alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023121EN.01001302.xml

| 3.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/13

---

Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Jaw de Croon v CPVO — Belgicactus (Belsemred1)

(Case T-77/23)

(2023/C 121/18)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Jaw de Croon Holding BV (Apeldoorn, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Overdijk, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Belgicactus BVBA (Westerlo, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO

Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community plant variety right at issue: Community Plant Variety Right Belsemred1

Procedure before CPVO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 16 December 2022 in Case A024/2021

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul or set aside the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul or set aside the contested decision;

| — | order the CPVO to declare the Community Plant Variety Right granted to ‘Belsemred1’ null and void; or alternatively, order the CPVO to undertake further evidence taking on issues to be identified by the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the CPVO to declare the Community Plant Variety Right granted to ‘Belsemred1’ null and void; or alternatively, order the CPVO to undertake further evidence taking on issues to be identified by the General Court;

| — | Order the CPVO to bear its own costs and pay and/or reimburse the costs of these proceedings incurred by the Appellant in accordance with applicable rules. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the CPVO to bear its own costs and pay and/or reimburse the costs of these proceedings incurred by the Appellant in accordance with applicable rules.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of essential procedural requirements; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of essential procedural requirements;

| — | Infringement of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council or any rule of law relating to their application, including the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council or any rule of law relating to their application, including the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

            For purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Anthony
Principe, the chief financial officer of On2 Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

            (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year
            ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
            Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the
            requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934; and

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


                                             By: /s/ ANTHONY PRINCIPE
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Anthony Principe
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 On2 Technologies, Inc.


March 22, 2005
# C_2009153EN.01000401.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic, Wam Spa

(Case C-494/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - State aid - Loans at reduced rates to enable a firm to establish itself in certain third countries - Effect on trade between Member States - Distortion of competition - Trade with non-member States - Commission decision - Unlawful State aid - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

2009/C 153/06

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Wam SpA (represented by E. Giliani, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2006 Italian Republic and Wam v Commission (Joined Cases T-304/04 and T 316/04) whereby the Court annulled Commission Decision 2006/177/EC of 19 May 2004 on State aid No C 4/2003 (ex NN 102/2002) implemented by Italy for Wam SpA (OJ 2006 L 63, p. 11)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs at both instances. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs at both instances.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
* 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.

REVISED AUGUST 29, 2008

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50691

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

J FIDEL LOPEZ-ZAMORA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-458-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

J. Fidel Lopez-Zamora appeals his sentence for illegal reentry following

deportation. Lopez-Zamora contends that the 41-month term of imprisonment

imposed in his case, based on the enhanced penalty provisions of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b), exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a)

offense charged in his indictment. The Government moves for summary

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50691

2

affirmance on the grounds that Lopez-Zamora’s argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). As Lopez-Zamora

concedes, the Government is correct. See Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 235;

United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir. 2005).

Lopez-Zamora filed a motion for appointment of counsel in July 2007, after

his counsel had moved to withdraw. The motion to withdraw was denied, and

Lopez-Zamora has filed no pleading seeking removal of counsel. Therefore, his

motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot.

Because Lopez-Zamora’s argument is foreclosed, the Government’s motion

for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government’s alternative motion

for an extension of time for filing an appellate brief is DENIED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
 


                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.01



               [LETTERHEAD OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP APPEARS HERE]


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated January 23, 1997 incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K of
XcelleNet, Inc. into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements on
Form S-8, File No. 33-82630, 33-82632, 33-92536, 33-92538 and 33-93384.


                                            /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                           ----------------------------------
                                           ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
February 24, 1997
STATE of North Carolina v. Wesley BATTLE, III.

No. COA15-617.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
# C_2008092EN.01000502.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Marie-Claude Girardot v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-348/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Temporary staff - Action for damages - Loss of an opportunity to be recruited - Actual and certain damage - Determination of extent of reparation for damage)

(2008/C 92/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, agents)

Applicant:

Other party to the proceedings: Marie-Claude Girardot (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 6 June 2006 in Case T-10/02 Girardot v Commission, by which that Court fixed the level of compensation to be paid by the Commission to Ms Marie-Claude Girardot under the interim judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2004 at EUR 92 785, together with interest as from 6 September 2004, at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, plus two percentage points — Infringement of Article 236 EC and of the conditions governing the liability of the Commission — Method of calculation of the sum payable by a Community institution to compensate for the loss of an opportunity to be recruited in that institution resulting from an unlawful decision on its part

Girardot

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal.

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the main appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the main appeal.

| 3. | Orders Mrs Girardot to pay the costs of the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mrs Girardot to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Curtis Joel SMITH.

No. 109P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 30, 2016.

Curtis Joel Smith, for Smith, Curtis Joel.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 28th of March 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of March 2016."
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-75,974

EX PARTE JONATHAN SENOVIO AGUILAR, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR-06-354-A IN THE 22 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ND

FROM HAYS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

assault and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that he was denied his right to appeal this conviction because appellate

counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. Applicant alleges that he informed the trial court on

the date of sentencing that he wanted to appeal his conviction. On the same date, trial counsel was

permitted to withdraw and appellate counsel was appointed. Appellate counsel has submitted an
affidavit in which he states that he was unaware of his appointment until several days later.

Appellate counsel believed that trial counsel had filed a notice of appeal, and did not learn that there

was no notice of appeal on file until after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal or a motion for

an extension of time had passed. 

The trial court has determined that Applicant should be granted an out-of-time appeal. We

find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the

judgment of conviction in Cause No. CR-06-354-A from the 22nd Judicial District Court of Hays

County. Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal

so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. All time limits shall be

calculated as ifthe sentence had been imposed on the date on which the mandate ofthis Court issues.

We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file

a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Delivered: August 20, 2008

Do Not Publish
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                        TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CORP.
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert I. Lipp, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Dated this 2nd day of March, 2004

/s/ Robert I. Lipp
---------------------------
Robert I. Lipp
Chief Executive Officer
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3765 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 198 Baker Street in Corning, New York, 

as the ‘‘Specialist Ryan P. Jayne Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3765 EH

1 SECTION 1. SPECIALIST RYAN P. JAYNE POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 198 Baker Street in Corning, 

5 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Spe6 cialist Ryan P. Jayne Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Specialist Ryan P. 

11 Jayne Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3765 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostJayne Post Office Building’’. ning, New York, as the ‘‘Specialist Ryan P. al Service located at 198 Baker Street in Cor-
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 26, 2018

No. 04-17-00058-CR

David Alexander ZUNIGA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR4390B

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The State’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The State’s brief is 

deemed filed.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of September, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# CE2004078EN.01017101.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/171 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/171

---

(2004/C 78 E/0175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2809/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Innovative actions in the fisheries sector, 2003/C 115/08

Subject:

Under reference No 2003/C 115/08 the Commission published a competition for innovative actions in the fisheries sector (1).

1

The Notice of the Competition fails to provide two essential elements, namely the dates on which a decision will be taken and the competitors informed of the outcome.

When does the Commission intend to rectify this omission?

When and in what shape can I have access to the list of projects approved?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2003)

(9 October 2003)

The section ‘Duration of project, date foreseen for closing the awarding procedure and admissible financing period’ in point 2.3 of the call for proposals referred to states:‘... the date foreseen for closing the awarding procedure is 15 October 2003. Projects are expected to start on 1 December 2003’. Therefore, as this indicative timetable implies, the selection procedure for proposals received will be completed by the end of 2003 and applicants will then be informed directly by mail of the outcome of their proposal(s).

Once the beneficiaries have given their assent by signing their grant agreements, the Commission will publish a list of projects and beneficiaries and the amounts granted.

---

(1)  OJ C 115, 15.5.2003.

1

---
NO. 07-08-0189-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	AUGUST 26, 2008

	______________________________

	BERGMAN OIL & GAS, INC. AND

	PETCO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, APPELLANTS

	V.

	CURTIS STEAM SERVICE, INC. AND CURTIS WELL SERVICE, APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 223RD DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;

	NO. 32,111; HONORABLE LEE WATERS, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	ON MOTION TO DISMISS

	Appellants, Bergman Oil & Gas, Inc. and Petco Petroleum Corporation, perfected an appeal from the trial court’s judgment.  Appellants have now filed a motion to dismiss their appeal.  Finding the motion complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a), we dismiss the appeal.  Further, the court will tax costs against appellants.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

	Having disposed of this appeal at the appellants’ request, we will not entertain a motion for rehearing and our mandate shall issue forthwith.

						Mackey K. Hancock

						          Justice
<PAGE>   1
                                                         EXHIBIT 10.38

                       Amendment to the Dime Bancorp, Inc.
                     Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan

                             Effective June 24, 1999

       The Dime Bancorp, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the
"Plan") is hereby amended in the following particulars.

       1. Clause (ii) of the second paragraph of Section 5 of the Plan is
amended to read as follows:

       "(ii) is, except as otherwise provided by the Committee, the
       Participant's other taxable cash-based compensation payable
       under the Dime Bancorp, Inc. Officer Incentive Plan or other
       cash-based incentive plan or program or individual arrangement
       providing for cash-based incentive compensation, in each case
       with respect to the period for which the determination is made,
       but excluding any amounts paid (A) to the Participant as a
       sign-on bonus in connection with the initial commencement of
       employment of the Participant with the Company or any Parent or
       Subsidiary and (B) to the Participant with respect to the grant
       of rights to purchase, and the related purchase of, restricted
       common stock of the Company;"
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

September 16, 2008

Before

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

WMS GAMING INCORPORATED, ] Appeal from the United

 Plaintiff-Appellant, ] States District Court for

 ] the Northern District of

No. 07-3585 v. ] Illinois, Eastern Division.

 ] 

WPC PRODUCTIONS LTD. and ] No. 06 C 7100

PARTYGAMING PLC, ] 

 Defendants-Appellees. ] Blanche M. Manning,

 ] Judge.

Upon consideration of the PLAINTIFF‐APPELLANT’S MOTION TO CORRECT

ERROR IN CAPTION, filed on September 12, 2008, by counsel for the appellant,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The opinion released on

September 8, 2008, is amended as follows:

In the caption, “WPC Gaming Productions Ltd.” is deleted and replaced by “WPC

Productions Ltd.”
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) CERTIFICATION


The undersigned officers certify that this report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Ultradata Systems Incorporated.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Ultradata Systems, Incorporated and will be retained by
Ultradata Systems, Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

June 22, 2005                           /s/  Monte Ross
                                        ---------------------------
                                        Monte Ross
                                        (Chief executive officer)

	   				/s/ Ernest S. Clarke
                                        ---------------------------
                                        Ernest S. Clarke
					(Chief financial officer)