alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-00-0532-CV

			IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

			SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

			AT AMARILLO

			PANEL D

			JANUARY 3, 2001

			CHARLES E. SAUNDERS, d/b/a 

AMER. SHAMROCK BUILD. MNT., 

									Appellant

			v.

	LUBBOCK CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, 

									Appellee					

			FROM THE 99TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

			CAUSE NO. 88-727,964; HON. MACKEY HANCOCK, PRESIDING

			___________________________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and QUINN and JOHNSON, JJ.

	Charles E. Saunders appealed from an order denying a motion for sanctions.  No final judgment has been entered in the underlying cause.  Furthermore, on December 14, 2000 the clerk of this Court mailed Saunders a letter directing him to inform the Court within ten days why the cause should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  However, instead of complying with the missive, Saunders filed an appellant’s brief.

	Except for a few instances here inapplicable, a final order or judgment is needed to vest this Court with jurisdiction over the cause.  Since the record fails to reflect that such an order or judgment has been entered, this appeal was and is premature.  Consequently, jurisdiction is non-existent and we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

								Per Curiam

Do not publish.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2008 – Otto v OHIM – L’Altra Moda (l’Altra Moda)**

**(Case T-224/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark l’Altra Moda – Earlier national figurative mark Alba Moda – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 73 and Article 74(1) and (2) of Regulation No 40/94

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
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32-36, 46)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2006 (Case R 793/2005-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Otto GmbH & Co. KG and l’Altra Moda SpA. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | L’Altra Moda SpA |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark l’Altra Moda for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Otto GmbH & Co. KG |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National figurative mark Alba Moda for goods in Class 25 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Otto GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and of l’Altra Moda SpA. |
State of North Carolina, v. Demetrius Bowser, Defendant.

No. COA15-1232

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 18, 2016

NO ERROR IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
State of North Carolina v. Jermuis Erell Andrews, Defendant.

No. COA16-253

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

NO ERROR.
# C_2009282EN.01003601.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/36

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — Elf Aquitaine v Commission

(Case T-174/05) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Monochloroacetic acid market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Market sharing and price fixing - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Imputability of the infringement - Principle that penalties must fit the offence - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis - Presumption of innocence - Principle of sound administration - Principle of legal certainty - Misuse of powers - Fines)

2009/C 282/66

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Elf Aquitaine SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and É. Friedel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially A. Bouquet and F. Amato and subsequently by A. Bouquet and X. Lewis, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Principally, annulment of Articles 1(d), 2(c), 3 and 4(9) of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/ E-1/37.773 — MCAA) or, in the alternative, application for annulment of Article 2(c) of that decision, or, in the further alternative, application for variation of the said Article 2(c)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Elf Aquitaine SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Elf Aquitaine SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, of 9.7.2005.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .


EXHIBIT 99

                      UNIVERSAL AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                     ----------------------------
                                                         2004            2003
                                                     ------------    ------------
<S>                                                  <C>             <C>
Earnings (loss) per share:

BASIC NET INCOME (LOSS)  PER COMMON SHARE
Numerator:
       Income (loss)  from  operations               $  7,728,480    $   (974,470)

Denominator:
       Weighted average common shares outstanding      10,159,384       8,224,949
       Effect of dilutive securitiesd
             Conversion of preferred stock              3,014,380               -
              Common stock equivalents from
               warrants and options                       303,244
                                                     ------------    ------------
Denominator for diluted earnings per common share      13,477,008       8,224,949
                                                     ============    ============

       Basic net income (loss) per common share      $       0.76    $      (0.12)
                                                     ============    ============

       Diluted net income (loss) per common share    $       0.57    $      (0.12)
                                                     ============    ============
</TABLE>
AIR ACCURACY, INC., Plaintiff, v. Terry Wayne CLARK, Defendant.

No. COA15-1206.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23



                        Independent Auditors' Consent



The Board of Directors
Dime Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
33-88552, 33-88554,33-88556, 33-88558, 33-88560, 33-88564, 33-88566, 333-04477,
333-26609, 333-26777, 333-35565 and 333-48127) on Form S-8 of Dime Bancorp, Inc.
of our report dated January 19, 1998 relating to the consolidated statements of
financial condition of Dime Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31,
1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 1997, which report is incorporated by reference in
the December 31, 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dime Bancorp, Inc.




                                    /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

New York, New York
March 30, 1998
Exhibit 23

              Consent of KPMG Peat Marwick LLP<PAGE>
<PAGE>


                      Accountants' Consent






The Board of Directors
Harbor Federal Bancorp, Inc.




We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of Harbor Federal Bancorp, Inc. of our
report dated May 16, 1997, relating to the consolidated
statements of financial condition of Harbor Federal Bancorp,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 1997 and 1996, and the
related consolidated statements of income, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended March 31, 1997 which report is incorporated by
reference in the March 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-KSB of
Harbor Federal Bancorp, Inc.

                                  

                               /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Baltimore, Maryland
June 27, 1997
STATE of North Carolina v. Nisandro Conzelez SANCHEZ.

No. 373A15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Michael E. Casterline, Asheville, for Sanchez, Nisandro Conzelez.

Carolyn McLain, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

John Payne, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Locke Bell, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 10th of November 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,873,288
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,371,956
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,785,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,073,009
<PP&E>                                       1,821,101
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,182,094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,401,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,082,006
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,616,000
<COMMON>                                        35,196
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,544,220
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,401,047
<SALES>                                      2,556,091
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,556,091
<CGS>                                        1,806,963
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  782,361
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (62,194)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,961
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,961
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (39,719)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)


</TABLE>
D'ALESSANDRO v. D'ALESSANDRO.

No. 72P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 7, 2016.

Joyce L. Terres, Assistant Appellate Defender, for D'Alessandro.

T. Miles Williams, Garner, for D'Alessandro, Christina.

Teresa Y. Davis, Gastonia, for D'Alessandro, Christina.

Adam D' Alessandro, for D'Alessandro, Adam.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of March 2016 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed and Existing Bond Extended by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of March 2016."
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-06-122576-CV

JACKIE COLLINSMiItTxX, LtTdD., WhHiItTeE ReEnNoO InNvVeEsStToOrRsS, LtTdD., 	APPELLANTS

AND WeElLlLsS ReEnNoO InNvVeEsStToOrRsS, LtTdD.	APPELLANT

	V.

TARRANT APPRAISAL DISTRICTGoOrRdDoOnN S. SwWiIfFtT CoOnNsSuUlLtTiInNgG EnNgGiInNeEeErR, InNcC.	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 236thTH236TH  DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------NO. 2-08-229-   -        -CV

DoOmMiInNiIcCkK J. MaArRsSaAlLaA	APPELLANT	

	V.

J.EeE. "“EdD"” BbBrRoOwWnNlLeEeE	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 393RD         DISTRICT COURT OF DEONNTON            COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	On aUGUSTSeptember 2, 2008,                            August 9July 5, 2006, we notified appellant[s] that the trial court clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal had informed theis court that arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk’s record as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2).  See TEX. R. APP. P.Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2).  We stated that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellant[s], within fifteen days, made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and provided this court with proof of payment.  

	Because appellant[s] [hasves /have] not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.   Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P.Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b).

	Appellant [s] shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM 		 	

PANEL D:  HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.   MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.

DELIVERED:   August 3 0, 1, 20062006July 27, 2006September 1825, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18267]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License; Revocations

    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the 
following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked 
pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 
1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing 
of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, effective on the corresponding 
date shown below:

    License Number: 008786N.
    Name: Bermuda Freight Systems Inc.
    Address: 969 Newark Turnpike, Kearny, NJ 07032.
    Date Revoked: August 18, 2005.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 012658N.
    Name: Elteha International U.S.A., Ltd. dba LTH International.
    Address: 5353 West Imperial Highway, Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 
90045.
    Date Revoked: August 10, 2005.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 003170N.
    Name: GAP Forwarding, Inc.
    Address: 2790 NW 104th Court, Suite 101, Miami, FL 33172.
    Date Revoked: May 11, 2005.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 008832N.
    Name: Profes System Incorporated dba All State International 
Freight Co.
    Address: 167-55 148th Avenue, Jamaica, NY 11434.
    Date Revoked: August 5, 2005.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 05-18267 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
State v. Robert William Ashworth

308P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 22, 2016

James Rainsford, Attorney at Law, Hillsborough, for Ashworth, Robert William.

Kathryn E. Hathcock, Assistant Attorney General, James R. Woodall, Jr., District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of August 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of August 2016."
----

(2004/C 65 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2836/03

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject:   HIV and Commission support for development of affordable microbicide

Given the alarming rise of HIV infection in women and girls and the clear need for female-controlled prevention, can the Commission provide an update on how much support it is giving, through different instruments, to support the development of a safe, effective and affordable microbicide?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The Sixth Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development (2002-2006) within Priority 1 on Life sciences, Genomics and Biotechnology for Health has an action line dedicated to the major communicable diseases linked to poverty.

This action line through two different pillars supports research on microbicides.

Firstly, it supports projects selected through standard call procedures, using the two new instruments (networks of excellence and integrated projects). Two integrated projects on microbicides were evaluated in the first call for proposals and are now in the negotiation phase with the Commission. These projects should run for five years and should develop a second generation of microbicides. One project is designed to create a development pipeline to allow the selection of candidates from a wide range of potentially effective agents.

Another project has a directed approach to bring a specific new class of microbicides to phase 1 clinical trials.

European key players in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) microbicides field are assembled in these consortia. The integration and complementarity of these two approaches place Europe in a strong strategic position.

Secondly a joint programme with Member States and Norway, the'European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership' (EDCTP) has just been launchedto develop new clinical interventions against HIV/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis through a long-term partnership between Europe and developing countries. In the future, clinical trials on HIV microbicides could be tested through EDCTP programme in Africa. Actions under the public health programme of the Community do not foresee, nor are they intended to support, the development of medicinal products.

----
In re BROUGHTON.

No. 240P15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Celeste G. Broughton, Raleigh, for Broughton, Celeste G.

Kenneth R. Murphy, III, Attorney at Law, for Wake County.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of August 2015 by Taxpayer for Notice of Appeal:

> "Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
# C_2011282EN.01005302.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/53

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 July 2011 — Putterie v Commission

(Case F-31/07 RENV) (1)

1

2011/C 282/102

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 38.

1

---
C. Wayne CRAWFORD and Lynn P. Crawford v. Colon S. MINTZ, Jr., William R. Owens, and BFD Properties, Inc. d/b/a Re/Max Property Associates.

No. 47A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

E.D. Gaskins, Jr., Michael J. Tadych, Raleigh, for Crawford.

John M. Kirby, Raleigh, for Mintz, et al.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 653 S.E.2d 222.

*903*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Plaintiffs on the 31st day of January 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of June 2008."

Plaintiffs shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.

Accordingly, the new brief of the Plaintiffs shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135516(23) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135516 

 COA: 281278 

Oakland CC: 94-130590-FC 

GREGORY ALAN FERQUERON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 23, 2008 

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

entered erroneously. 

d0828 

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
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
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 Quarterly Report of RG Global Lifestyles, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Grant King, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2001, that:





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





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





Dated:  February  17,
2009





/s/ Grant KingGrant
      KingChief
      Executive
Officer