alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008092EN.01002602.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/26

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 February 2008 — American Clothing Associates v OHIM (Representation of a maple leaf)

(Case T-215/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a maple leaf - Absolute ground for refusal - Service mark - Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 6ter of the Paris Convention - Matters of law brought before the departments of OHIM and before the Court)

(2008/C 92/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: American Clothing Associates SA (Evergem, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and N. Clarembeaux, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2006 (Case R 1463/2005-1) concerning the application for registration of a sign representing a maple leaf as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 May 2006 (Case R 1463/2005-1) in so far as it relates to the registration of the mark applied for in respect of the services in Class 40 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and corresponding to the following description: ‘Tailoring; taxidermy; bookbinding; dressing, processing and finishing of skins, leather, furs and textiles; photographic film development and photographic printing; woodworking; fruit pressing; grain milling; processing, tempering and finishing of metal surfaces’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 May 2006 (Case R 1463/2005-1) in so far as it relates to the registration of the mark applied for in respect of the services in Class 40 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and corresponding to the following description: ‘Tailoring; taxidermy; bookbinding; dressing, processing and finishing of skins, leather, furs and textiles; photographic film development and photographic printing; woodworking; fruit pressing; grain milling; processing, tempering and finishing of metal surfaces’;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

Dismisses the action as to the remainder

| 3. | Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23





                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
PC Service Source, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (No. 333-09333, No. 333-09335, No. 33-81146 and No. 33-98176) of PC Service
Source, Inc. of our report dated February 7, 1997,  relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of PC Service Source, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1996, and related schedule, which report
appears in the December 31, 1996 Form 10-K of PC Service Source, Inc.




                                                  KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 26, 1997
State v. Charles Everette Hinton

449P11-14

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Charles E. Hinton, for Hinton, Charles Everette.

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of August 2016 by Defendant for Findings by the Court and Interrogatories to all Interested Persons, Individuals, and Third-Parties:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

Ervin, J. recused
NUMBER 13-08-057-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

SERGIO DANIEL GONZALES, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 197th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justices Yañez, Garza, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Sergio Daniel Gonzales, was convicted of aggravated assault and

evading arrest. He timely filed his notice of appeal on November 2, 2005, together with a

motion for a free record. On November 29, the trial court denied appellant’s motion for a

free record. Appellant thereafter, on February 16, filed a separate notice of appeal of the
2

trial court’s denial of his motion for a free record. This Court dismissed the appeal of the

trial court’s denial of a free record for want of jurisdiction. See Gonzales v. State, No. 13-

05-00690-CR, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 3884, *2 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi May 29, 2008,

pet. filed). We severed appellant’s appeal of his conviction into the instant cause number.

See id. We further directed appellant to request and pay, or make arrangements to pay,

for preparing the appellate record, and notify this Court of the date on which he has done

so, within 30 days of the date of that opinion or the appeal would be dismissed. Id.; see

TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3.

Appellant has failed to comply with this Court’s directive, and has neither paid nor

made arrangements to pay for the record, nor requested an extension of time to do so.

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 21st day of August, 2008.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 26, 2011 

t0919 

Order 

 

September 26, 2011 

143159-60 

DONNA POPE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 143159-60 

 COA: 294600, 294609 

Wayne CC: 07-707289-CD 

BRINKS HOME SECURITY COMPANY, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

MARK FALKIEWICZ, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 1, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
THOMAS H. CARPENTER



CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON





To:

US Securities and Exchange Commission



I, Thomas H. Carpenter do hereby consent to (i) the incorporation by reference of the following document(s) into the annual information form (the AIF) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Issuer) dated March 24, 2005 to be filed with certain Canadian securities commissions and the annual report on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of the Issuer to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection therewith, and (ii) the inclusion of any extracts from or summary of such document(s) in the AIF and the 40-F:

1.

Exploration and Drilling Program on the Bisha Property and dated February, 2004, as amended April, 2004

(collectively, the Technical Report)

I also certify that I have read the written disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical Report or that the written disclosure in the AIF or the 40-F of the Issuer contains any misrepresentation of the information contained in the Technical Report.

Dated this30th day of March, 2005.

signed

_______________________
Thomas H. Carpenter

[Seal or Stamp]
STATE of North Carolina v. Timothy SCOTT.

No. COA15-559.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
# C_2008051EN.01001501.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/15

---

Order of the Court of 18 December 2007 — Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-202/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Competition - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Competence of the Commission - Notification of a concentration having a Community dimension - Commitments proposed by the parties - Effect on the Commission's competence - Authorisation subject to certain commitments - Principle of proportionality)

(2008/C 51/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV (represented by: W. Knibbeler, O. Brouwer and P. Kreijger, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier, A. Nijenhuis and A. Whelan, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Action

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 23 February 2006 in Case T-282/02 Cementbouw Handel & Industrie v Commission, whereby the Court of First Instance dismissed an application for the annulment of Commission Decision (2002)2315 final of 26 June 2002 relating to a procedure pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Haniel/Cementbouw/JV (CVK), declaring a concentration entailing the acquisition of joint control of the cooperative CVK by Franz Haniel & Cie GmbH and Cememtbouw Handel & Industrie BV to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement, on condition that certain commitments be complied with in order to correct the dominant position created on the Netherlands market in construction materials for load-bearing walls — Incorrect interpretation of Articles l, 2, and 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1) and of Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (OJ 1997 L 180, p. 1) — Breach of the principle of proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.

1

---
AN 10Q 6/30/14 EX. 10.2






Exhibit 10.2


TERMS OF THE NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR RSU GRANTS




All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the AutoNation, Inc. Non-Employee Director Equity (the “2014 Plan”). 


		
	•
	The restricted stock units (“RSUs”) are subject to the terms and conditions, including the restrictions and risk of forfeiture, set forth in the 2014 Plan.




		
	•
	The RSUs shall be fully and immediately vested and non-forfeitable on the date of grant.




		
	•
	The RSUs shall be settled in shares (“Shares”) of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.01 per share. Except as may be elected by a Grantee in accordance with, and subject to, the terms of the deferral election form provided to such Grantee, the Company shall deliver a number of Shares equal to the number of Shares subject to the Award, including any dividend equivalents credited with respect to such Shares, on, or as soon as reasonably practicable after, but no later than five business days after, the earlier of (i) the first trading day of February in the third year following the year in which the Award was made, (ii) the third trading day of the month following the date on which the Grantee incurs a separation from service within the meaning of Section 409A or (iii) the date of the occurrence of a Change in Control that constitutes a “change in control event” within the meaning of Section 409A.




		
	•
	On each date on which a dividend is paid with respect to the Shares, dividend equivalents shall be credited hereunder in respect of the Shares subject to the Award.  Such dividend equivalents shall be credited as a number of additional RSUs equal to (i) the aggregate amount or value of the dividends paid with respect to that number of Shares equal to the number of Shares subject to the Award on the record date of such dividend, divided by (ii) the Fair Market Value per Share on the payment date for such dividend.  Such additional RSUs shall be subject to all the terms and conditions of the Award, and the Shares subject to such additional RSUs shall be distributed only upon the distribution of the underlying Shares with respect to which the dividend equivalents were granted.




		
	•
	Grantee shall not be deemed to be the holder of, or to have any of the rights of a stockholder with respect to, any Shares subject to Grantee’s Award unless and until the Shares have been delivered in accordance with the terms of the Award and the 2014 Plan.




		
	•
	The Award is intended to comply with the requirements of Section 409A, and shall in all respects be administered and interpreted in accordance with such requirements.  Settlement of RSUs may only be made upon an event or in a manner permitted by Section 409A.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136070 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: 136070 

 COA: 279835 

Wayne CC: 04-008617

JAMES FREDERICK OEHLER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

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

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

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

s0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7497

ANTONIO HODGES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District

Judge. (CA-05-734)

Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Hodges, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Hodges seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district

court are likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hodges has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
In the Matter of A.H., S.H., R.P., M.P., L.P.

No. COA15-1177.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Remanded.
# C_2008092EN.01002501.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-267/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 92/50)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Language of the case: Slovenian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

1

---
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 – Arcandor v OHIM – dm drogerie markt (S-HE)**

**(Case T-391/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark S-HE – Earlier national word mark SHE, earlier national and international figurative trade mark She – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Lack of similarity between the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29-33, 55-68)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM No R 301/2006-1 of 26 September 2006 concerning opposition proceedings between Karstadt Quelle AG and dm drogerie market GmbH. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | dm drogerie markt GmbH |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark ‘S-HE’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 32, 38, 41 and 42 – Application No – 2766723 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Arcandor AG, formerly Karstadt Quelle AG |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | German word mark ‘SHE’ for goods in Classes 3 and 25, German figurative mark ‘She’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 16, 18 and 25, and international figurative mark ‘She’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 16, 18 and 25 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Arcandor AG, previously Karstadt Quelle AG to pay the costs. |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Nelson, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 1]

*862Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered February 4, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly sentenced defendant under the law applicable at the time of the crime. Defendant, who committed this crime before the effective date of the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738) but was sentenced after that date, seeks to invoke the amelioration doctrine of *People v Behlog*(74 NY2d 237 [1989]) in order to obtain the benefit of the reduced penalty contained in the new law. We agree with the reasoning of those trial courts that have refused to apply the amelioration doctrine *(see e.g. People v Walker,*9 Misc 3d 1101[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51364[U] [McGuire, J.]; *contra e.g. People v Denton,*7 Misc 3d 373 [2005, Gerges, J.]). The Legislature directly addressed the retroactivity of its ameliorative sentencing provisions by stating that the provisions at issue shall take effect 30 days after having been signed into law, and that such provisions, with the exception of Penal Law § 60.04 (6), “shall apply to crimes committed on or after the effective date thereof’ (L 2004, ch 738, § 41 [d-1]). We conclude that this language expresses an intent to negate the amelioration doctrine. The language employed was no less explicit than the language at issue in *People v Festo*(96 AD2d 765 [1983], *affd*60 NY2d 809 [1983]), and the Legislature was not obligated to use the same formulation as in *Festo*in order to express its intent. Furthermore, the new law includes a number of ameliorative provisions that benefit defendants who were sentenced under the old laws.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
# C_2009180EN.01001102.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-568/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 EC and 48 EC - Opticians - Conditions of establishment - Establishment and operation of opticians’ shops - Incomplete compliance with a judgment of the Court - Lump sum)

2009/C 180/18

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and E. Traversa, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to comply fully with the Court’s judgment of 21 April 2005 in Case C-140/03 Commission v Greece concerning infringement of Articles 43 and 48 EC with regard to the ownership, establishment and operation of shops for the sale of optical articles — National law allowing only authorised opticians to own opticians’ shops — Application for the setting of a penalty payment

Commission

Greece

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take, by the date on which the time-limit set in the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission pursuant to Article 228 EC expired, all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 21 April 2005 in Case C-140/03 Commission v Greece, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) EC. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take, by the date on which the time-limit set in the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission pursuant to Article 228 EC expired, all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 21 April 2005 in Case C-140/03 Commission v Greece, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) EC.

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay into the ‘European Community own resources’ account of the Commission of the European Communities a lump sum of EUR 1 million. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay into the ‘European Community own resources’ account of the Commission of the European Communities a lump sum of EUR 1 million.

| 3. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---