alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1221.

#### Fretwell *v.*Seaboard Air-Line Railway.

Russell, J.

A railroad company is not required to use extraordinary diligence for the safety of one who boards a train at a regular station, without having made any effort to procure a ticket, and who, after entering the car, does not inform any of the carrier’s servants as ito the point to which he desires to be carried, and neither offers to pay his fare nor in any other way calls the attention of the conductor or any other servant of the carrier in charge of the train to his presence, and who only intends to ride to a street-crossing in the city in which, he entered the train, at which crossing the particular train is not accustomed to stop, and who, without notifying any of the train crew of his intention to leave the train and without asking that it be slowed, attempts to alight therefrom at such a street-crossing. If, in the effort to alight, such a. one is injured by a sudden jerk or quickening of the speed of the train, no action for the injury can be maintained *533against the carrier, unless it appears that the carrier’s servants in charge of the train, or some one of them, knew of his presence on the train and his desire to stop at the point in question, or unless it appears that (though those in charge of the train were previously ignorant of his presence) the employees of the train, after becoming aware of his danger, either failed to use ordinary care for his safety, or wantonly or maliciously and wilfully inflicted an injury upon him. There being in the present case no evidence showing that the servants of the defendant were aware of the plaintiff’s presence upon the train or of his desire to alight at the Simpson-street crossing, a nonsuit was properly awarded; and the correctness of the judgment is not affected by the fact that the carrier may have discharged passengers at this point from other trains, or that employees ■ of the company may have been permitted to alight from the particular train on which the plaintiff was riding, upon other occasions, when the train was running more slowly. There was no evidence that the point where he desired to alight was a station where passengers were received or discharged from trains. *Judgment affirmed.*

Action for damages, from city court of Atlanta — Judge Calhoun. April 2, 1908.

Argued July 16, 1908.

Decided February 9, 1909.

*Burton Smith,*for plaintiff.

*Brown & Randolph,*for defendant.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2009 – FAB v Commission**

**(Case T-8/06)**

State aid – Digital terrestrial television – Aid granted by the German authorities to broadcasters which use the digital terrestrial television network (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg
– Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Action for annulment – Meaning of State aid – State resources – Compensation for discharging public service obligations – Aid intended to promote culture – Legitimate expectations

1.                     *State aid – Concept – Aid granted to private broadcasters to facilitate the changeover to digital terrestrial television without
a public tendering procedure or call for tenders**– Included (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 48-58)*

2.                     *Competition – Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest – Definition of services
of general economic interest (Art. 86(2) EC) (see paras 63-64)*

3.                     *State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Discretion of the Commission – Judicial review (Art. 87(3) EC) (see paras 77-78)*

4.                     *State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Possible legitimate expectation on the part of the recipient**(Art. 88 EC) (see paras 92-93)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/513/EC of 9 November 2005 on the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 14). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders FAB Fernsehen aus Berlin GmbH to pay the costs. |
Exhibit 32.1
  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 which this
statement accompanies 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Fentura Financial, Inc.
 Dated:      March 12, 2010
    /s/Donald L. GrillDonald L. GrillChief Executive Officer and President/s/Douglas J. KelleyDouglas J. KelleyChief Financial Officer
State of North Carolina v. Randolph Wilson

No. 107P98-5

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Latoya B. Powell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael D. Waters, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Randolph Wilson, for Wilson, Randolph.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 29th of July 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Warren County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Ervin, J. recused

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of August 2016 by Defendant for de novo Review:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Ervin, J. recused
# C_2011252EN.01004802.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/48

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2011 — Strack v European Commission

(Case F-120/07) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Carry-over of days of annual leave - Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations - Reasons attributable to the interests of the service - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Directive 2003/88/EC - Right to paid annual leave - Sick leave)

2011/C 252/102

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of several decisions of the Commission concerning the application to carry over from 2004 to 2005 a number of days of unused annual leave exceeding the limit of 12 days. An order that the European Commission pay the applicant compensation for the 26.5 days of unused leave in respect of which no compensation has been paid with interest at a rate of 2 % per year.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 15 March 2007 rejecting the request by Mr Strack to carry over the balance of his days of annual leave from 2004; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 15 March 2007 rejecting the request by Mr Strack to carry over the balance of his days of annual leave from 2004;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pays its own costs and those of Mr Strack. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pays its own costs and those of Mr Strack.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007, p. 50.

1

---
**Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2008 – Mihal v Daňový úrad Košice V**

**(Case C‐456/07)**

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Sixth VAT Directive – Taxable persons – Article 4(5), first subparagraph – Bodies governed by public law – Bailiffs – Natural and legal persons

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable persons (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 4(5), first para.) (see para. 23)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Reference for a preliminary ruling – Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky – Interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) – Treatment of a body governed by public law as a non-taxable person in respect of activities or operations engaged in as a public authority – Inclusion of bailiffs in the exercise of their public duties – Direct effect. |

**Operative part**

An activity exercised by a private individual, such as that of a bailiff, is not exempted from value added tax merely because
it consists in engaging in acts falling within the rights and powers of a public authority. Even on the assumption that, in
the exercise of his duties, a bailiff does carry out such acts, he does not, under legislation such as that at issue in the
main proceedings, exercise his activity in the form of a body governed by public law, not being integrated into the organisation
of the public administration, but in the form of an independent economic activity carried out in a self-employed capacity,
and, consequently, he is not covered by the exemption provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.
# CE2004088EN.01062901.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/629 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/629

---

(2004/C 88 E/0647)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2910/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject:   Difficulties at the German-Polish border

Subject:

On Friday, 19 September the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) travelled to the Spree Forest town of Burg, Germany, for the rotating meeting of the Executive Committee, where I was informed of the following problem.

For reasons of cost, and in anticipation of Poland's entry into the EU, the customs administration announced the termination of the lease for the pre-border waiting area on the site of the former Preschen air base (Spree-Neisse administrative district) on the A15 at the border crossing point Forst-Olszyna with effect from 1 October 2003. Under its current management, the waiting area provides parking spaces for 700 lorries, with extra room for ADR and abnormal loads, empty vehicles and container carriages, and also sanitary facilities and sleeping places for drivers, enabling them to observe the rest requirements. The hours of waiting are made more bearable by the availability of proper waste disposal facilities, a canteen and snacks.

If no agreement is reached by 1 October 2003 and the termination of the lease is finalised, this will inevitably lead to mile-long truck tailbacks on the motorway with all the familiar consequences.

Alongside the continuing problems at the border crossing point Guben-Schlagsdorf, where lorries queue as far back as the town of Guben on an almost daily basis, the closure of the pre-border waiting area at Preschen would certainly result in traffic chaos.

As an MEP and President of the AEBR, I would like to know whether the Commission intends to take new measures to prevent this problem at the German-Polish border.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

(6 November 2003)

The Commission has taken note of the remarks of the Honourable Member concerning the possible future problem at the German-Polish border at the border crossing point Forst-Olszyna. However, as far as the facilities available for customs controls are concerned, on the basis of the available information, it is not clear to what extent these are directly affected by the expiry of the lease in question. Moreover, the administrative and organisational aspects of the customs services do not fall within the Commission's competence and are fully within the national competence of the Member States. Consequently, even if the Member States have to respect certain Community principles, the provision of such facilities and infrastructure is purely a matter of national competence. Finally, the Commission has no power to intervene with regard to local contractual arrangements on which such facilities may depend.

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19049]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 05-2368; MM Docket No. 00-87; RM-9870, RM-9961]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Bend, Brightwood, Madras, 
Prineville, OR

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; dismissal of petition for reconsideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document dismisses a Petition for Reconsideration filed 
by Muddy Broadcasting Company directed at the Report and Order in this 
proceeding. See 66 FR 56486, published November 8, 2001. This document 
also waive the provisions of Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's 
rules, consistent with the Public Notice entitled Window Announced for 
Universal Settlements of Pending Rulemaking Proceedings to Amend FM 
Table of Allotments, 20 FCC Rcd 10756 (MB 2005), with this action, the 
proceeding is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria M. McCauley, Media Bureau 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM Docket No. 00-87, adopted September 
14, 2005, and released September 16, 2005. The full text of this 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Information Center at Portals ll, CY-A257, 
445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this 
decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC, 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission will not send a copy of this Memorandum 
Opinion and Order pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the aforementioned petition for 
reconsideration was dismissed.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 05-19049 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Stanley Ray Shelley And Elizabeth J Shelley, Petitioners, v. County of Henderson, of the State of North Carolina and William Crane and Tamra Crane, Respondents.

No. COA16-475

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

AFFIRMED.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

AP-75,987

EX PARTE GUADALUPE VILLAMAR PALOMARES, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2006-CR-11-B IN THE 138TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM CAMERON 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 writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

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

more than four ounces of marihuana and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal

his conviction. 

Applicant contends that his sentence is illegal. Possession of more than four ounces but less

than five pounds of marihuana is a state jail felony, with a maximum punishment of two years in a

state jail. The trial court determined that the punishment assessed when Applicant’s deferred
PALOMARES - 2

adjudication community supervision was revoked was not authorized. Applicant is entitled to relief.

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 2006-CR-11-B in the 138th Judicial District

Court of Cameron County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the trial court so that a new

punishment may be assessed.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: September 10, 2008

Do Not Publish
# C_2008022EN.01002502.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Lahr (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2007 — Pia Messner v Firma Stefan Krüger

(Case C-489/07)

(2008/C 22/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Lahr

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pia Messner

Applicant:

Defendants: Stefan Krüger, SFK Laptophandel

Defendants:

Question referred

Is Article 6(2) in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 6(1) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which provides that, in the case of a revocation by a consumer within the revocation period, a seller may claim compensation for the value of the use of the consumer goods delivered?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1977 L 144, p. 19.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 26, 2010

y0719 

# Order

July 26, 2010

140948 & (9)(14)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140948 COA: 296121 Isabella CC: 05-001204-FC RICKY BROSS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 2, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The motions to remand and for appoin tment of counsel are DENIED.
# C_2008079EN.01001401.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias (Spain) lodged on 27 December 2007 — José Manuel Blanco Pérez and Maria del Pilar Chao Gómez v Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios del Principado de Asturias and Celso Fernandez Gómez

(Case C-571/07)

(2008/C 79/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: José Manuel Blanco Pérez and Maria del Pilar Chao Gómez

Applicants:

Defendants: Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios del Principado de Asturias and Celso Fernandez Gómez

Defendants:

Question referred

Does Article 43 [EC] preclude the legislation of the Autonomous Community of the Principality of Asturias concerning authorisation for the establishment of pharmacies?

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10514

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v

NOAH ORTEGA

Defendant - Appellant

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:03-CR-10-ALL-C

--------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Noah Ortega appeals the district court’s denial of his

motion to suppress prior to his conditionally pleading guilty

to transporting illegal aliens. Ortega contends that Border

Patrol Agent Randy Betscher did not have reasonable suspicion of

criminal activity sufficient to warrant the investigatory stop

of Ortega’s vehicle. 
No. 03-10514

-2-

A Border Patrol agent conducting a roving patrol may make

a temporary investigatory stop of a vehicle if the agent is

aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational

inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion

that the vehicle’s occupant is engaged in criminal activity. 

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975). 

In determining whether a reasonable suspicion exists, the courts

must look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the

stop. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273-76 (2002). 

Consideration of the relevant factors, viewed in light of the

totality of the circumstances and in the light most favorable

to the Government, indicates that the district court did not err

in concluding that there was reasonable suspicion for the stop. 

See United States v. Neufeld-Neufeld, 338 F.3d 374, 378-82

(5th Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2009153EN.01003602.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/36

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 May 2009 — Klein Trademark Trust v OHIM — Zafra Marroquineros (CK CREACIONES KENNYA)

(Case T-185/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark CK CREACIONES KENNYA - Earlier Community figurative mark CK Calvin Klein and earlier national figurative marks CK - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

2009/C 153/69

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Calvin Klein Trademark Trust (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: T. Andrade Boué, I. Lehmann Novo and A. Hernández Lehmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Zafra Marroquineros, SL (Caravaca de la Cruz, Spain) (represented by: J. Martín Álvarez, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2007 (Case R 314/2006-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Zafra Marroquineros, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Calvin Klein Trademark Trust to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Calvin Klein Trademark Trust to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

1

---
# C_2009267EN.01008601.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/86

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2009 — Caleprico v Commission

(Case F-38/07) (1)

1

2009/C 267/157

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007, p. 45.

1

---