alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008008EN.01003101.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/31

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 — Dittert v Commission

(Case F-109/06) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Priority points - Incomplete personal file - Omission of priority points from the computer promotion file known as ‘Sysper 2’ - Technical problem - A* Promotion Committee - Allocation of a lower number of points than had been proposed by the applicant's superiors)

(2008/C 8/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Daniel Dittert (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese and C.Cortese, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision to allocate to the applicant, an official of the Commission who had been omitted in error from the promotion list in his Directorate-General, fewer priority points than the latter wished to give him and which were insufficient to allow his promotion in the 2005 exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities allocating to Mr Dittert an insufficient number of points to allow his promotion in the 2005 exercise; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities allocating to Mr Dittert an insufficient number of points to allow his promotion in the 2005 exercise;

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities fixing the list of officials promoted in the 2005 exercise, published in Informations Administratives No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005, in so far as it does not contain Mr Dittert's name; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities fixing the list of officials promoted in the 2005 exercise, published in Informations Administratives No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005, in so far as it does not contain Mr Dittert's name;

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay those of Mr Dittert. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay those of Mr Dittert.

---

(1)  OJ C 281 of 18.11.2006, p 47.

1

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the following
Registration Statements of MetaCreations Corporation on Form S-8 (Registration
Nos. 333-3070, 333-17209, 333-20939, 333-26557, 333-28403, 333-67223 and
333-86817) of our reports dated February 2, 2000, except for Note 2
which is as of August 11, 2000, relating to the financial statements and
financial statement schedule, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
August 21, 2000
# C_2008272EN.01002001.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/20

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Tsakiris-Mallas AE v OHIM — Late Editions (exē)

(Case T-96/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark exē - Earlier national word mark EXE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of goods and signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 272/36)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Tsakiris-Mallas AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: C.Samaras, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Late Editions Ltd (Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 1127/2004-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Late Editions Ltd and Tsakiris-Mallas EPE (now Tsakiris-Mallas AE).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Tsakiris-Mallas AE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Tsakiris-Mallas AE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 C 108.

1

---
The State, Petitioner, v. Christopher Broadnax, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000615

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

November 5, 2015

ORDER

Respondent's request in his Petition for Rehearing to remand this matter to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the issues not reached previously is granted.

*/s/Jean H. Toal*, C.J.

*/s/Costa M. Pleicones*, J.

*/s/Donald W. Beatty*, J.

*/s/John W. Kittredge*, J.

*/s/Kaye G. Hearn*, J.
State of North Carolina v. Bobby R. Grady

No. 249P11-5

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Bobby Grady, Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Grady, Bobby R.

K. D. Sturgis, Special Deputy Attorney General, Matthew Delbridge, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 20th of May 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
STATE of North Carolina v. Donald Ray JONES, Defendant.

No. COA15-572.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 19, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 November 2008 – Commission v Italy**

**(Case C‐437/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Design and construction of a municipal tramway – Public works contract – Award by means of a procedure for the award of a public works concession – Infringement of Directive 93/37

Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public works contracts – Directive 93/37 – Scope (Council Directive 93/37) (see paras 29-38)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and Articles 7 and 11 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) – Infringement of the principles of transparency and non‐discrimination – Public works carried out by means of ‘project financing’. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, in so far as the Comune di l’Aquila (Commune of Aquila) awarded a public works contract concerning the design and construction of a rubber-tyred tramway for public transport in that town by means of a procedure different from those laid down for the award of public works contracts by Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
Ronald Hakeem Mack, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

August 11, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on April 20, 2015 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable Michael G. Nettles be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Nettles shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Nettles shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
NEVSUN RESOURCES LTD.



Contractual obligations

(Express in United States Dollars)



Exhibit to 40-F as at December 31, 2007



Continuing operations:

|                              |           |                  |           |           |             
|----------------------------- | --------- | ---------------- | --------- | --------- | ------------
|Contractual Obligations       | Total     | Less than 1 year | 1-3 years | 4-5 years | Over 5 years
|Purchase Obligations          | 8,500,000 | 2,500,000        | 6,000,000 | -         | -           
|Total Contractual Obligations | 8,500,000 | 2,500,000        | 6,000,000 | -         | -           





Discontinued operations:

|                              |           |                  |           |           |             
|----------------------------- | --------- | ---------------- | --------- | --------- | ------------
|Contractual Obligations       | Total     | Less than 1 year | 1-3 years | 4-5 years | Over 5 years
|Long-Term Liabilities         | 4,200,000 | -                | -         | 4,200,000 | -           
|Purchase Obligations          | 4,900,000 | 3,100,000        | 1,800,000 | -         | -           
|Total Contractual Obligations | 9,100,000 | 3,100,000        | 1,800,000 | 4,200,000 | -
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4601

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FREDDIE EVANS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00165-1)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 20, 2008

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

S. Mason Preston, PRESTON & WEESE, L.C., Lewisburg, West Virginia,

for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Miller A.

Bushong, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Freddie Evans, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a plea

agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms

or more of cocaine and fifty or more grams of cocaine base, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000) (“Count One”); and to one count

of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1956(h) (2000) (“Count Two”). The district court sentenced Evans

to 288 months’ imprisonment for Count One, to run concurrently with

a term of 240 months’ imprisonment for Count Two. Evans now

appeals the district court’s judgment, challenging only his

sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.

On appeal, Evans essentially argues that the district

court erred in denying his motion for a downward departure,

pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3 (2006), on

the basis that his criminal history category over-represented the

seriousness of his criminal history. However, a district court’s

failure to grant a downward departure is not reviewable unless the

court was under the mistaken impression that it lacked the

authority to depart. United States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367, 371

(4th Cir. 2008). Here, the district court clearly understood its

authority to depart. Accordingly, this claim is not cognizable on

appeal. 

We affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 3 -

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135869(19) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135869 

 COA: 282057 

Cheboygan CC: 00-002240-FC 

BOBBY LURAY REDDELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 29, 2008 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

August 29, 2008

Ms. Erica W. Harris

Susman Godfrey L.L.P.

1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100

Houston, TX 77002-5096

Mr. G. Scott Fiddler

Law Office of G. Scott Fiddler, P.C.

9601 Jones Road, Suite 250

Houston, TX 77065

Honorable Carroll E. Wilborn Jr.

Judge, 344th District Court

P. O. Box 490

Anahuac, TX 77514

Mr. Peter M. Kelly

Law Office Of Peter M. Kelly, P.C.

1005 Heights Blvd.

Houston, TX 77008

RE:Case Number:  04-1049

Court of Appeals Number:  01-03-01055-CV

Trial Court Number:  20504

Style:IN RE  POLY-AMERICA, L.P., IND. AND D/B/A POL-TEX INTERNATIONAL, AND POLY-AMERICA GP, L.L.C.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion in the above-referenced cause.  (Justice Willett not sitting)

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 04-1049Page 1**
STATE v. Myron Roderick NUNN

63P10-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Mr. Myron Roderick Nunn, For Nunn, Myron Roderick.

Mr. Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of August 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."
1707.

#### Oliver *v.*The State.

Accusation of unlawful sale of liquor, from city court of Hart-well — Judge Hodges. January 4, 1909.

Submitted March 10,

Decided March 16, 1909.

*A. G. & Julian McOurry,*for plaintiff in error.

*James JI. Shelton, solicitor,*contra.

Powell, J.

The only complaint is that the verdict is without evidence to support it. There being direct and positive evidence of the commission of the crime, the point is not well taken; and, consequently, the judgment is *Affirmed.*
----

(2004/C 65 E/271)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3009/03

by Arlene McCarthy (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Fireworks

Across Europe thousands of people are injured, property is destroyed, animals terrified and money wasted on emergency services responding to a completely preventable danger.

There is no specific Community legislation on the safe use of fireworks. They were explicitly excluded from the scope of Directive 93/15/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on the harmonisation of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses. The Commission has not been convinced that a Community directive on the marketing and use of fireworks would be a more effective solution in terms of prevention of accidents than rules developed at a local level.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Work is currently ongoing to develop a proposal on Community legislation on harmonised rules for the approval and categorisation of fireworks for consideration by the Commission. Such rules should provide consumers with a high level of protection ensuring that only approved fireworks are placed on the Union market. The proposed legislation would include essential safety requirements with which fireworks must comply. This would lead to the development of harmonised safety standards on fireworks by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN).

The Commission is not convinced that Community measures should be taken in relation to restricting the sale of fireworks to licenced displays. However, the proposed legislation would categorise fireworks with certain categories of fireworks being restricted to professionals only. Such measures would be a proportionate response to providing consumers with a high level of protection.

There are wide differences throughout the Union on local customs for consumer use of fireworks. These differences extend to aspects such as the times of year when fireworks are most in demand and their charcteristics (visual and sound effects). As a result, the planned measures would provide that the Member States should adopt any necessary provisions in relation to the use of Union approved fireworks consistent with these local customs.

In the meantime, the EC Treaty provisions and principles regarding the Internal Market apply and consequently national measures that may lead to restrictions on intracommunity trade of such goods are assessed in the light of Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty.

The control of illegal import of fireworks into the Union is a matter for the Member States. The adoption of harmonised legislation on fireworks at Community level would mean that imported fireworks would be subject to the same rules as those of Union origin.

----

(1)OJ L 121, 15.5.1993, p. 20.

(2)OJ C 187, 16.6.1998, p. 116.

(3)OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 24.

----
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERTO LUIS PAYAN,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-07-00343-CR

Appeal from the

34th Impact District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20040D00048) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Roberto Payan attempts to appeal his conviction for delivery of a controlled substance,

greater than 200 grams, less than 400 grams, a lesser included offense. Finding that Appellant

has no right to appeal, we dismiss this appeal. 

Rule 25.2(a)(2) governs the defendant’s right to appeal in a criminal case:

A defendant in a criminal case has the right of appeal under Code of Criminal

Procedure article 44.02 and these rules. The trial court shall enter a certification

of the defendant’s right of appeal each time it enters a judgment of guilt or other

appealable order. In a plea bargain case--that is, a case in which the defendant’s

plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the

punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant--a

defendant may appeal only:

(A) those mattes that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on

before trial, or

(B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.

TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(a)(2).

Appellant filed a notice of appeal and the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s
-2-

right to appeal as required by Rules 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2(d). The trial court’s certification reflects

that the appeal, “is in a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” By letter

dated June 2, 2008, the clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the certification indicated that

he had no right of appeal in this case and requested a response. Appellant has not responded to

the Court’s notice. Based on the trial court’s certification that Appellant has no right of appeal in

this case, we dismiss the appeal.

September 18, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
# C_2012089EN.01002001.xml

| 24.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 February 2012 — Budapesti Erőmű v Commission

(Joined Cases T-80/06 and T-182/09) (1)

1

(State aid - Wholesale electricity market - Favourable terms granted by a Hungarian public undertaking to certain power generators under power purchase agreements - Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - New aid - Private investor test)

2012/C 89/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Budapesti Erőmű Zrt (Budapest (Hungary)) (represented, in Cases T-80/06 and T-182/09, by M. Powell, C. Arhold and K. Struckmann, lawyers, and also, in Case T-182/09, by A. Hegyi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented, in Cases T-80/06 and T-182/09, by N. Khan, L. Flynn and K. Talabér-Ritz, and also, in Case T-80/06, by V. Di Bucci, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, in Case T-80/06, for annulment of the Commission’s decision, notified to Hungary by letter of 9 November 2005, to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC in relation to State aid C 41/2005 (ex NN 49/2005) — Hungarian Stranded Costs, and, in Case T-182/09, for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on the State aid C 41/05 awarded by Hungary through Power Purchase Agreements (OJ 2009 L 225, p. 53).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Budapesti Erőmű Zrt to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Budapesti Erőmű Zrt to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

1

---