alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Stevie PARKER, Employee, Plaintiff, v. WEST PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES, Employer, and The Phoenix Insurance Co. (c/o Travelers Insurance), Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA16-447

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

AFFIRMED.
TAYLOR v. LEWIS

301P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 2, 2016

Michael Anthony Taylor, for Taylor, Michael Anthony.

Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of August 2016 by Petitioner to Appoint Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd of September 2016."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6682

HOWARD W. PAYNE, JR., 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

DIRECTOR, VA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00152-LMB-TRJ) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 17, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Howard W. Payne, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Howard W. Payne, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’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. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 

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. 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 Payne has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Payne’s motion for appointment of counsel 

and an evidentiary hearing, 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 

2 
3 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
STATE of North Carolina v. Darryll Douglas CLAY

No. COA16-564

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 21, 2017

AFFIRMED.
# Official Journal C 177/2 Ju

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.177.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 177 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 532 July 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.177.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 177

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 532 July 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2010/C 177/01 | Consolidated version of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of 19 June 1991 | 1 |
| | 3 |
| 2010/C 177/02 | Consolidated version of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991 | 37 |
| | 39 |
| 2010/C 177/03 | Consolidated version of theRules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 25 July 2007 | 71 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2010/C 177/01

Consolidated version of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of 19 June 1991

1

3

2010/C 177/02

Consolidated version of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991

37

39

2010/C 177/03

Consolidated version of theRules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 25 July 2007

71

---

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

EN
# C_2010317EN.01002601.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2010 — CNH Global v OHIM (Combination of the colours red, black and grey for a tractor)

(Case T-378/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours red, black and grey applied to the exterior surfaces of a tractor - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 317/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CNH Global NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister, and R. Harrison, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2007 (Case R 1642/2006-1), relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a sign representing a tractor in red, black and grey

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CNH Global NV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CNH Global NV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOUND IN THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM
10-K FOR THE TWELVE MONTH PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             374
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,797
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,981
<PP&E>                                          31,235
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,319
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,826
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           160
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,690
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,522
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               329,572
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  320,442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,373
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    434
<INCOME-TAX>                                       879
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (445)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (445)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
# C_2011331EN.01001603.xml

| 12.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-442/07) (1)

1

(State aid - Aviation sector - Aid granted by the Italian authorities to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana - Action for failure to act - Failure by the Commission to define its position - Obligation to act)

2011/C 331/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, S. Noë and E. Righini, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Air One SpA (Chieti, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, C. Santacroce and G. Belotti, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in unlawfully failing to define its position on the applicant’s complaints concerning, first, aid allegedly granted by the Italian Republic to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana and, second, an alleged infringement of competition law

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the Commission of the European Communities failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt a decision in respect of (i) the transfer of the 100 Alitalia employees, complained of in the letter of 16 June 2006 sent to the Commission by Ryanair Ltd, (ii) the compensation granted following the attacks of 11 September, complained of in the letters of 3 November and 13 December 2005 sent to the Commission by Ryanair, and (iii) the reductions in airport charges at hub airports, from which Alitalia, in particular, is claimed to have benefited, complained of in those letters of 3 November and 13 December 2005; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the Commission of the European Communities failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt a decision in respect of (i) the transfer of the 100 Alitalia employees, complained of in the letter of 16 June 2006 sent to the Commission by Ryanair Ltd, (ii) the compensation granted following the attacks of 11 September, complained of in the letters of 3 November and 13 December 2005 sent to the Commission by Ryanair, and (iii) the reductions in airport charges at hub airports, from which Alitalia, in particular, is claimed to have benefited, complained of in those letters of 3 November and 13 December 2005;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each of the parties, including Air One SpA, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each of the parties, including Air One SpA, to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CATHERINE V. KING,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D23-592

LT Case No. 2020-CF-037756-N

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Decision filed August 1, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Brevard County,

Charles G. Crawford, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and 

Teresa D. Sutton, Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, JAY and PRATT, JJ., concur.
# C_2009006EN.01002702.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/27

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Commission v B2 Test

(Case T-317/07) (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - Contract concluded in the framework of the specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of industrial and materials technologies (1994-1998) - Breach of contract - Repayment of balance of advance paid by the Commission)

(2009/C 6/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Escobar Guerrero, Agent, assisted by E. Boutier and J. Marthan, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: B2 Test SA (Gardanne, France) (represented by: M. Baffert, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Application under Article 238 EC seeking to obtain repayment of the balance of the advance paid by the European Community, plus late-payment interest thereon, in the framework of the contract BRST-CT-98-5452, and the payment of damages with interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders B2 Test SA to repay to the Commission the principal sum of EUR 43 437,94, increased by late-payment interest at the statutory annual rate applicable in France, from 31 July 2002 until the debt has been paid in full; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders B2 Test SA to repay to the Commission the principal sum of EUR 43 437,94, increased by late-payment interest at the statutory annual rate applicable in France, from 31 July 2002 until the debt has been paid in full;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders B2 Test to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders B2 Test to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
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 April 30, 2011 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: June 27, 2011  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 13-3072

___________________________ James A. Widtfeldt, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant , v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; James Daugherty, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees .

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________ Submitted: June 16, 2014 Filed: June 23, 2014 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. James Widtfeldt appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his pro se action, in which he alleged, among other things, that defendants attempted to violate a tax court 1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.order by pursuing tax collection against hi m. He sought damages and injunctive relief. Upon careful review, see Pagonis v. United States , 575 F.3d 809, 812 (8th Cir. 2009), we conclude that dismissal was proper: sovereign immunity shields defendants from Widtfeldt’s claim for money damages, seeF.D.I.C. v. Meyer , 510 U.S. 471, 474 (1994), and his attempt to enjoin tax coll ection is prohibited by the Anti-Injunction Act, see 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-2-
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed August 7, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1476

Lower Tribunal No. 17-7669

________________

Viktoria Benkovitch,

Appellant,

vs.

U.S. Bank National Association, etc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara 

Areces, Judge.

Viktoria Benkovitch, in proper person.

Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, and Dorrella L. Gallaway

(Atlanta, GA), for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Appellant, Viktoria Benkovitch, appeals the trial court’s order, which 

denied her (1) motion seeking to vacate and set aside the consent final 

judgment of foreclosure; (2) objection to foreclosure sale; (3) motion to 

vacate and set aside the foreclosure sale and certificate of sale; (4) motion 

for involuntary dismissal of the foreclosure complaint for failure to join an 

indispensable party; and (5) request for an evidentiary hearing.

Following our review of the briefs and the record on appeal, we find no 

abuse of discretion or error by the trial court and affirm. See S. Palm Beach 

Inv. v. Ragatta Trading, Ltd., 789 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding 

former owners of property not proper parties to foreclosure suit where they 

had transferred their rights and interest in the property to a third party and 

plaintiff was seeking only to foreclose the mortgage, not a deficiency 

judgment); Mitchell v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 763 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 358) (reiterating that mortgagor who has conveyed his interest in 

property to another prior to foreclosure filing is “neither necessary nor proper 

part[y] to a suit to foreclose unless a deficiency decree is sought.”) (citation 

omitted). See also Venezia v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 306 So. 3d 1096, 

1097 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“[T]he law is well-established that an objection to 

a foreclosure sale must be directed toward conduct that occurred at, or was 

directly related to, the foreclosure sale.”)
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 184 (Friday, September 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55926-55927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19067]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY


Cultural Diversity Advisory Committee Meetings (Teleconferences)

    Times and Dates: September 21, 2005, 3 p.m. Eastern; November 4, 
2005, 3 p.m. Eastern; March 2, 2006, 3 p.m. Eastern; June 1, 2006, 3 
p.m. Eastern; September 7, 2006, 3 p.m. Eastern.
    Place: National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 
850, Washington, DC.
    Agency: National Council on Disability (NCD).

[[Page 55927]]

    Status: All parts of these meetings will be open to the public. 
Those interested in participating in these meetings should contact the 
appropriate staff member listed below. Due to limited resources, only a 
few telephone lines will be available for the call.
    Agenda: Roll call, announcements, reports, new business, 
adjournment.
    Contact Person for More Information: Geraldine (Gerrie) Drake 
Hawkins, Ph.D., Program Analyst, NCD, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 850, 
Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (voice), 202-272-2074 (TTY), 202-
272-2022 (fax), <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c3b343d2b3735322f1c323f38723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bed9d6dfc9d5d7d0cdfed0ddda90d9d1c8">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Cultural Diversity Advisory Committee Mission: The purpose of NCD's 
Cultural Diversity Advisory Committee is to provide advice and 
recommendations to NCD on issues affecting people with disabilities 
from culturally diverse backgrounds. Specifically, the committee will 
help identify issues, expand outreach, infuse participation, and 
elevate the voices of underserved and unserved segments of this 
nation's population that will help NCD develop federal policy that will 
address the needs and advance the civil and human rights of people from 
diverse cultures.

    Dated: August 17, 2005.
Ethel D. Briggs,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 05-19067 Filed 9-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-MA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2020129EN.01000201.xml

| 20.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/2

---

Action brought on 23 December 2019 — Impera v EUIPO — Euro Games Technology (Flaming Forties)

(Case T-874/19)

(2020/C 129/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Impera GmbH (Steinhaus, Austria) (represented by: C. Straberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Euro Games Technology Ltd (Vranya-Lozen-Triugulnika, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Flaming Forties — Application for registration No 16 729 154

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2019 in Case R 2304/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | allow the applicant’s European Union trade mark application No 16 729 154 in its entirety or in the alternative, remit the proceedings to the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the applicant’s European Union trade mark application No 16 729 154 in its entirety or in the alternative, remit the proceedings to the Board of Appeal;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, if acting as intervener, to pay the applicant’s costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, if acting as intervener, to pay the applicant’s costs;

| — | order EUIPO, if the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO is not being allocated the costs, to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO, if the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO is not being allocated the costs, to pay the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
In re: Gutowski

280P15-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Michael D. Gutowski, Waxhaw, Pro Se.

Ms. Mary Anne Gutowski, Pro Se.

Ms. Emily F. Lowder, Mr. Michael T. Hosmer, Mr. Jeremy B. Wilkins, Attorneys at Law, For Bank of America, N.A.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of August 2015 by Respondents for Stay in Light of Bankruptcy Filing:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."