alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009082EN.01000302.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Belgische Staat v N.V. Cobelfret

(Case C-138/07) (1)

1

(Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 4(1) - Direct effect - National legislation designed to prevent double taxation of distributed profits - Deduction of the amount of dividends received from a parent company's basis of assessment only in so far as it has made taxable profits)

(2009/C 82/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Belgische Staat

Appellant:

Respondent: N.V. Cobelfret

Respondent:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Article 4 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) — National provisions designed to prevent double taxation of distributed dividends — Conditions

Operative part of the judgment

The first indent of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that dividends received by a parent company are to be included in its basis of assessment in order subsequently to be deducted from that basis in the amount of 95 %, in so far as, for the tax period in question, the parent company has a positive profit balance after deduction of other exempted profits.

The first indent of Article 4(1) of Directive 90/435 is unconditional and sufficiently precise to be capable of being relied on before national courts.

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136242 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: 136242 

 COA: 282363 

Muskegon CC: 06-053839-FH

DAVID ALLEN JONES,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 7, 2008 order 

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. 

l0917 

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
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-07-00189-CR

______________________________

TOMMIE LOYD PRATER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 336th Judicial District Court

Fannin County, Texas

Trial Court No. 21977

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
Prater appeals from eight convictions. In cause number 06-07-00187-CR, he appeals from 1

his conviction of indecency with a child (A.C.P.) by sexual contact; in cause numbers 06-07-00188-

CR through 06-07-00192-CR, he appeals his convictions of sexual assault of a child (A.C.P.). In

each of these cases, Prater was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment, to run consecutively, and

$10,000.00 fines.

Prater appeals his conviction in cause number 06-07-00193-CR of indecency with a child

(J.A.P.) by sexual contact. Prater was sentenced in this case to twenty years' imprisonment, to run

consecutively, and a $10,000.00 fine.

Prater also appeals his conviction in cause number 06-07-00194-CR of aggravated sexual

assault of a child (T.L.P.). He was sentenced to life imprisonment, to run consecutively, and a

$10,000.00 fine.

2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Tommie Loyd Prater appeals from his conviction by a jury for sexual assault of a child with

A.C.P. The jury assessed his punishment at twenty years' imprisonment and a $10,000.00 fine.

Prater presently has seven other convictions currently on appeal before this Court.1

On appeal, Prater contends that the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of hearsay

statements through the testimony of Judith Hart, a nurse who examined A.C.P. during her initial

hospital visit. Prater argues that her testimony and records were inadmissible because they were

hearsay, not made admissible under a medical exception, and that the outcry exception did not apply

because Hart was not the outcry witness.

We addressed this issue in detail in our opinion of this date on Prater's appeal in cause

number 06-07-00187-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that error has not

been shown.
3

We affirm the judgment. 

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: August 8, 2008

Date Decided: September 15, 2008

Do Not Publish
----

----

Jay Melnyk, P.Eng  AGP Mining Consultants, Inc.  92 Caplan Avenue, Suite 246, Barrie, Ontario, L4N 0Z7

**CONSENTOF QUALIFIED PERSON**

I, Jay Melnyk, P.Eng., herebyconsent to:

| a) | thepublic filing of the technical report titled ‘Bisha Mine, Eritrea, Africa, NI43-101 Technical Report’ and dated March 24, 2014,  (the “Technical Report”) byNevsun Resources Ltd.; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| b) | theuse of any extracts from or a summary of the Technical Report in the news releasedated February 18, 2014 (the “News Release”); |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| c) | theuse of any extracts from or a summary of the Technical Report in the AnnualInformation Form (the “AIF”) dated March 24, 2014 of Nevsun Resources Ltd.which will be filed on SEDAR; |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| d) | theAIF which includes such extracts from the Technical Report to be included inthe Annual Report on Form 40-F (collectively, the “40-F”) of Nevsun ResourcesLtd. to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commissionpursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| e) | thereferences to my name in the AIF and 40-F as an author of the report entitled‘Bisha Mine, Eritrea, Africa, NI 43-101 Technical Report’, dated March 24, 2014. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

I certify that I have read theNews Release and AIF being filed by Nevsun Resources Ltd. and that the NewsRelease and AIF fairly and accurately represent the information in the sectionsof the Technical Report for which I am responsible.

Dated this 24th day of March,2014

“Signed and Sealed”

 

_______________________________

JayMelnyk, P. Eng.

| 92 Caplan Avenue, Suite 246, Barrie, ON L4N 0Z7 Canada     Tel. (416) 239-6777 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
Filed 9/23/08 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2008 ND 169

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Levi Krogen, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20080041

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Robert O. Wefald, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Jeffrey R. Ubben, Assistant State’s Attorney, Courthouse, 514 East Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58501; for plaintiff and appellee.

Chad R. McCabe, McCabe Law Firm, 523 North Fourth Street, Suite 3, Bismarck, N.D. 58501; for defendant and appellant.

State v. Krogen

No. 20080041

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Levi Krogen appeals the district court’s criminal judgment entered on a conditional guilty plea to the charge of driving under suspension, a class A misdemeanor, after the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during an investigative motor vehicle stop.  On appeal, Krogen argues the stop was not justified by a reasonable and articulable suspicion that he was violating the North Dakota motor vehicle registration laws.  In State v. Skarsgard, 2007 ND 160, ¶ 8, 739 N.W.2d 786, this Court held, “When a law enforcement officer observes a vehicle with no license plates and no viewable registration certificate, the officer has reasonable grounds to stop the driver and check if the driver has a valid certificate in his possession.”  Concluding the Skarsgard opinion is controlling, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner
STATE v. RONZIO.

No. COA08-245.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 2, 2008.

Certification Date December 22, 2008.

Appeal from Wake (04CRS1593, 04CRS1594).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
In the Matter of D.J.D., R.M.D. & J.J.D.

No. COA15-930.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.4
                                                                  ------------

                            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  of Trans  Energy,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ending  December 31, 2002, as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof  (the  "Report"),
William F. Woodburn,  Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,  certifies to
the best of his knowledge,  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  result  of
              operations of the Company.


/s/   WILLIAM F. WOODBURN
--------------------------------
      William F. Woodburn
      Principal Accounting Officer

March 28, 2003





<PAGE>
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1.2


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 333-119285, Form S-8 No. 333-03886, Form S-8 No. 333-37299, Form
S-8 No. 333-74565, Form S-8 No. 333-96197, Form S-8 No. 333-37658, Form S-8 No.
333-72778 and Form S-8 No. 333-107273) pertaining to Renal Care Group, Inc.'s 9%
Senior Subordinated Notes due 2011, the Renal Care Group, Inc. Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan, the Renal Care
Group, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors, the Renal Care Group,
Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. Third Amended and
Restated Stock Incentive Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. Fourth Amended and
Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, the Dialysis Centers of America, Inc. Equity
Compensation Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. 1999 Long - Term Incentive Plan,
the Renal Disease Management by Physicians, Inc. Amended and Restated 1997/1998
Stock Plan, and the Renal Care Group, Inc., Amended and Restated 1999 Long Term
Incentive Plan of our report dated March 10, 2006, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Renal Care Group, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.


                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Nashville, Tennessee
March 10, 2006
# CE2004070EN.01025601.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/256 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/256

---

(2004/C 70 E/277)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3324/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Authorisation of the harmful toxic spray ‘Paraquat’

Subject:

The Commission is expected to authorise the inclusion of the harmful toxic spray ‘Paraquat’ on the EU's positive list of approved substances. Denmark has banned the marketing and import of this toxic spray since 1994. Approval at EU level may restrict Member States' scope for upholding rules safeguarding the environment and consumers with the result that, for example, Denmark may be compelled to allow imports of foodstuffs containing residues of this toxic substance which is regarded as lethal for mammals and birdlife.

Will the Commission therefore explain the reasons for which this substance is now to be approved and the extent of its knowledge of scientific data relating to the harmful characteristics of Paraquat and to available substitutes? How can Denmark and other Member States uphold or adopt more far-reaching restrictions on Paraquat so as to protect consumers, animal life and the environment from this substance?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2003)

(27 November 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-3093/03 by Mr Ettl (1)

1

---

(1)  OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 266.

1

---
# C_2008301EN.01006203.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/62

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-402/05) (1)

1

(2008/C 301/109)

Language of the case: Italy

Language of the case: Italy

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

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.

1

---
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 749 

To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of certain 

rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 2, 2007 

Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. ENSIGN, and Mr. 

BURR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States 

courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade 

names, or commercial names. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF PROHIBITION. 

4 Section 211 of the Department of Commerce and Re5 lated Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in 

6 section 101(b) of division A of Public Law 105–277; 112 

7 Stat. 2681–88) is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (a)(2)— 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 749 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘by a designated national’’; 

2 and 

3 (B) by inserting before the period ‘‘that 

4 was used in connection with a business or as5 sets that were confiscated unless the original 

6 owner of the mark, trade name, or commercial 

7 name, or the bonafide successor-in-interest has 

8 expressly consented’’; 

9 (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘by a des10 ignated national or its successor-in-interest’’; 

11 (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub12 section (e); 

13 (4) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol14 lowing: 

15 ‘‘(d) Subsections (a)(2) and (b) of this section shall 

16 apply only if the person or entity asserting the rights knew 

17 or had reason to know at the time when the person or 

18 entity acquired the rights asserted that the mark, trade 

19 name, or commercial name was the same as or substan20 tially similar to a mark, trade name, or commercial name 

21 that was used in connection with a business or assets that 

22 were confiscated.’’; and 

23 (5) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by 

24 striking ‘‘In this section:’’ and all that follows 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 749 IS

1 through ‘‘(2) The term’’ and inserting ‘‘In this sec2 tion, the term’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2008 – Giorgio Beverly Hills v OHIM – WHG (GIORGIO
BEVERLY HILLS)**

**(Case T-228/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS – Earlier national word mark GIORGIO – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 33)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 June 2006 (Joined Cases R 107/2005-2 and R 187/2005-2), concerning opposition proceedings between WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc. |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS for goods in Classes 3, 14, 18 and 25 – Application No 417709 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | WHG Westdeutsche Handels-gesellschaft mbH |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National word mark and Community figurative mark GIORGIO for goods in Classes 18, 24 and 25 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition partially upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 June 2006 (Cases R 107/2005-2 and R 187/2005-2) in so far as it dismissed the appeal in Case R 187/2005-2; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc. during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft mbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Giorgio Beverly Hills for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM. |
IN RE M.J.E.M.

No. COA08-549.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Harnett (02J194, 04J46).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-23-2008

In re: Ariel Adan

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 07-3233

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In re: Ariel Adan " (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 499.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/499
1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 07-3233

 

IN RE: APPLICATION OF ARIEL ADAN

 ELENA ESTHER AVANS,

 Appellant

 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

(D.C. Civil No. 04-cv-05155)

District Judge: The Honorable William H. Walls

 

Argued: September 22, 2008

 

Before: BARRY, AMBRO and GARTH, Circuit Judges

 

JUDGMENT ORDER

 

This case came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey and was argued on September 22, 2008. After careful

consideration of the briefs, the record, and the arguments of counsel on appeal,

At the conclusion of argument and from the bench on September 22, 2008, this

Court ORDERED that the June 26, 2007 and July 20, 2007 Orders of the District Court

be reversed, and the matter remanded to the District Court with instructions that the
2

petition pursuant to the Hague Convention be immediately dismissed. Each party is to

bear its own costs. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/Maryanne Trump Barry 

Circuit Judge

Dated: September 23, 2008

TMK/cc: Peter D. Alvino, Esq.

Teri S. Appelson, Esq.

Leonard O. Evans, Esq.

Elliot Gourvitz, Esq.

Joanna L. Hewitson, Esq,

Catherine M. Krow, Esq.

Walter A. Lesnevich, Esq.

Rebecca F. Lubens, Esq.

Daniel F. Mulvihill, Esq.

Jason W. Rockwell, Esq.
IZYDORE v. TOKUTA, et al.

No. 323P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Robert C. Ekstrand, Durham, for Izydore, Robert A.

Stephanie A. Brennan, Assistant Attorney General, for Tokuta, Alade, et al.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of October 2015 by Plaintiff Conditional to Treat his Petition for Discretionary Review as a Petition for Certiorari:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."