alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009006EN.01002402.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/24

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Galderma v OHIM — Lelas (Nanolat)

(Case T-6/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Nanolat - Earlier national word mark TANNOLACT - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 6/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Galderma SA (Cham, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Tihomir Lelas (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: H.-J. Omsels, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2006 (Case R 146/2006-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Galderma SA and Mr Tihomir Lelas

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Galderma SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Galderma SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136227 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: 136227 

 COA: 282493 

Wayne CC: 06-011853-FH

LAVAR DRUMMOND, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 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. 

p0917 

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 24, 2008 

 Clerk
# C_2010011EN.01002302.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/23

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Denka International v Commission

(Case T-334/07) (1)

1

(Plant-protection products - Active substance dichlorvos - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Evaluation procedure - Opinion of an EFSA Scientific Panel - Plea of illegality - Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 - Submission of new studies and data during the evaluation procedure - Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 - Article 28(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Rights of the defence - Principle of subsidiarity - Article 95(3) EC and Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of Directive 91/414)

2010/C 11/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Denka International BV (Barneveld, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and L. Parpala, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/387/EC of 6 June 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of dichlorvos in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 145, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Denka International BV to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Denka International BV to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
State v. Bernard George Lamp, Jr.

222A14-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 27, 2016

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Sarah M. Kirkman, District Attorney, Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law, Constance E. Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, For Lamp, Bernard George (Jr.).

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File *436Brief filed on the 26th of May 2016 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of May 2016."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 5th day of August 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
STATE of North Carolina v. Allen Robert VENABLE.

No. COA15-805.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 15, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No error in part; vacated and remanded in part.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3891 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize the Secretary 

of Homeland Security to award Urban Area Security Initiative grants 

to nonprofit organizations not located in high-risk urban areas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2014 

Ms. TITUS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize 

the Secretary of Homeland Security to award Urban 

Area Security Initiative grants to nonprofit organizations 

not located in high-risk urban areas. 

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3891 IH

1 SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AU2 THORITY TO AWARD URBAN AREA SECURITY 

3 INITIATIVE GRANTS TO NONPROFIT ORGANI4 ZATIONS NOT LOCATED IN HIGH-RISK URBAN 

5 AREAS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2003 of the Homeland 

7 Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 604) is amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as sub9 section (f); and 

10 (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the fol11 lowing new subsection (e): 

12 ‘‘(e) SPECIAL RULE FOR GRANTS TO NONPROFIT

13 ORGANIZATIONS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of 

14 law, the Secretary may award a grant under this section 

15 to an organization (as described under section 501(c)(3) 

16 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from 

17 tax section 501(a) of such code) located in an area that 

18 is not designated as a high-risk urban area.’’. 

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 subsection (a) apply with respect to a grant made after 

21 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT
        32**
 
 **Certification
        of Chief Executive Officer**
 **Pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 
 Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
        2002, the undersigned officer of Micrel, Incorporated (the “ Company ”)
        hereby
        certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
 
 (i)  the
        accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
        period ended September 30, 2007 (the “ Report ”)
        fully
        complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
        of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (ii)  the
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date:
                  November 7, 2007
              By/s/ Raymond D. ZinnRaymond
                  D. ZinnChief
                  Executive Officer
 
 
 
 **Certification
        of Chief Financial Officer**
 **Pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 
 Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
        2002, the undersigned officer of Micrel, Incorporated (the “ Company ”)
        hereby
        certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
 
 (i)  the
        accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
        period ended September  30, 2007 (the “ Report ”)
        fully
        complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
        of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (ii)  the
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date:
                  November 7, 2007
              By/s/ Richard D. Crowley, Jr.Richard
                  D. Crowley, Jr.Chief
                  Financial Officer
STATE v. Twyan Kenneth COLEMAN

439P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 9, 2016

Sterling Rozear, Attorney at Law, for Coleman, Twyan Kenneth.

Joseph E. Herrin, Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of December 2016 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of December 2016."
Exhibit 32.2 

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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016 (the “Report”) of Hercules Capital, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mark R. Harris, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Registrant. 

 

| Date: August 4, 2016 | By:    | /S/ MARK R. HARRIS

     |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                 |   | Mark R. Harris                |
|                 |   | Chief Financial Officer       |
|                 |   | (Principal Financial Officer) |
STATE v. Alfred William RILEY, Jr.

No. 618P07-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Alfred Wm. Riley, Jr., for Riley.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, for State of NC.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of May 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         485,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,261,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 11,666,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,349,000
<PP&E>                                       4,847,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,350,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,845,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    38,513,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (29,354,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,350,000
<SALES>                                      9,485,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,485,000
<CGS>                                        4,768,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,768,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (118,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             633,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,256,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   21,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,277,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,277,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6762

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN EDWARD JACKSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District

Judge. (5:05-cr-00016-gec-bwc)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 22, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Edward Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Edward Jackson appeals the district court’s order

granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

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

the district court. See United States v. Jackson, No. 5:05-cr00016-gec-bwc (W.D. Va. Apr. 29, 2008). 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
# C_2009006EN.01002501.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/25

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-60/07) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Fruit and vegetable sector - Environmental protection - Administrative procedure)

(2009/C 6/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 355, p. 96), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the fruit and vegetable sector

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00458-CV

Gabriel ESCOBAR,

Appellant

v.

Eluid BARRERA and Katherine Barrera, Individually and d/b/a Rancho Savanna,

Appellees

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 06-08-44897-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 24, 2008

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

On August 12, 2008, we notified appellant that the trial court clerk had filed a notification

of late clerk’s record, stating that the clerk’s record has not been filed because appellant has failed

to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and appellant is not

entitled to appeal without paying the fee. We, therefore, ordered appellant to provide written proof

to this court on or before August 22, 2008, that either (1) the clerk’s fee had been paid or
04-08-00458-CV

-2-

arrangements had been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without

paying the clerk’s fee. We warned that if appellant failed to respond within the time provided, this

appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). As of this date,

appellant has failed to either comply with or respond to this order. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Costs of appeal are taxed against appellant.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Tom Hofer, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Annual Report of Vendalux Corporation on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended March 31, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Vendalux Corporation

By:       /s/
   --------------------
   Name: Tom Hofer
   Title:   Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEITH M. CASSELLS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

D. MEHTA; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 07-17024

D.C. No. CV-04-01798-FCD/EFB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Keith M. Cassells, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

FILED

JUN 14 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-17024

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v.

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

Cassells contends that prison officials improperly delayed surgery on his

spine, delayed post-surgical follow-up examinations, and denied his request for an

egg-crate mattress. The district court, however, properly granted summary

judgment because Cassells failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendants

were deliberately indifferent to his spine conditions. See id. at 1057 (a prison

official acts with deliberate indifference only if he “knows of and disregards an

excessive risk to inmate health and safety,” and “[m]ere negligence in diagnosing

or treating a medical condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner’s Eighth

Amendment rights”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cassells’s motion

for leave to file an amended complaint, because amendment would be futile. See

Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009) (“We review the district

court’s denial of leave to amend the complaint for abuse of discretion. A district

court does not err in denying leave to amend where the amendment would be

futile.”) (citations omitted).

Cassells’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 20

- 00591

- CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Sylvia MATA

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 11

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 613535

Honorable Tommy Stolhandske , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios , Justice

Beth Watkins , Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 23, 2020

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED, APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellant, the State of Texas, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is

granted , and this appeal i s dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a) (authorizing appellate courts to

dismiss criminal appeals on the appellant ’s motion prior to a decision in the appeal).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
# C_2008022EN.01003301.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/33

---

Action brought on 21 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-511/07)

(2008/C 22/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and U. Wölker, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to communicate the information required under Article 3(1)(f) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (1), in conjunction with Articles 2 and 4(1)(b) and (d) of Commission Decision No 2005/166/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision No 280/2004/EC (2), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to communicate the information required under Article 3(1)(f) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (1), in conjunction with Articles 2 and 4(1)(b) and (d) of Commission Decision No 2005/166/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision No 280/2004/EC (2), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

1

2

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission accuses the defendant of not fully implementing the obligations contained in Decision No 280/2004/EC, read in conjunction with Decision No 2005/166/EC. First, the defendant has failed to provide in its annual report the information relating to the methods and to the types of activity data and emissions factors used in the Community's principal sources. Second, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not communicated to the Commission a general uncertainty assessment affecting the elements of the Luxembourg national inventory report.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 49, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2005 L 55, p. 57.

2

---