alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 298/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 298 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5121 November 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 298

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5121 November 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 298/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5306 — Metso Power/Wärtsilä Finland/JV) (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 298/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5306 — Metso Power/Wärtsilä Finland/JV) (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 298/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2008/C 298/03 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to national regional investment aid (1) | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 298/02

Euro exchange rates

2

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2008/C 298/03

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to national regional investment aid (1)

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 298/04 | Notice regarding the termination of the process concerning the implementation of the Panel report adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body concerning the anti-dumping measure applicable to imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway | 7 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 298/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5363 — Santander/Bradford & Bingley Assets) (1) | 9 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

Commission

2008/C 298/04

Notice regarding the termination of the process concerning the implementation of the Panel report adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body concerning the anti-dumping measure applicable to imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway

7

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2008/C 298/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5363 — Santander/Bradford & Bingley Assets) (1)

9

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2008/C 298/06 | Note to the reader(see page 3 of the cover) | s3 |

2008/C 298/06

Note to the reader(see page 3 of the cover)

Note to the reader

s3

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
1The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-2926

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Lorna Spotted Tail, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: December 7, 2000

 Filed: December 20, 2000

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

While serving the supervised release portion of a sentence she had received for

aiding and abetting assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,

113(c), and 1153, Lorna Spotted Tail admitted to violating her release conditions.

Following a revocation hearing, the district court1 revoked supervised release and

imposed a 9-month term of imprisonment and 15 months supervised release. Spotted

Tail appeals, claiming her revocation sentence is excessive.
-2-

When a district court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant

has violated a release condition, the district court may revoke supervised release. See

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We review for abuse of discretion. See United States v.

Grimes, 54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir. 1995). Having reviewed the record and Spotted

Tail’s brief, we conclude the district court’s revocation sentence neither exceeds the

limits of section 3583, nor constitutes an abuse of discretion. See 18 U.S.C.

§§ 3583(e)(3), (h); United States v. St. John, 92 F.3d 761, 766 (8th Cir. 1996)

(maximum period of time defendant’s freedom can be restrained upon revocation of

supervised release is capped by original supervised release term).

Accordingly we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2009006EN.01002801.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/28

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 November 2008 — Duro Sweden v OHIM (EASYCOVER)

(Case T-346/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark EASYCOVER - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94)

(2009/C 6/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Duro Sweden AB (Gävle, Sweden) (represented by: R. Bird, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and D. Botis, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 July 2007 (Case R 1065/2005-4) relating to an application for registration of the word mark EASYCOVER as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 July 2007 (Case R 1065/2005 4) in so far as concerns goods in the category ‘monuments, not of metal’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 July 2007 (Case R 1065/2005 4) in so far as concerns goods in the category ‘monuments, not of metal’;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Duro Sweden AB to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of OHIM's costs. OHIM is ordered to pay one quarter of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Duro Sweden AB to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of OHIM's costs. OHIM is ordered to pay one quarter of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
# CE2004078EN.01045002.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/450 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/450

---

(2004/C 78 E/0474)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3240/03

by Thierry Cornillet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Abolition of operating grants for Europe Info-Points

Subject:

The Commission recently decided to abolish the operating grant for Europe Info-Points despite the fact that the present juncture will be decisive for the future of the European Union.

Given the current context, i.e. the Intergovernmental Conference, national campaigns for the adoption of the future Constitution and the forthcoming European elections, is the Commission aware that its decision could not have come at a more inappropriate time?

Does the Commission fully realise how valuable the Europe Info-Points are in terms of providing information and serving as communication channels with a view to bringing Europe closer to its citizens?

Moreover, in view of the new Financial Regulation, as well as the size of the grant allocated by the Commission, why did it not provide for a gradual reduction rather than a sudden stop, which is plunging these offices into financial difficulty, forcing them to reduce staff and, in some cases, to close down?

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136540 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: 136540 

 COA: 274579 

Saginaw CC: 06-027203-FH 

MARQUIS JEROME VANCE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

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

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

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

s0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. AP-76,010, AP-76,011, AP-76,012, AP-76,013 & AP-76,014

EX PARTE STEVEN CHARLES PHILLIPS, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. F82-77700-Q; F82-77162-Q; F82-79140-Q; F82-86866-Q

 IN THE 204 DISTRICT COURT FROM DALLAS COUNTY AND TH

CAUSE NO. F82-77161-M IN THE 194 DISTRICT COURT FROM TH

DALLAS COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two

aggravated sexual abuse causes, sentenced to forty and thirty years’ imprisonment, indecency with

a child, sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, burglary of a habitation, sentenced to thirty years’

imprisonment, and aggravated rape, sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The Fifth Court of

Appeals affirmed his convictions for one of the aggravated sexual abuse cases and the burglary of
a habitation. Phillips v. State, No. 05-83-1058-CR (Tex. App.–Dallas, delivered October 26, 1984)

and Phillips v. State, No. 05-82-01260-CR (Tex. App.–Dallas, delivered January 4, 1984). Applicant

pleaded guilty to the other causes and no appeal was taken from those.

Applicant contends that he has newly discovered evidence that he is actually innocent of

these offenses. The trial court has determined that no rational jury would have convicted Applicant

in light of the new evidence, which was previously unavailable to Applicant. The evidence, obtained

pursuant to post-conviction DNA testing and investigation, indicates that it was another individual,

and not Applicant, who committed at least one of these offenses. Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex

parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202, 209 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 

Relief is granted. The judgments in Cause Nos. F82-77700-Q; F82-77162-Q; F82-79140-Q

and F82-86866-Q in the 204 District Court of Dallas County and Cause No. F82-77161-M in the th

194 District Court of Dallas County are set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the th

Sheriff of Dallas County to answer the charges against him.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Parole Division.

Delivered: October 1, 2008

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 4.1


 




	
  

  	
  NOT VALID
  UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED BY TRANSFER AGENT. INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
  STATE OF DELAWARE. Lpath, Inc. AUTHORIZED COMMON STOCK: 100,000,000 SHARES
  PAR VALUE: $0.001 CUSIP NO. 548910 30 6 Shares of Lpath, Inc. Common Stock
  transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized
  attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This
  certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and
  registered by the Registrar. Witness the facsimile seal of the Corporation
  and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. Dated: . . . .
  . L , I .18 S 2002DELAWARE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PRESIDENT & CHIEF
  EXECUTIVE OFFICER
State v. Victor Adrian Gutierrez

118P15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Victor Adrian Gutierrez, for Gutierrez, Victor Adrian.

Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of September 2016 by Defendant for Subpoena Duces Tecum:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher Blake SQUIRE.

No. 422P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

Christopher Blake Squire, for Squire, Christopher Blake.

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

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 18th of December 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of January 2016."
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-299-CR

JOHN ALLAN DARLINGTON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 5 OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

Appellant John Allan Darlington attempts to appeal his conviction and

sentence for assault with bodily injury of a family member. The trial court’s

certification of appellant’s right of appeal states that appellant “has waived the

right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). 
2

On August 26, 2008, we notified appellant that the certification

indicating that he had waived his right to appeal had been filed in this court and

that the appeal would be dismissed unless appellant or any party desiring to

continue the appeal filed a timely response showing grounds for continuing the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 44.3. Appellant has not filed a

response. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2),

(d), 43.2(f); Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: September 25, 2008
State of North Carolina v. Mohammed Nadder Jilani

No. 172P15-5

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Mohammed Nadder Jilani, for Jilani, Mohammed Nadder.

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

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 27th of June 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

*523"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of June 2016 by Defendant for Writ of Prohibition:

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 20th of July 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-10205

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

In Re: ROBERT L. WALKER,

TAMIKO N. PEELE,

Debtors.

___________________________________________________

ROBERT WALKER,

TAMIKO N. PEELE, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

BARRY S. MITTELBERG, 

BARRY S. MITTELBERG, PA, 

USCA11 Case: 21-10205 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 21-10205

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:20-cv-81366-WPD

____________________

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Walker and Tamiko Peele, Chapter 13 debtors proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders granting Barry Mittelberg’s motions to allow 

a late-filed claim and for relief from a stay. Their notices of appeal 

indicate that they also seek to challenge the district court’s orders 

granting various filing extensions. 

After Walker and Peale filed this appeal, the bankruptcy 

court dismissed their Chapter 13 case. We recently dismissed their 

separate appeal of the district court’s denial of their motion to reconsider that Chapter 13 case’s dismissal. Walker v. U.S. Bank 

Nat’l Ass’n, No. 21-13937, 2022 WL 5237915, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 

6, 2022). We also recently affirmed the district court’s denial of a 

temporary injunction against their attorneys in the bankruptcy proceeding. In re Walker, No. 21-12114, 2022 WL 4477259, at *1 (11th 

Cir. Sept. 27, 2022). 

USCA11 Case: 21-10205 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Page: 2 of 3
21-10205 Opinion of the Court 3

We now deny as moot1 Walker and Peale’s appeal of orders 

related to Mittelberg—Walker’s attorney in a previous personal-injury case. As we explained in our earlier decision, we lack jurisdiction if a case is moot—for example, because the dismissal of a Chapter 13 case makes it impossible to grant the prevailing party any 

effectual relief. Id. at *1 (citing Neidich v. Salas, 783 F.3d 1215, 1216 

(11th Cir. 2015)). We can provide relief on collateral matters, but 

we can’t change the completed bankruptcy plan. Id.

Here, this appeal is moot because the district court order 

that Walker and Peale challenge relates to Mittelberg’s claim in the 

bankruptcy plan—it doesn’t concern a collateral matter. To the 

extent any of the various grievances and requests for relief that 

Walker and Peele raise on appeal are collateral matters, those arguments and requests for relief are outside the scope of this appeal.2

DISMISSED AS MOOT. 

1 We review jurisdictional issues de novo and can consider jurisdiction sua 

sponte. In re Donovan, 532 F.3d 1134, 1136 (11th Cir. 2008). 

2 Walker and Peele also move for fees and costs and for judicial notice of related proceedings. We conclude that granting that relief would be inappropriate here. Accordingly, we deny those motions as moot. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10205 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Page: 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<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>                                          26,050
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,124
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (476)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,974
<PP&E>                                           8,694
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (4,853)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,106
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,505
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            25
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,576
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,106
<SALES>                                         36,258
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,258
<CGS>                                            5,337
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,337
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,687
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,219
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,226
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,993
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,993
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                               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

    I, Sean S. Sullivan, the Chief Financial Officer of Cenveo, Inc. (the
"Company"), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

    (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o(d)); 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: February 28, 2007                       /S/  SEAN S. SULLIVAN
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                                  Sean S. Sullivan
                                               Chief Financial Officer