alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009141EN.01000901.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy)) — Marco Gambazzi v DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc., CIBC Mellon Trust Company

(Case C-394/07) (1)

1

(Brussels Convention - Recognition and enforcement of judgments - Grounds for refusal - Infringement of public policy in the State in which enforcement is sought - Exclusion of the defendant from the proceedings before the court of the State of origin because of failure to comply with a court order)

2009/C 141/13

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte d'appello di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marco Gambazzi

Applicant:

Defendants: DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc., CIBC Mellon Trust Company

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte d'appello di Milano — Interpretation of Articles 26 and 27(1) of the Brussels Convention — Decision whose recognition is contrary to public policy in the State in which enforcement is sought — Decision preventing one of the parties from presenting a defence (‘debarment’) because of failure to comply with a court order

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, is to be interpreted as follows:

the court of the State in which enforcement is sought may take into account, with regard to the public policy clause referred to in that article, the fact that the court of the State of origin ruled on the applicant’s claims without hearing the defendant, who entered appearance before it but who was excluded from the proceedings by order on the ground that he had not complied with the obligations imposed by an order made earlier in the same proceedings, if, following a comprehensive assessment of the proceedings and in the light of all the circumstances, it appears to it that that exclusion measure constituted a manifest and disproportionate infringement of the defendant’s right to be heard.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 18.2

Board of Directors
Video Update, Inc.
St. Paul, Minnesota

Dear Board Members:

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of Video Update, Inc. as
of April 30, 1999 and for the year then ended, including your Annual Report on
Form 10-K to the Securities and Exchange Commission and have issued our report
thereon dated August, 12, 1999. Note 2 to such financial statements contains a
description of your adoption during the year ended April 30, 1999 of an
accelerated amortization method for video and game rental inventory. In our
judgment, such change is to an alternative accounting method that is preferable
under the circumstances.

                                        /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
August 12, 1999
Robert R. Moore, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 7, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on June 28, 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 Frank R. Addy, Jr. be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Addy 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 Addy 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
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-006-CV

NO. 2-06-155-CV

Ex Parte S.R.D., a child

In the Interest of B.G.D. a/k/a S.R.D., A Child	APPELLANT

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY	NO. 2-006  -04400    08-345              -CV

JOSEPH H. LEE, III, VIRGINIA K. LEE AND 	APPELLANTS

PATRICIA LEE BARROW AND SAVINGS 

OF AMERICA, INC.	JeEfFfFrReEyY A. BaArRrRoOnN	   APPELLANT	

	V.

FiIrRsStT CaAsShH FiInNaAnNcCiIaAlL SeErRvViIcCeEsS, InNcC. OPAL LEE, IN HER CAPACITY AS 	APPELLEE

 TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF DALE T. LEE, DECEASED	

	----------

	FROM THE 153RD153RD          PROBATE DISTRICT COURT  NO. 2 OF TARRANT                     TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered “aaAppellant’s [s’]’ “Unopposed Motion To Dismiss aAccelerated AppealNotice Of Nonsuit.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TTEeXx. RR. AAPpPp. PP. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the appellants [ [s][- [oOR the the party incurring the same], for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL :     MCCOY, J. ; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.D:  

    HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER                                     , JJ.

DELIVERED:    September 28, 2006  September 118, 2008
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60690

Summary Calendar

JORGE ALBERTO MELGAR

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A28 582 864

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Alberto Melgar appeals a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

decision finding him ineligible to apply for relief under former § 212(c) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Melgar

conceded that his conviction for indecency with a child rendered him deportable

on two grounds, for his having committed a crime involving moralturpitude and

for his having committed an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i),

(iii).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 05-60690

2

Melgar’s challenges to the BIA’s determination are foreclosed by our

decisions in Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 363, 367-68 (5th Cir. 2007), and

Avilez-Granados v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 869, 872 (5th Cir. 2007). His petition for

review is thus DENIED in part. The BIA had authority to issue an order of

removal; however, Melgar should be granted an opportunity to apply for an

adjustment of status before the Immigration Judge, as he reasonably relied on

the Immigration Judge’s grant of §212(c) relief. See Avilez-Granados, 481 F.3d

at 872-73. The petition is thus GRANTED in part and the case is REMANDED

for further proceedings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 1996 (Unaudited) and the 
Consolidated Statements of Income for the Nine Months Ended September 30, 1996
(Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements. 
</LEGEND>
                        
                       
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                         17,450
<SECURITIES>                                   8,149
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,216
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    2,425
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               34,977
<PP&E>                                         1,348
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 41,388
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,890
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       54
<OTHER-SE>                                     35,980
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   41,388
<SALES>                                        31,457
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               31,457
<CGS>                                          12,084
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  12,084
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,289
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,315
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (26)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (26)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        




</TABLE>
STATE v. Carlton Washington TOMLINSON.

No. 61P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

James R. Grant, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Tomlinson, Carlton Washington.

Matthew Liles, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Robert A. Evans, Jr., District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of February 2016 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."
# C_2008092EN.01002502.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 28 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-399/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 92/51)

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 247, 20.10.2007.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-10486 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRENSON STOVALL,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas

(4:99-CR-175-1-P)

-------------------- March 26, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Brenson Stovall was convicted of four

counts of robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) & (b), four counts of

using and carrying a firearm during the robberies, and four counts

of brandishing a firearm during the robberies. Stovall argues that

(1) his post-arrest statements to a federal agent were involuntary

in violation of Miranda v. Arizona

, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), (2) the

government failed to prove jurisdiction and venue , (3) the

government failed to prove the losses associated with the robberies2

as alleged in the indictment, and (4) the verdict of not guilty for

one of the robbery counts was inconsistent with the guilty verdict

on the other counts.

None of Stovall’s arguments have merit. Stovall voluntarily

and knowingly waived his rights before talking to federal agents.

See Colorado v. Spring

, 479 U.S. 564, 577 (1987); Barnes v.

Johnson , 160 F.3d 218, 223 (5th Cir. 1998). There was sufficient

evidence establishing venue and territorial jurisdiction. S ee

United States v. White , 611 F.2d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 1980); United

States v. Turner

, 586 F.2d 395, 397 (5th Cir. 1978). There was

trial evidence proving the losses as alleged in the indictment.

The verdict was not inconsistent, and, even if it were, that would

not warrant reversal. U nited States v. Straach

, 987 F.2d 232, 240-

41 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
In the Matter of: S.M.W.

Erin Marie Leach, Petitioner, v. Phillip Rashaun Walker, Respondent.

No. COA16-138

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 16, 2016

AFFIRMED.
# C_2009267EN.01006102.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/61

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Dominio de la Vega v OHIM — Ambrosio Velasco (DOMINIO DE LA VEGA)

(Case T-458/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark DOMINIO DE LA VEGA - Earlier Community figurative mark PALACIO DE LA VEGA - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2009/C 267/108

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dominio de la Vega, SL (Requena, Spain) (represented by: E. Caballero Oliver and A. Sanz-Bernell y Martinéz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Laporta Insa, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Ambrosio Velasco, SA (Dicastillo, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, 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 Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 (Case R 1431/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Ambrosio Velasco, SA and Dominio de la Vega, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Dominio de la Vega, SL is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dominio de la Vega, SL is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

1

---
# C_2008142EN.01002202.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/22

---

Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-449/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 142/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 8 September 2008 – Rath v OHIM – Grandel (Epican Forte)**

**(Case T-373/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community trade mark Epican Forte – Earlier Community word mark EPIGRAN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Application manifestly lacking any foundation in law

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 32-33, 65-66)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 (Case R 1069/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. Grandel GmbH and Matthias Rath. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Matthias Rath |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark Epican Forte for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32 – Application No 2525251 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Dr. Grandel GmbH |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Word Mark EPIGRAN, initially registered for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 5, currently also registered for goods in Class 3 (Community mark No 560292), the opposition being directed solely against registration in Class 5 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld; partial rejection of the application for registration |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Matthias Rath to bear his own costs and pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Dr. Grandel GmbH. |
Kelly v. McCrory, et al.

115P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Mr. Willie T. Kelly, Jr., Pro Se

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of March 2016 by Plaintiff for Summons to Appear in Civil Complaint:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002          In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of LIN Television Corporation for thethree months ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Gary R. Chapman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,and Vincent L. Sadusky, Chief Financial Officer of the Company each hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: August 9, 2005 /s/ Gary R. Chapman   Gary R. Chapman   Chief Executive Officer           Dated: August 9, 2005 /s/ Vincent L. Sadusky   Vincent L. Sadusky   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
<Page>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

    As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report dated April 13, 2001 (except with respect to the matter discussed in
the second, third and fourth paragraphs of Note 1 and the third, fourth, fifth
and sixth paragraphs of Note 6, as to which the date is August 2, 2001),
included in this Form 10-K/A, into Learn2.com, Inc.'s previously filed
Registration Statements File No. 333-34350, 333-64365, 333-69861, 333-80357 and
333-90983 filed on Form S-3 and Registration Statements File No. 333-83695,
333-65525, 333-10341, 333-10339 and 333-92697 filed on Form S-8.

                                        ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

New York, New York
August 10, 2001
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned
officers of Inn of the Mountain Gods Resort and Casino (the "Company") does
hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q
for the period ended July 31, 2005 (the "REPORT") that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Dated:   November 2, 2005                  By:   /s/ Brian D. Parrish
                                                 -------------------------------
                                           Name:    Brian D. Parrish
                                           Title:   Chief Operating Officer



Dated:   November 2, 2005                  By:   /s/ Lance Kintz
                                                 -------------------------------
                                           Name:    Lance Kintz
                                           Title:   Chief Financial Officer


     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
# C_2012184EN.01001203.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/12

---

Order of the General Court of 25 April 2012 — Movimondo Onlus v Commission

(Case T-52/07) (1)

1

(Development cooperation - ECHO - EuropeAid - Exclusion of contracts and grants funded by the Community budget and by the EFD - Liquidation and discontinuance of the activity of the humanitarian organisation - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 184/22

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Movimondo Onlus — Organizzazione non governativa di cooperazione e solidarietà internazionale (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Vitali, G. Verusio, G.M. Roberti and A. Franchi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin, C. Hermes and F. Moro, Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5802 final of 1 December 2006 imposing an administrative penalty on the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Movimondo Onlus — Organizzazione non governativa di cooperazione e solidarietà internazionale.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Movimondo Onlus — Organizzazione non governativa di cooperazione e solidarietà internazionale and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Movimondo Onlus — Organizzazione non governativa di cooperazione e solidarietà internazionale and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---