alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008079EN.01003802.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/38

---

Action brought on 27 December 2007 — Bosman v Council

(Case F-145/07)

(2008/C 79/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Pierre Bosman (Dendermondsesteenweg, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and P.S. Gennari Curlo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the individual decision of 28 February 2007 refusing the household allowance for the purposes of calculating retirement pension rights.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the statement of 27 February 2007 determining retirement pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the statement of 27 February 2007 determining retirement pension rights;

| — | order the defendant to pay the household allowance applied for as from 1 March 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the household allowance applied for as from 1 March 2007;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 382 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 382

  To provide for State approval of national monuments, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2013

    Ms. Foxx (for herself, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mrs. 
 Blackburn, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Gohmert, and Mr. Mulvaney) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for State approval of national monuments, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preserve Land Freedom For Americans 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

    The Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended--
            (1) in section 2 (16 U.S.C. 431), by striking ``sec. 2. 
        That the'' and inserting the following:

``SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

    ``After obtaining approval from the Governor and the legislature of 
each State within the boundaries of which the proposed national 
monument would be located, the''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 5. RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLIC USE.

    ``The Secretary of the Interior shall not implement any 
restrictions on the public use of a national monument until the 
expiration of an appropriate review period (as determined by the 
Secretary of the Interior) providing for public input and State 
approval under section 2.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2009032EN.01003001.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/30

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Deichmann-Schuhe v OHIM — Design for Woman (DEITECH)

(Case T-86/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a figurative Community trade mark DEITECH - Earlier national and international figurative trade marks DEI-tex - Relative grounds for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 32/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. KG (Essen, Germany) (initially represented by O. Rauscher, lawyer, then by O. Rauscher and A. Schulz, lawyers)

Applicant

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Design for Woman SA (Bogotá, Colombia)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2007 (case number R 791/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. KG and Design for Woman SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Partially annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 January 2007 (case number R 791/2006-2) in so far as it finds that genuine use of the earlier marks has not been proven in respect of ‘shoes’ in Class 25 covered by the application for a Community trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Partially annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 January 2007 (case number R 791/2006-2) in so far as it finds that genuine use of the earlier marks has not been proven in respect of ‘shoes’ in Class 25 covered by the application for a Community trade mark;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

1

---
# C_2008301EN.01000702.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October 2008 — Marguerite Chetcuti v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-16/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Competition internal to the institution - Rejection of candidature - Conditions of admission)

(2008/C 301/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Marguerite Chetcuti (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2006 in Case T-357/04 Chetcuti v Commission, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the appellant's action for annulment of the decision of the competition selection board of 22 June 2004 rejecting her candidature and for annulment of the subsequent acts of the competition procedure — Infringement of Articles 4, 27 and 29(1) of the Staff Regulations in the version in force until 30 April 2004 — Concept of ‘internal competition’ and the objective assigned to recruitment of ensuring that the institution secures the services of persons of the ‘highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity’ — Eligibility of auxiliary staff

Chetcuti

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ms Chetcuti to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Chetcuti to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 of Cameron International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stephen Samuels, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
11th day of May, 2005.



/s/ Stephen Samuels
------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Mickey Gene MELLON

No. 215P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

C. Scott Holmes, Attorney at Law, for Mellon, Mickey Gene.

Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th of June 2016 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."
Mary Boggs, Petitioner, v. N.C. Department of Environmental Quality, Respondent.

No. COA16-188

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 18, 2016

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 08-6481 

BRENT RAY BELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate

Judge. (3:07-cv-00464-MHL)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 19, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brent Ray Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Misbach, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

 2 

PER CURIAM:

Brent Ray Bell seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

order*

 denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bell

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 15-545V 

Filed: October 5, 2015 

UNPUBLISHED 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

CATHERINE HENRY, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

 * Tetanus-Diphtheria-Acellular-Pertussis 

 * Vaccine (Tdap); Shoulder Injury Related 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA); 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Special Processing Unit (SPU). 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Michael G. McLaren, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, PC, Memphis, TN, for 

petitioner. 

Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On May 28, 2015, Catherine Henry (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation 

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et 

seq.,

2 [the “Vaccine Act”]. Petitioner alleges that as a result of receiving a tetanusdiphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on June 3, 2014, she suffered a shoulder 

injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was 

assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 

On October 5, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report 

at 1. Specifically, respondent states that petitioner’s “alleged injury is consistent with 

SIRVA; that a preponderance of the evidence establishes her SIRVA was caused-in-

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to 

post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 

note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 
2

fact by the Tdap vaccination she received on June 3, 2014; and that no other causes for 

petitioner’s SIRVA were identified.” Id. at 3. Respondent further states that the records 

show that petitioner suffered the sequela of her injury for more than six months. Id. 

Thus, respondent states that “petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for 

compensation under the Act.” Id. 

 In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence presented, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master
In the MATTER OF the Appeal of: MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

No. 171P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Alexander P. Sands, III, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, David S. Pokela, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Michelin North America, Inc.

Ronald L. Gibson, Attorney at Law, for Mecklenburg County.

Kenneth R. Murphy, III, Attorney at Law, Allison Pope Cooper, Attorney at Law, Wilson, for Wake County.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 20th of May 2016 by Michelin North America, Inc. in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
**EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, David C. Mahoney, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) [Not applicable.]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.                                           /s/ David C. Mahoney  Date: August 14, 2006 David C. Mahoney   President and Chief Executive Officer  
29
# C_2010301EN.01002402.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Italy v Commission

(Joined Cases T-166/07 and T-285/07) (1)

1

(Rules on the use of languages - Notice of open competitions for the recruitment of administrators and assistants - Publication in three official languages - Amendments - Publication in all the official languages - Choice of the second language from three languages - Regulation No 1 - Articles 27, 28 and 29(1) of the Staff Regulations - Article 1(1) and (2) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of non-discrimination - Misuse of power)

2010/C 301/38

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (in Case T-166/07 represented by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato, and in Case T-285/07, represented initially by P. Gentili and I. Braguglia, Agent, and subsequently by P. Gentili and R. Adam, Agent, and finally by P. Gentili and I. Bruni, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (in Case T-166/07, represented initially by J. Currall, H. Krämer and M. Velardo, Agents, and subsequently by J. Currall and I. Baquero Cruz, Agent, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, and in Case T-285/07, represented initially by J. Currall and A. Aresu, Agent, and subsequently by J. Currall and I. Baquero Cruz, assisted by A. Dal Ferro)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (in Case T-166/07 represented by D. Kriaučiūnas, Agent), and Hellenic Republic (in Case T-285/07 represented by S. Vodina and M. Michelogiannaki, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/94/07 for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of Administrators (AD 5) in the field of information, communication and the media (OJ 2007 C 45 A, p. 3) and Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AST/37/07 for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of Assistants (AST 3) in the field of communication and information (OJ 2007 C 45 A, p. 15), and Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/95/07 for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of Administrators (AD 5) in the field of information science (library/documentation) (OJ 2007 C 103 A, p. 7).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

1

---
Filed 6/17/09 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2009 ND 97

Kevin Deon Moore, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20090036

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Debbie Gordon Kleven, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Mark Taylor Blumer, P.O. Box 475, Valley City, N.D. 58072, for petitioner and appellant.

Mark Jason McCarthy, Assistant State’s Attorney and Christopher S. Pieske, third-year law student, P.O. Box 5607, Grand Forks, N.D. 58206-5607, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.

Moore v. State

No. 20090036

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Kevin Deon Moore appealed from a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief.  Moore’s conviction for attempted murder was affirmed in State v. Moore, 2005 ND 183, 709 N.W.2d 21, and the denial of his first application for post-conviction relief was affirmed in Moore v. State, 2007 ND 96, 734 N.W.2d 336.  In this application for post-conviction relief, Moore contended he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because he did not understand its consequences; he had ineffective assistance of counsel; his attorney, the prosecution, and the court discriminated against him; and the statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutional.  The district court summarily denied the application without a hearing, concluding his claims were without merit and barred by res judicata and misuse of process.  We affirm the district court’s order under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7); Klose v. State, 2008 ND 143, ¶ 10, 752 N.W.2d 192 (res judicata precludes claims or variations of claims raised in previous proceedings; misuse of process precludes claims that could have been raised in a prior post-conviction proceeding or other proceeding).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner
State of North Carolina v. Joseph Riddle

No. COA16-197

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 20, 2016

NO ERROR.
STATE v. Dwain BELL

129P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Dwain Bell, for Bell, Dwain.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of May 2016 by Petitioner for Bill of Complaint:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."