alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009113EN.01003302.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/33

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPALINE)

(Case T-21/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark SPALINE - Earlier national word mark SPA - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Unfair advantage derived from the reputation of the earlier mark - Use of the mark applied for without due cause - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

2009/C 113/67

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Baud, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: E. Cornu, L. De Brouwer, D. Moreau and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2006 (Case R 415/2005-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and L’Oréal SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders L’Oréal SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders L’Oréal SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of UAP Holding Corp. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended May 29, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, L. Kenneth Cordell, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to my knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/L. Kenneth CordellL. Kenneth CordellPresident and Chief Executive OfficerPrincipal Executive Officer
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.33-77516, 33-77518, 333-2702, 333-106067, and 333-125712) pertaining to the LaCrosse Footwear, Inc.Employees’ Retirement Savings Plan, the LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. Union Employees’ Retirement SavingsPlan, the LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. 1993 Employee Stock Incentive Plan, the LaCrosse Footwear, Inc.1997 Stock Incentive Plan, the LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. 2001 Stock Incentive Plan and the LaCrosseFootwear, Inc. 2001 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan of our reports dated March 20, 2007,with respect to the consolidated financial statements and the financial statement schedule includedin this Annual Report on Form 10-K of LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.              /s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP         Minneapolis, Minnesota
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 21 November 2007 – Gargani v Parliament**

**(Case T-94/06)**

Action under Article 230 EC – Defendant – Natural or legal person – Manifest inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Action of a natural or legal person against another natural or legal person (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 26-27,
30, 32, 35)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for a declaration that the action of Mr Josep Borrell Fontelles, then President of the European Parliament, in the reference for a preliminary ruling in Case C‐305/05 was unlawful. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action as clearly inadmissible; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Mr Giuseppe Gargani to pay the costs. |
# C_2008092EN.01002402.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/24

---

Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 13 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-8/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 92/47)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.

1

---
Andrew Flowers, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 16, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on November 23, 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 Daniel Dewitt Hall be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Hall 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 Hall 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
1572.

#### Bradford *v.*The State.

Accusation of misdemeanor, from city court of Elberton-r- Judge Proffitt. November 21, 1908.

Submitted January 13,

Decided January 27, 1909.

*G. P. Harris,*for plaintiff in error.

*Thomas J. Brown, solicitor,*contra.

Powell, J.

A conviction of the offense of having intoxicating liquors at a place of worship will not be'set aside on the ground that it rests upon an uncorroborated confession alone, or on the ground that the corpus delicti is not shown by aliunde proof, where it appears that the defendant had at a church a bottle containing a liquid which resembled whisky, and which he said was whisky, and that persons coming, near him detected the smell of whisky. *Judgment affirmed.*
STATE of North Carolina v. Travis Lee MEEKER, Defendant.

No. COA16-552

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

REVERSED.
1398.

#### Barnes *v.*Fleetwood.

Certiorari, from Lee superior court — Judge Littlejohn. August 11, 1908.

Submitted November *25,*

Decided December 8, 1908.

*L. W. Nelson,*for plaintiff. *O. H. Beazley,*for defendant.

Powell, J.

1. The sustaining- of a general demurrer to the plaintiff’s entire action in an inferior judicatory is a final judgment, and entitles the losing party to maintain certiorari.

2. Though a plaintiff adds after his name the word “transferee” [of a named person], the suit is his own in Ins individual capacity, and the added designátion is tp be regarded as mere words of description. He may therefore in his own name, omitting the words of description, sue out and maintain a certiorari to a judgment against him.

3. If the payee of a negotiable promissory note, payable to order and containing in its body a mortgage, indorses the instrument in blank and transfers it thus, the holder may in his own name foreclose the mortgage. Civil Code, §3684; Acts 1899, p. 90.

*Judgment affirmed.*
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133725 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 133725 

 COA: 247039 

Wayne CC: 02-005508

RICHARD PERRY BRYANT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 6, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED, limited to the issue 

whether testimony about Anthony Covington’s statements to police constituted 

inadmissible testimonial hearsay within the meaning of Crawford v Washington, 541 US 

36; 124 S Ct 1354; 158 L Ed 2d 157 (2004), and Davis v Washington, 547 US 813; 126 S 

Ct 2266; 165 L Ed 2d 224 (2006). 

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, the Prosecuting Attorneys 

Association of Michigan, and the Criminal Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan are 

invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the 

determination of the issue presented in this case may move the Court for permission to 

file briefs amicus curiae. 

p0910 

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 17, 2008 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 184 (Friday, September 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55858-55859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19033]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than October 7, 2005.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Patrick M. Wilder, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

[[Page 55859]]

    1. First Midwest Bancorp, Inc., Itasca, Illinois; to acquire 
Textura, L.L.C., Lake Bluff, Illinois, and thereby engage in providing 
data processing services, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(14)(i) of 
Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 19, 
2005.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05-19033 Filed 9-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2007 – Commission v Spain**

**(Case C‐59/07)**

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

1.                     *Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see para. 19)*

2.                     *Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification
– Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 22)*

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Failure of the 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**

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Declares that, by failing to adopt 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 Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
**Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2008 – Commission v France**

**(Case C‐226/06)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 89/391/EEC – Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work – Articles 2, 10(1) and 12(3) and (4) – Defective transposition

Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 89/391 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (Council
Directive 89/391, Arts 9(1)(c), 10(1) and (3)(b), 13(2)(a), (c), (e) and (f)) (see paras 44-46, 48-54, 58)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2, 10(1), and 12(3) and (4) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2, 10(1), and 12(3) and (4) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
# C_2008158EN.01002402.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/24

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2008 — Doktor v Council

(Case F-73/07)

(Staff cases - Officials - Recruitment - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period)

(2008/C 158/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Frantisek Doktor (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, R. Albelice and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of the Council's Appointing Authority of October 2006 dismissing the applicant at the end of his probationary period and, secondly, an application for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
  

 
 




 
 Number Hqy healthequity, Inc. Incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware cusip 42226a 10 7 shares see
reverse for certain definitions This certifies that specimen is the record holder of Fully paid and non-assessable shares of the common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, of Healthequity, inc. Transferable on the books of the corporation by the
holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid unless countersigned and registered by the transfer agent and registrar. Witness the facsimile signatures of
the corporation’s duly authorized officers. Dated: Countersigned and registered: American stock transfer & trust company, llc (Brooklyn, ny) Transfer agent and registrar By: authorized signature President secretary © Security-columbian
united states banknote company 1960 







 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Certificate, shall be construed as
though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
  

									
	 TEN COM
	 	– as tenants in common	  		 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT	 	–                       Custodian          
             
	 TEN ENT
	 	– as tenants by the entireties	  		 		 	        (Cust)                          
 (Minor)        
	 JT TEN
	 	– as joint tenants with right of	  		 		 	  under Uniform Gifts to Minors
		 	   survivorship and not as tenants	  		 		 	  Act
                                         
           
		 	   in common	  		 		 	(State)

 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 

For value received,
                                         
                                         
           hereby sell(s), assign(s) and transfer(s) unto 
  

					
	   PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER  

INDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
	  		  	
	 	  		  	
	  		  	

  
   

 
 PLEASE PRINT OF TYPEWRITE NAME AND
ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE 
  
  

 
  
  

 
  
  

shares of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do(es) hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint 

                          
                                         
                                         
                                         
                                    Attorney 

to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. 

 

							
	Dated	 	  
	 		 	
				
		 		 		 	 x

				
		 		 		 	 x

		 		 		 	NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE
WHATSOEVER.


							
	SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED:	 	
		
	  
	 	
	THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM),
PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3879 

To make permanent the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2014 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK (for herself, Mr. POLIS, Mr. GARCIA, and Mr. ENYART) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To make permanent the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES. 

4 Section 6906 of title 31, United States Code, is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘of fiscal years 2008 through 2013’’ 

6 and inserting ‘‘fiscal year’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2009153EN.01000403.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-518/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Third-party liability motor insurance - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Directive 92/49/EEC - National legislation imposing an obligation to insure on insurance undertakings - Restriction on the freedom of establishment and on the freedom to provide services - Social protection for victims of road traffic accidents - Proportionality - Insurance undertakings’ freedom to set rates - Principle of supervision by the home Member State)

2009/C 153/08

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by E. Traversa and N. Yerrell, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and by M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by J. Himmanen, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Infringement of Articles 6, 9, 29 and 39 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1) — Calculation of insurance premiums — Obligations imposed on insurers whose head office is in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities, the Italian Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities, the Italian Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---