 at EUR 3,4 million;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
State v. Marvin Wade Millsaps

374P13-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Barry H. Bloch, Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

Marvin W. Millsaps, Pro Se.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of April 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00275-CR

NAPOLEON R. FREEMAN,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 77th District Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10151-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Napoleon R. Freeman appeals from a plea-bargained judgment revoking 

community supervision for the state-jail felony offense of delivery of marijuana. The 

Clerk of this Court warned Freeman that because the trial court noted on the 

certification of defendant’s right of appeal that he had no right of appeal and he had 

signed a waiver of his right to appeal, the Court might dismiss the appeal unless, within 

21 days, a response was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
Freeman v. State Page 2

Freeman has not responded to the Clerk’s warning. This appeal is dismissed. 

See Chavez, 183 S.W.3d at 680; Davis v. State, 205 S.W.3d 606, 607 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, 

no pet.).

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 17, 2008

Do not publish

[CR25]
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Scott HAMILTON.

No. 124PA15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 18, 2015.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.

Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender,1 by Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellee.

1

Defendant's new brief was filed on 29 October 2015. Effective 1 November 2015, Glenn Gerding succeeded Staples S. Hughes as Appellate Defender.

PER CURIAM.

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous, unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, --- N.C.App. ----, 772 S.E.2d 13 (2015), finding no error in part, but vacating defendant's convictions after appeal from judgments entered on 27 March 2014 by Judge W. Russell Duke, Jr. in Superior Court, Halifax County, remanding for resentencing in part, and ordering that defendant receive a new trial in part. Heard in the Supreme Court on 7 December 2015.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
In the Matter of the Foreclosure of a Deed of Trust Executed by William Gerald Price in the original amount of $190,000.00 dated December 12, 2002, recorded in Book 286, Page 113, Ashe County Registry

Substitute Trustee Services, Inc., Substitute Trustee

No. 64A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Mr. William Gerald Price, For Price, William Gerald.

Ms. Natasha M. Barone, Attorney at Law, For Federal National Mortgage Association.

Mr. J. Scott Flowers, Attorney at Law *374**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Respondent on the 29th of February 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Petitioner, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00041-CV

______________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.G. AND M.G., MINOR CHILDREN

 

On Appeal from the 115th Judicial District Court

Upshur County, Texas

Trial Court No. 509-04

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Marvin Dean Goodson filed a notice of appeal March 31, 2008. The clerk's and reporter's

records were due to be filed with this Court on or before June 9, 2008. Goodson is not indigent, and

is thus responsible for paying for, or making adequate arrangements to pay for, the clerk's and

reporter's records. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), (c).

On July 15, 2008, we contacted counsel by letter, reminding him that the record was over

thirty days past due, and warning that, if we did not receive an adequate response within ten days,

we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 42.3(b) and (c) of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

As of the date of this opinion, we have received no response. The records are now over sixty

days past due. 

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: August 14, 2008

Date Decided: August 15, 2008
# C_2008272EN.01001902.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/19

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008 — Bayer CropScience and Others v Commission

(Case T-75/06) (1)

1

(Directive 91/414/EEC - Plant protection products - Endosulfan as an active substance - Withdrawal of marketing authorisations - Evaluation procedure - Time-limits - Rights of the defence - Principle of proportionality)

(2008/C 272/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Bayer CropScience AG (Monheim am Rhein, Germany); Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands); Alfa Georgika Efodia AEVE (Athens, Greece); and Aragonesas Agro, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and L. Parpala, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicants: European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck and N. Rampal, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicants:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, abogado del Estado)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 2005/864/EC of 2 December 2005 concerning the non-inclusion of Endosulfan in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that active substance (OJ 2005 L 317, p. 25)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bayer CropScience AG, Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Alfa Georgika Efodia AEVE and Aragonesas Agro, SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bayer CropScience AG, Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Alfa Georgika Efodia AEVE and Aragonesas Agro, SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

1

---
# C_2006048EN.01003603.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/36

---

Action brought on 3 November 2005 — Kay v Commission

(Case T-421/05)

(2006/C 48/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Roderick Neil Kay (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant's decision of 31 January 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant's decision of 31 January 2005;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was an official of the Commission in grade B*7. After passing the external competition COM/A/3/02, he was appointed by the contested decision to an administrator post in grade A*6.

By his action, the applicant disputes his classification, submitting that he should have been classified in one of the grades A*8, A*9 or A*10. He also disputes the loss of all his promotion points, constituting his ‘rucksack’, following his reclassification.

In support of his action, the applicant claims infringement of Article 2(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, which he considers applicable to his situation, instead of Article 5(2) of that annex, which the Commission applied. In addition, he pleads breach of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, protection of acquired rights and equal treatment between officials.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3721 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3721

    To reauthorize the America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 2013

  Mr. Latham introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To reauthorize the America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership.

    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 ``America's Agricultural Heritage 
Partnership Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE AMERICA'S AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE 
              PARTNERSHIP.

    Section 707 of division II of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 
Management Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 104-333) is 
amended by striking ``September 30, 2013'' and inserting ``September 
30, 2023''.
                                 <all>
```