alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008223EN.01006101.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/61

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 June 2008 — Timmer v Court of Auditors

(Case F-123/06) (1)

1

(Staff - Officials - Assessment - Time-limit for lodging a complaint - New fact - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 223/114)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marianne Timmer (Saint-Sauves-d'Auvergne, France) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and G. Corstens, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Firstly, annulment of all the applicant's staff reports drawn up by M.L. and the connected and/or subsequent decisions, including that appointing M L. and, secondly, an application for damages.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 84.

1

---
1465.

#### Statham *v.*Southern States Life Insurance Co. *et al.*

Complaint from cityr court of.Amerieus — Judge Crisp. October *17,*1908.

Argued December 10,

Decided December 22, 1908.

*E. A. Hawkins,*for plaintiff.

*Jackson ■& Orme, Allen Fort & Son,*for defendants.

Powell, J.

1. A party will *not be*permitted to sue upon a contract and at the same time to allege that it is void because procured by fraud.

2. In the amendment tendered, the plaintiff sought to set up a new and distinct cause of action.

3. The court did not err in refusing to allow the amendment tendered, and in dismissing the petition, in accordance with the decision of this court in the case when it was here on a former writ of error. See *So. States Life Ins. Co.*v. Statham, 4 *Ga. App.*482 ( 61 S. E. 886).

*Judgment affirmed.*
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3631 

To authorize the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to waive or reduce certain 

fees applicable to generic drug facilities where the fees would present 

a significant barrier to market entry because of limited resources available to such facilities or other circumstances. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2013 

Mr. HURT (for himself and Mr. ROE of Tennessee) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To authorize the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to waive 

or reduce certain fees applicable to generic drug facilities 

where the fees would present a significant barrier to 

market entry because of limited resources available to 

such facilities or other circumstances. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Manufacturer 

5 Protection Act of 2013’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3631 IH

1 SEC. 2. WAIVER OR REDUCTION OF CERTAIN FEES APPLI2 CABLE TO GENERIC DRUG FACILITIES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 744B of the Federal 

4 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379j–42) is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by inserting ‘‘, ex7 cept as provided in subsection (c)(3),’’ after ‘‘fees 

8 under paragraphs (2) through (4) of subsection (a) 

9 shall’’; and 

10 (2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the 

11 following: 

12 ‘‘(3) FEE WAIVERS.— 

13 ‘‘(A) STANDARD.—The Secretary shall 

14 grant to a person that owns a generic drug fa15 cility a waiver from or a reduction of one or 

16 more fees assessed to that person under sub17 section (a) where the Secretary finds that the 

18 assessment of the fee would present a signifi19 cant barrier to market entry because of limited 

20 resources available to such person or other cir21 cumstances. 

22 ‘‘(B) CONSIDERATIONS.—In determining 

23 whether to grant a waiver or reduction of a fee 

24 under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall 

25 consider only the circumstances and assets of 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3631 IH

1 the person involved and any affiliate of the per2 son. 

3 ‘‘(C) WRITTEN REQUESTS.—To qualify for 

4 consideration for a waiver or reduction under 

5 subparagraph (A), a person shall submit to the 

6 Secretary a written request for such waiver or 

7 reduction not later than 180 days after the fee 

8 is due. 

9 ‘‘(D) DEFINITION.—In this paragraph, the 

10 term ‘person that owns a generic drug facility’ 

11 means a person that owns a facility which is 

12 identified or intended to be identified in at least 

13 one generic drug submission that is pending or 

14 approved to produce one or more finished dos15 age forms of a human generic drug.’’. 

16 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by this 

17 section apply with respect to fees authorized to be assessed 

18 and collected for any of fiscal years 2014 through 2017. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2008022EN.01001401.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-34/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/109/EC - Third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2008/C 22/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69 of 24.3.2007.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (Nos. 333-3760 and 333-2007) and Form S-8 (Nos. 33-00074, 33-00076,
333-16741 and 333-15755) of FPA Medical Management, Inc. of our report dated
March 21, 1997, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of FPA Medical
Management, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1996.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
San Diego, California
March 28, 1997
STATE v. Calvin Lewis MOORE, Jr.

No. 144P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

M. Alexander Charns, Durham, for Moore, Calvin Lewis (Jr.).

J. Joy Strickland, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Rick Shaffer, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of April 2015 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) CERTIFICATION

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

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

November 15, 2005                      /s/ Monte Ross
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Monte Ross
                                       (Chief executive officer)

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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 720 

To amend title 4, United States Code, to authorize the Governor of a State, 

territory, or possession of the United States to order that the National 

flag be flown at half-staff in that State, territory, or possession in 

the event of the death of a member of the Armed Forces from that 

State, territory, or possession who dies while serving on active duty. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 1, 2007 

Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. STABENOW) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 4, United States Code, to authorize the 

Governor of a State, territory, or possession of the 

United States to order that the National flag be flown 

at half-staff in that State, territory, or possession in 

the event of the death of a member of the Armed Forces 

from that State, territory, or possession who dies while 

serving on active duty. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Army Specialist Joseph 

5 P. Micks Federal Flag Code Amendment Act of 2007’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 720 IS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF GOVERNORS TO ORDER THE NA2 TIONAL FLAG TO BE FLOWN AT HALF-STAFF 

3 IN THE EVENT OF THE DEATH OF A MEMBER 

4 OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

5 (a) DEATH OF A MEMBER OF THE ARMED

6 FORCES.—Section 7(m) of title 4, United States Code, is 

7 amended in the sixth sentence by inserting ‘‘or the death 

8 of a member of the Armed Forces from any State, terri9 tory, or possession who dies while serving on active duty’’ 

10 after ‘‘present or former official of the government of any 

11 State, territory, or possession of the United States’’. 

12 (b) FEDERAL FACILITY CONSISTENCY WITH STATE

13 PROCLAMATION.—Such section is further amended by in14 serting after the sixth sentence the following new sentence: 

15 ‘‘When the Governor of a State, territory, or possession 

16 issues a proclamation under the preceding sentence that 

17 the National flag be flown at half-staff because of the 

18 death of a member of the Armed Forces, the National flag 

19 flown at any Federal installation or facility in that State, 

20 territory, or possession shall be flown at half-staff con21 sistent with that proclamation.’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (S-8 No. 033-79720, No. 033-79722, No.033-94768, No. 333-05613, No. 333-05615 and No. 333-109767 and Forms S-3 No. 333-114760 and 333-110581) of our report dated February 17, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Point Therapeutics, Inc. included in the AnnualReport (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Boston,Massachusetts 

May 28, 2004
Philips v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc., et al.

368P12-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 22, 2016

C. David Creech, Attorney at Law, Jay C. Salsman, Attorney at Law, New Bern, for Pitt County Memorial Hospital Incorporated, et al.

Sherif A. Philips, for Philips, Sherif A. (M.D.).

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of July 2016 by Plaintiff for Petition for Reconsideration of Recusal Honorable Judge Richard L. Doughton:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of July 2016."
# C_2008128EN.01000601.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-265/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of goods - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement - Quantitative restrictions on imports - Measures having equivalent effect - Motor vehicles - Affixing of tinted film to windows)

(2008/C 128/08)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros, P. Guerra e Andrade and M. Patakia, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes, Agent, and by A. Duarte de Almeida, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — National legislation prohibiting the affixing of tinted film to the windows of passenger or goods vehicles

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Declares that, by prohibiting in Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003 of 11 March 2003 the affixing of tinted film to the windows of motor vehicles, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and Articles 11 and 13 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Declares that, by prohibiting in Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003 of 11 March 2003 the affixing of tinted film to the windows of motor vehicles, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and Articles 11 and 13 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area;

| 2) | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

1

---
# C_2009141EN.01000201.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — Markku Sahlstedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain Keskusliitto MTK ry, MTK:n säätiö v Commission of the European Communities, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-362/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Conservation of natural habitats - List, adopted by a Commission decision, of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region - Admissibility of an action for annulment brought by natural or legal persons against that decision)

2009/C 141/02

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Markku Sahlstedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain Keskusliitto MTK ry, MTK:n säätiö (represented by: K. Marttinen, asianajaja)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Huttunen and M. van Beek, acting as Agents) Republic of Finland

Other parties to the proceedings:

Intervener in support of the Commission of the European Communities: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno)

Intervener in support of the Commission of the European Communities:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of 22 June 2006 in Case T-150/05 Sahlstedt and Others v Commission of the European Communities dismissing as inadmissible an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/101/EC of 13 January 2005 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region (OJ 2005 L 40, p. 1) — Concept of ‘direct concern’ within the meaning of Article 230 EC

Sahlstedt and Others

Commission of the European Communities

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Sahlstedt and Others to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Sahlstedt and Others to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.

1

---
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 – Commission v Italy**

**(Case C‐112/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/80/EC –Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Compensation to crime victims –Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 6)

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15). |

**Operative part**

| |
| --- |
| The Court: |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
# C_2009180EN.01000801.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH

(Case C-529/07) (1)

1

(Three-dimensional Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 51(1)(b) - Criteria relevant to determining whether an applicant is ‘acting in bad faith’ when filing an application for a Community trade mark)

2009/C 180/12

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Franz Hauswirth GmbH

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Concept of the applicant for a mark ‘acting in bad faith’ — Trade mark application intended to prevent competitors from continuing to market similar goods which have previously acquired a certain reputation — Chocolate Easter bunnies.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

In order to determine whether the applicant is acting in bad faith within the meaning of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, the national court must take into consideration all the relevant factors specific to the particular case which pertained at the time of filing the application for registration of the sign as a Community trade mark, in particular:

| — | the fact that the applicant knows or must know that a third party is using, in at least one Member State, an identical or similar sign for an identical or similar product capable of being confused with the sign for which registration is sought; |
| --- | --- |

—

the fact that the applicant knows or must know that a third party is using, in at least one Member State, an identical or similar sign for an identical or similar product capable of being confused with the sign for which registration is sought;

| — | the applicant’s intention to prevent that third party from continuing to use such a sign; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicant’s intention to prevent that third party from continuing to use such a sign; and

| — | the degree of legal protection enjoyed by the third party’s sign and by the sign for which registration is sought. |
| --- | --- |

—

the degree of legal protection enjoyed by the third party’s sign and by the sign for which registration is sought.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---
# C_2008285EN.01004002.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/40

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2008 — Matthias Rath v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Grandel (Epican Forte)

(Case T-373/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark Epican Forte - Earlier Community word mark EPIGRAN - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2008/C 285/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) (represented by: S. Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Dr. Grandel GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Hodapp, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 (Case R 1069/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. Grandel GmbH and Matthias Rath

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law;

| 2. | Matthias Rath shall bear his own costs and pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) and Dr. Grandel GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Matthias Rath shall bear his own costs and pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) and Dr. Grandel GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---