alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008107EN.01004302.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/43

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 February 2008 — Air One SpA v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-266/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 107/73)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18U.S.C. Section 1350)**

 

Pursuant to therequirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certify as follows:

 

1.                                       DonnaLehmann is the Chief Financial Officer of BH/RE, LLC, a NevadaLimited-Liability Company (the “Company”).

 

2.                                       Theundersigned certifies to the best of her knowledge:

 

(A)  The Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended March 31, 2005 accompanying this Certification, in the formfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (the “Exchange Act”); and

 

(B)  The information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  May 16,  2005 |                    |
|----------------------------|-------------------------|
|                       |                    |
|                       |                    |
|                       | /S/ Donna Lehmann       |   |
|                       | Donna Lehmann           |
|                       | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 10.1

                     CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS (1) 1\1

Saint - Petersburg, Russia                                        June, 05, 2014


     BETWEEN: KARNET CAPITAL CORP, represented by Director Aleksandr Chuiko (the
"Seller") Lensoveta 42, app. 48, S-Petersburg, Russia.

     AND: KALYNKA 25 (the "Buyer"), represented by Director Dmitriy Sizov (the
"Buyer) Konushennaya st, 9b, S-Petersburg, Russia, have concluded the present
Contract as follows:

1. SALE OF GOODS

     Seller shall sell, to buyer the following goods:
     Food waist disposers in assortment
     The range of products for delivery of each batch is defined in the invoice.

2. CONSIDERATION

     Buyer shall accept the goods and pay the sum for the goods.

3. IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

     Identification of the goods to this agreement shall not be deemed to have
been made until both buyer and seller have specified that the goods in question
are to be appropriated to the performance of this agreement.

4. PAYMENT ON RECEIPT

     Buyer shall make payment for the goods at the time when, and at the place
where, the goods are received by buyer.

5. RISK OF LOSS

     The risk of loss from any casualty to the goods, regardless of the cause,
shall be on seller until the goods have been accepted by buyer.

6. WARRANTY OF NO ENCUMBRANCES

     Seller warrants that the goods are now free, and that at the time of
delivery shall be free from any security interest or other lien or encumbrance.

7. WARRANTY OF TITLE

     Furthermore, seller warrants that at the time of signing this agreement
seller neither knows, nor has reason to know, of the existence of any
outstanding title or claim of title hostile to the rights of seller in the
goods.
<PAGE>
8. RIGHT OF INSPECTION

     Buyer shall have the right to inspect the goods on arrival and, within 10
business days after delivery, buyer must give notice to seller of any claim for
damages on account of condition, quality or grade of the goods, and buyer must
specify the basis of the claim of buyer in detail. The failure of buyer to
comply with these conditions shall constitute irrevocable acceptance of the
goods by buyer.

     The parties have executed this agreement in Saint - Petersburg, June, 05
2014 year This Contract is concluded and enters into force upon signature by the
Parties.

SELLER


Director Aleksandr Chuiko                  /s/ Aleksandr Chuiko
                                           -------------------------------------


BUYER


Director Dmitri Sizov                      /s/ Dmitri Sizov
                                           -------------------------------------

                                       2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3915 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3915

 To direct the Secretary of Education to modify the FAFSA to include a 
  space for the purpose of identifying whether a student is a foster 
                     youth, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 16, 2014

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Education to modify the FAFSA to include a 
  space for the purpose of identifying whether a student is a foster 
                     youth, 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. IDENTIFICATION OF FOSTER YOUTH ON THE FAFSA.

    Section 483(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1090(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(13) Foster youth.--The Secretary shall--
                    ``(A) include a space on the forms developed under 
                this subsection for the purpose of identifying students 
                who are foster youth or were in the foster care system 
                and who are seeking financial assistance under this 
                title; and
                    ``(B) notify each student who identifies him or 
                herself under subparagraph (A) as a foster youth or as 
                having been in the foster care system of the student's 
                potential eligibility for Federal student financial 
                aid, including postsecondary education programs through 
                the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program 
                under section 477 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
                677) and any other Federal programs under which such 
                student may be eligible to receive assistance.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2008 – Dada v OHIM –Dada (DADA)**

**(Case T-101/07)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for a figurative Community trade mark DADA – Earlier national word mark DADA – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Genuine use of the earlier trade mark – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94

1.                     *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 46-48)*

2.                     *Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the
earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 29-31)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2007 (Case R 1342/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Dada Srl and Dada SpA. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Dada SpA |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark DADA for services in Class 42 – Application No 1903111 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Dada Srl |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Italian word mark DADA, for services in Classes 35, 37, 38 and 42, and the company name DADA, used in business in Italy to identify the following activities: ‘management of commercial affairs, commercial administration, office work, real estate, telecommunications, education, training, legal services, computer programming’ |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld; registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Dada SpA to pay the costs. |
* 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. 08-10454

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WALTER EARL SMITH, II

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-66-ALL

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Walter Earl Smith, II

presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Brown,

920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir. 1991), abrogated on other grounds by United

States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir. 2006), which held that a district

court may order a term of imprisonmentto run consecutively with an unimposed

state sentence. He also presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by

United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), which rejected a

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 8, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10454

2

Commerce Clause challenge to the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute, 18

U.S.C. § 922(g). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
1

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

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1844

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

A.E.B., Juvenile, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 7, 2008

Filed: October 1, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A.E.B. challenges as unreasonable the 9-month detention sentence the district

court1

 imposed following revocation of his juvenile probation. He argues that the

court abused its discretion because it did not “fairly take into account” certain 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, as it did not properly consider his educational goals and

achievements while on probation, and it made a statement at sentencing about his

alleged drug use that was not supported by the record. 
-2-

We reject this argument. The district court stated that it had taken into account

all the section 3553 factors. Moreover, the court was not required to comment

explicitly on A.E.B.’s educational goals and achievements. See United States v.

M.R.M., 513 F.3d 866, 868 (8th Cir. 2008) (while this court has found reference to

some § 3553(a) factors useful in determining whether district court permissibly

considered certain evidence as relevant in juvenile proceeding, it has not declared that

district court must balance all § 3553(a) factors in making juvenile disposition),

petition for cert. filed, (U.S. June 17, 2008) (No. 07-11488); cf. United States v. White

Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court need not mechanically list

every § 3553(a) consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of

supervised release). To the extent the district court’s reference to A.E.B.’s alleged

drug use was improper, we find no indication that the court gave this allegation

significant weight in determining his sentence. See United States v. Long Soldier, 431

F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (abuse of discretion occurs when court, inter alia,

gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor).

After careful review, we conclude that A.E.B.’s revocation sentence is not

unreasonable. See United States v. Griggs, 431 F.3d 1110, 1111, 1115 (8th Cir. 2005)

(reviewing sentence imposed after revocation of probation under “unreasonableness”

standard announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 258-63 (2005)); cf.

M.R.M., 513 F.3d at 868 (this court has jurisdiction to determine whether sentence

imposed under Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act was imposed in violation of law or

is plainly unreasonable; district court enjoys broader discretion when sentencing

juvenile offender than when sentencing adult).

Accordingly, we allow counsel to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4137 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4137

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 17 (legislative day, September 16), 2014

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To prohibit assistance provided under the program of block grants to 
States for temporary assistance for needy families from being accessed 
  through the use of an electronic benefit transfer card at any store 
                    that offers marijuana for sale.

    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 ``Preserving Welfare for Needs Not 
Weed Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF ELECTRONIC BENEFIT TRANSFER CARD TO 
              ACCESS TANF ASSISTANCE AT ANY STORE THAT OFFERS MARIJUANA 
              FOR SALE.

    (a) Prohibition.--Section 408(a)(12)(A) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 608(a)(12)(A)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(iv) any establishment that offers 
                        marihuana (as defined in section 102(16) of the 
                        Controlled Substances Act) for sale.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date that is 2 years after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 16, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 – Duro Sweden v OHIM (EASYCOVER)**

**(Case T-346/07)**

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

1.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed
exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94,
Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 54-55, 63, 67-68)*

2.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid
of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 75-76)*

3.                     *Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Observance of the rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art.
73) (see paras 79-80)*

**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. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Duro Sweden AB |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark EASYCOVER for goods in Classes 19, 24 and 27 – Application No 4114567 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

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) as regards goods in the category ‘monuments, not of metal’; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 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. |
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ROBERT J. SPAHN,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

Eric K. Shinseki, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-7006

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 11-1846, Judge Mary J. Schoelen.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

Upon consideration of Robert J. Spahn’s unopposed 

motion to withdraw his appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

Case: 13-7006 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 05/09/2013
2 ROBERT SPAHN V. SHINSEKI

 FOR THE COURT

 

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk 

s21

Issued As A Mandate: May 9, 2013

Case: 13-7006 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 05/09/2013
STATE of North Carolina v. Quentin Valentino COLES, Defendant.

No. COA15-899.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Error.
State of North Carolina, v. Gary Dean Webb.

No. COA 16-267

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1  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 of Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Tidwell, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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.  Date: December 10, 2015  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
State of North Carolina v. Lowell Thomas Manring

No. 408P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Franklin E. Wells, Jr., Attorney at Law, Asheboro, for Manring, Lowell Thomas.

James Bernier, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd of November 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 8th of December 2016."
Exhibit 23



                          Independent Auditors' Consent



        The Board of Directors
        Horizon Financial Services, Inc.:


        We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
        on Form S-8 of Horizon Financial Services, Inc. of our report dated
        August 1, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Horizon
        Financial Services, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2001 and 2000,
        and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
        stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each
        of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2001, which report
        appears in the June 30, 2001, annual report on Form 10-K of Horizon
        Financial Services, Inc.


        /s/ KPMG LLP
        ------------
        KPMG LLP



        Des Moines, Iowa
        September 28, 2001
STATE of North Carolina, Plaintiff, v. Octavius Lamarr THOMPSON, Defendant.

No. COA15-633.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 21, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 23

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Horizon Financial Services Corporation:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference  in the  Registration  Statement  No.
2-76674  on Form S-8 of Horizon  Financial  Services  Corporation  of our report
dated August 2, 2004,  relating to the  consolidated  balance  sheets of Horizon
Financial  Services  Corporation and  subsidiaries as of June 30, 2004 and 2003,
and the related consolidated statements of operations,  changes in stockholders'
equity  and  comprehensive  income,  and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year  period  ended June 30, 2004,  which  report  appears in the June 30,
2004, annual report on Form 10-K of Horizon Financial Services Corporation.


                                                    /s/ KPMG LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
September 28, 2004


                                       51
Exhibit 32.1  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 of Develocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen B. Schneer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   /s/ Stephen B. Schneer Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer December 12, 2008