alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Carlos GARCIA,1 Sayda Martinez, Maria Teresa Anguiano Pacheco, Margarita Hernandez, and Carlos Rodriguez Garcia, Plaintiffs, v. BOXER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, CAPCO 1998-D7 Central Avenue Mall, LLC, 5471 Central Avenue, LLC, Lynn Parker, John Marlowe, and LNR Partners, Inc., Defendants.2 and 5471 Central Avenue, LLC, Third Party Plaintiff[,] v. City of Charlotte, Third Party Defendant.

No. COA15-803.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.

1 The deposition of Plaintiff Carlos Garcia lists his name as "Carlos Garcia Pairazaman," but the complaint, order appealed from, and other documents in the record on appeal list his name as "Carlos Garcia." Further, the fifth named plaintiff is referred to as "Carlos Ramirez Garcia" in the transcript of his deposition, but is listed as "Carlos Rodriguez Garcia" in the complaint, order appealed from, and other documents in the record on appeal.

2 The record on appeal reveals that named defendants Capco 1998-D7 Central Avenue Mall, LLC, Lynn Parker, and LNR Partners, Inc ., were never served with a summons and complaint and, accordingly, were never parties to this action. Further, only Plaintiffs Carlos Garcia and Sayda Martinez filed a notice of appeal in this matter. Per the custom of this Court, however, we list the parties exactly as they appear in the caption of the order from which the appeal is taken

--------
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification ofChief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theperiodic report of Westaff, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended April 17, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Dwight S. Pedersen, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solelyfor purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,that:

 

(1)                                  theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the datesand for the periods indicated.

 

Date: June 1, 2004

 
|                                                                                           |   |                                                       |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                           | By:    |      /s/ Dwight  S. Pedersen |   |
|                                                                                           |   |                                                       | Dwight S.  Pedersen |
|                                                                                           |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer                     |
|                                                                                           |   |                                                       |
|                                                                                           |   |                                                       |
| A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906                            |
| has been provided to Westaff, Inc. and will be retained by Westaff,  Inc. and furnished to the |
| Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.                                  |
|                                                                                                |        |                                                            |  |  |

 

----
**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 annual report on Form 10-K of Tier Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, James R. Weaver, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

| 1. | This Report   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities   Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).  |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | The   information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material   respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

| Dated:  December 28, 2004 | /s/ JAMES R. WEAVER                        |
|--------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                           |                                            |
|                           | James R.   Weaver, Chief Executive Officer |
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Patrick Vogt, certify that:

|   
|---
|(1)
|   
|(2)
|   
|(3)
|   
|(4)

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
  the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
  regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
  procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal that has materially affected, or is
  reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

|   
|---
|(5)

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
  ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

|                      |  |     |  |                                                                 
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 16, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ PATRICKVOGTPatrick VogtPresident and Chief Executive Officer



---
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 10 June 2008 – Novartis v OHIM (BLUE SOFT)**

**(Case T-330/06)**

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark BLUE SOFT – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 46-47, 54)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2006 (Case R 270/2006‐1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BLUE SOFT as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Novartis AG |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark BLUE SOFT for goods in Class 9 (Application No 3007846) |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs. |
JONES v. McLEOD.

No. COA08-702.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Johnston (07CVS1816).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         127,231
<SECURITIES>                                   186,999
<RECEIVABLES>                                  118,541
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,194
<INVENTORY>                                     70,388
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               544,712
<PP&E>                                         124,660
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,165
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 621,207
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          114,189
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       423,782
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,236
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   621,207
<SALES>                                        458,369
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               458,369
<CGS>                                          203,173
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  203,173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               218,827
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 50,221
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,066
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,155
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,155
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
        

</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3803 

To repeal the Affordable Care Act unless the initial enrollment target for 

Exchanges has been met, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2013 

Mr. YOHO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways 

and Means, Education and the Workforce, the Judiciary, Natural Resources, House Administration, Rules, and Appropriations, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the Affordable Care Act unless the initial enrollment target for Exchanges has been met, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Nullifying Unconstitu5 tional Mandate By Evaluating Results Act’’ or the ‘‘NUM6 BER Act’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3803 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEALING ACA UNLESS THE INITIAL ENROLL2 MENT TARGET FOR EXCHANGES HAS BEEN 

3 MET. 

4 (a) CERTIFICATION WITH REGARD TO ACA ENROLL5 MENTS.—Not later than June 1, 2014, the Comptroller 

6 General of the United States shall certify to Congress 

7 whether the initial enrollment target for Exchanges speci8 fied in subsection (c) has been met during the enrollment 

9 period ending on March 31, 2014. 

10 (b) REPEAL IF TARGET NOT MET.—Effective June 

11 1, 2014, unless the Comptroller General has certified to 

12 Congress under subsection (a) on or before such date that 

13 such initial enrollment target has been met during such 

14 period, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

15 (Public Law 111–148), title I and subtitle B of title II 

16 of the Health and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 

17 (Public Law 111–152), are repealed and the provisions of 

18 law amended by Act, title, and subtitle are restored as if 

19 such Act, title, and subtitle had not been enacted. 

20 (c) INITIAL ENROLLMENT TARGET.—The initial en21 rollment target specified in this subsection is that at least 

22 7,000,000 individuals have been successfully enrolled in 

23 qualified health plans through an Exchange under the Pa24 tient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 December 2008 – Commission v Greece**

**(Case C‐84/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/51/EEC – Recognition of diplomas – Studies completed in an ‘independent study centre’ not recognised as an educational establishment by the host Member State
– Optician

1.                     *Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of diplomas – Directive 92/51 (Council
Directive 92/51, Arts 1(a) and 3) (see paras 27-28, 46, operative part)*

2.                     *Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of diplomas – Directive 92/51 (Council
Directive 92/51, Art. 12) (see paras 35-37, 46, operative part)*

3.                     *Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of diplomas – Directive 92/51 (Council
Directive 92/51, Art. 4(1)(b), third subpara.) (see paras 43-46, operative part)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 3, 4(1)(b) and 12 of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

1.      Declares that the Hellenic Republic,

–        by failing to recognise the opticians’ diplomas granted by the competent Italian authorities following training given under
an agreement pursuant to which training given in Greece by a private body is homologated by those authorities;

–        by making consideration of applications for recognition of Italian opticians’ diplomas subject to the provision, by the Italian
authorities, of the answers to five questions previously sent to them by the Greek authorities; and

–        by allowing applicants for recognition of Italian opticians’ diplomas, who applied before the entry into force of Law 2916/2001
on the structure of university or similar education and the regulation of questions on the technological sector of that education,
no choice between an adaptation period and an aptitude test,

has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3, the third subparagraph of Article 4(1)(b) and Article 12 of Council
Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training
to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May
2001;

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136549 & (63)(68) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136549 

 COA: 272074 

Macomb CC: 2005-001299-FH 

CHARLES QUATRINE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 8, 2008 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

supplement the record and the motion to remand are DENIED. 

p0828 

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
Ronald Thompson CORBETT v. Pat MCCRORY, Governor

No. 317P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Ronald Thompson Corbett, For Corbett, Ronald Thompson.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 22nd of September 2016 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."
# C_2008051EN.01003903.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/39

---

Order of the President of the Court of 20 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-206/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 51/69)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

1

---
# C_2023271EN.01001901.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/19

---

Appeal brought on 8 June 2023 by Compagnie industrielle de la matière végétale (CIMV) against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 29 March 2023 in Case T-26/22, CIMV v Commission

(Case C-366/23 P)

(2023/C 271/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Compagnie industrielle de la matière végétale (CIMV) (represented by: B. Le Bret, R. Rard and P. Renié, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present appeal admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; and |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal; and

| — | give a final ruling on the substance in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and, primarily, grant the form of order sought by CIMV at first instance or, in the alternative, annul Article 3 of the Commission’s decision in so far as it provides for enforcement; |
| --- | --- |

—

give a final ruling on the substance in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and, primarily, grant the form of order sought by CIMV at first instance or, in the alternative, annul Article 3 of the Commission’s decision in so far as it provides for enforcement;

| — | in the further alternative, refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal:

First, the General Court erred in law and distorted the facts in its assessment of the breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in that it should have found that the Commission breached that principle, in view of the legitimate expectation created by the Commission’s response to CIMV.

Secondly, the General Court erred in law and distorted the facts in that it should have held that the decision was adopted in breach of the rights of defence and of the right to be heard, in view of the considerable time that elapsed between the examination of the file, the last communication with the appellant and the adoption of the decision.

---
# C_2009267EN.01005201.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/52

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-547/07) (1)

1

2009/C 267/86

Language of the case: Polish

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Derek Tremayne McEACHIN.

No. COA15-1256.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Christopher Darby, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

August 11, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 13, 2016 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 Jocelyn Newman be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Newman 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 she 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 Newman 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
STATE v. Jonathan Douglas RICHARDSON.

No. 272A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Paul M. Green, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Richardson, Jonathan Douglas.

David Weiss, Durham, for Richardson, Jonathan Douglas.

Gregory Butler, Assistant District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Paul Jackson, Assistant District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General.

Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of March 2016 by Defendant Regarding Sealed Transcript:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."