alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009090EN.01000202.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 February 2009 — Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v European Parliament

(Case C-308/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Rules concerning the expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Recovery of improperly paid sums by means of offsetting - Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Right to an impartial tribunal - Res judicata - Principle of sound administration)

2009/C 90/03

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (represented by: D. Rouget, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: C. Karamarcos, H. Krück and D. Moore, then by the latter two and A. Padowska, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 April 2007 in Case T-132/06 Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v European Parliament, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded the appellant’s action for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 22 March 2006, adopted to implement the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 December 2005 in Case T-146/04 Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v European Parliament — Interpretation of Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance and of the principle of impartiality — Interpretation of Article 27 of the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament

Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso

European Parliament

Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso

European Parliament

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
NO. 07-08-0224-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

	______________________________

	SHELDON KEITH CRAIN, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 54,073-A; HONORABLE HAL MINER, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Pursuant to a guilty plea, Appellant, Sheldon Keith Crain, was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, enhanced, and sentenced to six years confinement.  Appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging his conviction.  

	The docketing statement filed in this Court reflects that trial counsel was retained.  The reporter’s record was filed on July 31, 2008.  After the deadline for filing the clerk’s record expired, the district clerk filed a request for extension of time in which to file the clerk’s record, specifying that neither payment nor arrangements to pay had been made.

  	By order dated July 18, 2008, an extension of time was granted in which to file the clerk’s record to August 18, 2008.  By that same order, counsel for Appellant was directed to certify no later than August 7, 2008, whether Rule 35.3(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure had been complied with and if so, the date of compliance, and if not, a reasonable explanation for non-compliance.  The Court advised that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Rule 37.3(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  Counsel did not respond nor file a certification as requested.

	Having given Appellant a reasonable opportunity to cure his failure to arrange for the filing of the clerk’s record in this appeal, we dismiss for want of prosecution.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).  See also Rodriguez v. State, 970 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d); Sutherland v. State, 132 S.W.3d 510, 511 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

	On August 19, 2008, the district clerk filed a second request for extension of time in which to file the clerk’s record specifying the same reasons as in her first request.  Our disposition of this appeal renders the district clerk’s request moot.	

							Patrick A. Pirtle

							      Justice

Do not publish.
# C_2009044EN.01001101.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Lodewijk Gysbrechts, Santurel Inter BVBA

(Case C-205/07) (1)

1

(Articles 28 EC to 30 EC - Directive 97/7/EC - Consumer protection in distance contracts - Period for withdrawal - Prohibition on requiring from a consumer an advance or payment before the end of the period for withdrawal)

(2009/C 44/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Gent

Parties in the main proceedings

Lodewijk Gysbrechts, Santurel Inter BVBA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Gent — Interpretation of Articles 28 and 30 EC — Effects on intra-community trade of a national rule prohibiting a requirement that a consumer pay an advance or make payment before the expiry of a withdrawal period — Compatibility with Community law

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Article 29 EC does not preclude national rules which prohibit a supplier in cross-border distance selling from requiring an advance or any payment from a consumer before expiry of the withdrawal period, but Article 29 EC does preclude a prohibition, under those rules, on requesting, before expiry of that period, the number of the consumer's payment card.

---

(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

1

---
BROWN v. BROWN.

No. COA07-1475.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 16, 2008.

Certification Date October 6, 2008.

Appeal from Buncombe (05CVD5041).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# C_2008209EN.01003803.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of 13 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-470/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 209/62)

Language of the case: Greek

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18849]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5166]


Shipping Coordinating Committee; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of State's Shipping Coordinating Committee; 
Subcommittee on Ocean Dumping will hold an open meeting on Wednesday, 
October 19, 2005, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. to obtain public comment on the 
issues to be addressed at the October 24-28, 2005, Twenty-seventh 
Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the London Convention. 
The London Convention of 1972 is the global international treaty 
regulating ocean dumping. The meeting will also review the results of 
the Twenty-eighth Scientific Group Meeting of the London Convention 
that was held in London, United Kingdom from May 23-27, 2005.
    In addition, participants at this meeting will discuss plans for 
ratification, by the United States, of the 1996 London Protocol. The 
Protocol is a treaty signed by the United States in 1998 that is 
separate from the London Convention. It sets forth a regime that is 
more comprehensive, more stringent, and more protective of the marine 
environment than the London Convention.
    The public meeting will be held at the Department of State located 
at 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520 in Room 7835. Interested 
members of the public are invited to attend, up to the capacity of the 
room.
    For further information and pre-clearance into the Department of 
State, please contact: Anne Chick, Office of Ocean Affairs, U.S. 
Department of State, Room 5805, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20520, telephone (202) 647-3879, or email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96f5fefff5fdf7fad6e5e2f7e2f3b8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2c1cacbc1c9c3cee2d1d6c3d6c78cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a> by Monday, 
October 17, 2005.

    Dated: September 15, 2005.
Clayton Diamond,
Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 05-18849 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-09-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32

                            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-QSB/A for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
we, Grant King, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and William C.
Hitchcock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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


/s/ Grant King                                   /s/ William C. Hitchcock
--------------------------------                 --------------------------
Grant King                                       William C. Hitchcock
Chief Executive Officer                          Chief Financial Officer
July 12, 2007                                    July 12, 2007
# C_2011089EN.01002702.xml

| 19.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/27

---

Order of the General Court of 21 January 2011 — Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe v Commission

(Case T-416/06) (1)

1

2011/C 89/53

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136708 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136708 

 COA: 284471 

Oakland CC: 2006-211646-FC 

BABAR CHAUDHRY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 28, 2008 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0915 

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
# C_2008064EN.01007103.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/71

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 January 2008 — De Fays v Commission

(Case F-123/07)

(2008/C 64/119)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

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

---
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 10 - 00081 - CR

EDDIE LEE WARD APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- On October 14, 2009, pursuant to a plea bargain, a ppellant Eddie Lee Ward ple ade d guilty to indecency with a child, 2 a second

- degree felony. 3 The trial court placed Ward on ten years’ deferred adjudication community supervision and imposed a fine of $1,00 0 . Less than two months later, the State

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a) (West 20 11 )

. 3 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(d) (West 2011 )

.2

filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Ward had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision in various ways. The State waived one paragraph and Ward ple ade d true to five of the s ix pa ragraphs remaining in the State’s petition. After the adjudication hearing, the trial court found that Ward had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision , adjudicated
hi s guilt , and sentenced him to fifteen years’ confinement. 4

Ward’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers that in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirem ents of Anders v. California 5 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Ward has also filed a pro se r esponse to the Anders brief. 6 In addition, the State has filed a brief, to which Ward also filed a reply brief. Once an appellant’s court

- appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirement s of Anders , we are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if there is any arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf. See Stafford v.

4 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.33 (West 2011).

5 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

6 Ward’s contentions include claims of actual innocence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and violations of due process and due course of law.3

State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays , 904 S.W.2d at 923. Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, the State’s brief, and Ward’s responses to those briefs. We agree with counsel th at the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Consequently, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

BILL MEIER JUSTICE
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: November 3 , 201 1
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 
 The
following certification is provided by the undersigned Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of Saxon Capital, Inc. on the basis of such
officer’s knowledge and belief for the sole purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002:
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Saxon Capital, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 6, 2005 (the “Report”), the undersigned, as Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (2)  The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 May
      6, 2005
    /s/
      Michael L. SawyerMichael
      L. SawyerChief
      Executive Officer/s/
      Robert B. EastepRobert
      B. EastepChief
      Financial Officer
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission upon request. This certification accompanies the Report
and shall not be treated as having been filed as part of the
Report.
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Vanguard Minerals Corporation (the
        "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report"), I, Vladimir Fedyunin
        , President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
        to 18
        U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
        2002,
        that:
 
 1.
              The
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                  and
 
 2.
              To
                  my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
                  in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                  of the Company as of and for the period covered by the
                  Report.
 
  */s/
        Vladimir Fedyunin*
 Vladimir
        Fedyunin
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 Duly
        Authorized Officer and Principal
 Financial
        and Accounting Officer
 
 *Date:*November 14, 2007
# C_2008022EN.01004003.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/40

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — K & L Ruppert Stiftung v OHIM — Lopes de Almeida Cunha and Others (CORPO livre)

(Case T-86/05) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative mark CORPO LIVRE - National and international word marks LIVRE - Proof of use of the earlier marks submitted out of time)

(2008/C 22/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG (Weilheim, Germany) (represented by: D. Spohn and A. Kockläuner, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Natália Cristina Lopes de Almeida Cunha (Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal); Cláudia Couto Simões, (Vila Nova de Gaia); and Marly Lima Jatobá (Vila Nova de Gaia)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 December 2004 (Case R 328/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG and Natália Cristina Lopes de Almeida Cunha, Cláudia Couto Simões and Marly Lima Jatobá

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

Dismisses the action

| 2. | Orders the applicant, K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant, K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. John Herbert PRITCHARD.

No. COA16-8.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 2, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No error in part; No prejudicial error in part.
# C_2009141EN.01003401.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/34

---

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 12 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel Brussel (Belgium)) — Beecham Group plc, SmithKline Beecham plc, Glaxo Group Ltd, Stafford-Miller Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare NV, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare BV v Andacon NV

(Case C-132/07) (1)

1

2009/C 141/61

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,

 Respondent

 v.

LEROY E. GLICK AND SAVILLE S.

GLICK, HIS WIFE,

 Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 586 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6814

ZIKITERAN D. ROBINSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

J. OWENS, Warden; BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (4:07-cv-03118-HMH)

Submitted: September 8, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zikiteran D. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*While Robinson sufficiently objected to the magistrate

judge’s findings regarding whether he was in the primary custody of

the federal government at the time of his arrest, he failed to

specifically object to the remainder of the magistrate judge’s

recommendations, thereby waiving appellate review of those claims.

See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir.),

cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3032 (2007).

2

PER CURIAM:

Zikiteran D. Robinson, a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000)

petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court.*

 Robinson v. Owens, No. 4:07-cv-03118-HMH (D.S.C.

Mar. 20, 2008). Additionally, we deny Robinson’s motion for

production of discovery materials. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED