alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Carlton Eugene ANDERSON

No. 129A96-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Carlton Eugene Anderson, for Anderson, Carlton Eugene.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 16th of March 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Jackson County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of March 2017 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."
# Official Journal L 189/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 189 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6315 June 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 189

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6315 June 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 of 12 June 2020 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China and Egypt and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China and Egypt | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 of 12 June 2020 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China and Egypt and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China and Egypt

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
John F. STOWERS and Wife Susan Edward Stowers, Plaintiffs v. Michael J. PARKER, Julie A. Parker and Parker and Parker, a General Partnership, Defendants

No. COA16-747

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 21, 2017

APPEAL DISMISSED.
# C_2017086EN.01003201.xml

| 20.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/32

---

Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Westbrae Natural v EUIPO — Kaufland Warenhandel (COCONUT DREAM)

(Case T-65/17)

(2017/C 086/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Westbrae Natural, Inc. (Delaware, United States) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kaufland Warenhandel GmbH & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘COCONUT DREAM’ — Application for registration No 13 599 501

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2016 in Case R 182/2016-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | make an order concerning the costs in favour of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an order concerning the costs in favour of the applicant.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

APOTEX INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CEPHALON, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant,

AND

BARR LABORATORIES, INC., MYLAN 

LABORATORIES, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL 

INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS 

USA, INC., RANBAXY LABORATORIES, LTD., AND 

RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

Defendants.

______________________ 

2012-1417

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania in No. 06-CV-2768, 

Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg.

______________________ 

Decided: April 8, 2013

______________________ 
2 APOTEX, INC. v. CEPHALON, INC. 

ROBERT B. BREISBLATT, Katten Muchin Rosenman, 

LLP, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for plaintiff-appellee. 

With him on the brief were BRIAN J. SODIKOFF, MARTIN S.

MASAR, III and CHRISTINE E. BESTOR; HOWARD R. RUBIN 

and CHRISTOPHER D. JACKSON, of Washington, DC. 

WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and 

Dorr, LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were MARK C.

FLEMING, GREGORY P. TERAN, DANIEL M. ESRICK, and

ANDREW J. DANFORD; WILLIAM G. MCELWAIN, and

CAROLYN JACOBS CHACHKIN, of Washington, DC; ROBERT 

J. GUNTHER, JR. and OMAR KHAN, of New York, New York. 

______________________ 

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE, and O'MALLEY,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

We affirm the trial court’s judgments of invalidity and 

unenforceability with respect to Cephalon, Inc.’s (“Cephalon”) U.S. Reissue Patent No. 37,516. We do so with the

understanding that the court’s inequitable conduct finding was based on the conduct of Dr. Peter Grebow and Mr. 

Richard Burgoon, while acting within the course and 

scope of their employment or as officers and/or employees 

of Cephalon. No pleading asserted that Mr. Paul T. Clark 

committed inequitable conduct, and we do not read the 

opinion below as finding that he personally committed 

inequitable conduct. 

AFFIRMED
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 10, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 10, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20A0654. SHARON BARNES SUTTON v. STACEY KALBERMAN et al.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             297
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,402
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         66
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           2,711
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             2,687
<LOANS>                                         39,856
<ALLOWANCE>                                        291
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,433
<DEPOSITS>                                      35,864
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                532
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  45,433
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,077
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  179
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   170
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,426
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,664
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,664
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,762
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    700
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         700
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       423
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .79
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.99
<LOANS-NON>                                        593
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   293
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        2
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  291
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               291
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (in Thousands, Except Per Share Data)



                                               For the Years Ended December 31,
                                               --------------------------------
                                                1998         1997         1996
                                               ------       ------       ------
                                                                     
NET INCOME (LOSS)                             $(4,339)     $ 1,717      $ 3,319
                                               ======       ======       ====== 
                                                                     
BASIC EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE                                      
                                                                     
                                                                     
        Weighted average common                                      
           shares outstanding                   4,087        4,040        4,015
                                               ======       ======       ====== 
                                                                     
        Basic earnings (LOSS) per share       $ (1.06)     $  0.43      $  0.83
                                               ======       ======       ====== 
DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE                                   
                                                                     
        Weighted average common                                      
           shares outstanding                   4,087        4,040        4,015
                                                                     
        Add - Dilutive effect of outstanding                         
           options (as determined by the                             
           application of the treasury stock                         
           method)                                  0           72           92
                                               ------       ------       ------
                                                                     
        Adjusted weighted average common                             
           shares outstanding                   4,087        4,212        4,107
                                               ======       ======       ======
                                                                     
        Diluted earnings (loss) per share     $ (1.06)     $  0.42      $  0.81
                                               ======       ======       ======
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3975 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide coverage for 

low vision devices under Medicare, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2014 

Mr. OWENS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways 

and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

coverage for low vision devices under Medicare, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MEDICARE COVERAGE FOR LOW VISION DE4 VICES. 

5 (a) COVERAGE AS DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIP6 MENT.—Section 1861(n) of the Social Security Act (42 

7 U.S.C. 1395x(n)) is amended by inserting ‘‘low vision deVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:57 Feb 01, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3975.IH H3975

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3975 IH

1 vices (as defined in subsection (iii)(1)),’’ after ‘‘hospital 

2 beds,’’. 

3 (b) LOW VISION DEVICES DEFINED.—Section 1861 

4 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended 

5 by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

6 ‘‘Low Vision Device; Low Vision 

7 ‘‘(iii)(1) The term ‘low vision device’ means a device 

8 that— 

9 ‘‘(A) is an electronic optical device with one or 

10 more lenses that operates to modify or enlarge im11 ages; 

12 ‘‘(B) is prescribed by an ophthalmologist or op13 tometrist to an individual with low vision in order to 

14 address such low vision; and 

15 ‘‘(C) meets such other requirements as the Sec16 retary may prescribe. 

17 ‘‘(2) The term ‘low vision’ means macular degenera18 tion, glaucoma, or other visual impairment that— 

19 ‘‘(A) cannot be corrected by standard eye20 glasses, contact lenses, medication, or surgery; and 

21 ‘‘(B) interferes with the ability of the individual 

22 involved to perform everyday activities (as deter23 mined by the Secretary).’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3975 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply with respect to low vision devices 

3 furnished on or after January 1, 2016. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. Gregory Lynn GORDON.

No. 132P11-8.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Gregory Lynn Gordon, for Gordon, Gregory Lynn.

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 4th of September 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Union County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

LESLEE SILVERMAN TABAS AND 

RICHARD S. TABAS,

Petitioners

v.

MAIN LINE HEALTH, INC., LANKENAU 

HOSPITAL A/K/A LANKENAU MEDICAL 

CENTER, JOHN J. LYNCH, III, DANIEL C. 

LAZOWICK, D.O., JEROME SANTORO, 

M.D., THOMAS P. SOLLECITO, D.M.D., 

PHILLIP D. ROBINSON, FACHE W. 

RANDALL RUSSELL, M.D., MAIN LINE 

HEALTH HOME CARE AND HOSPICE, 

MOUNTAIN LAUREL RISK RETENTION 

GROUP, INC.,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 468 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
EXHIBIT 12.1



CERTIFICATION OF JAMES DEVONSHIRE

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)







---

Exhibit 12.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, James Devonshire, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of CDG Investments Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.



Date: March 24, 2005



James Devonshire

__________________________

James Devonshire, Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6738

CHRISTOPHER N. SHARIKAS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LORETTA K. KELLY,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00537-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 22, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew McGavock Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington,

Kentucky; Jennifer T. Stanton, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.

Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher N. Sharikas seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as

untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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. 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 Sharikas 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
# C_2009044EN.01007202.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/72

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Beatriz Acosta Iborra and Others v Commission

(Case F-93/07) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Promotion - 2006 promotion procedure - Ability to work in a third language)

(2009/C 44/126)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Beatriz Acosta Iborra (Alkmaar, Netherlands) and nine other officials of the Commission (represented by: N. Lhoëst, initially, and N. Lhoëst and S. Fernández Menéndez, subsequently, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Šulce and M. Simm, Agents)

Intervener:

Re:

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicants for failure to demonstrate that they were able to work in a third language for the 2006 promotion procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions not to promote for the 2006 promotion procedure Ms Acosta Iborra and the nine other officials of the Commission of the European Communities whose names appear annexed to this judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions not to promote for the 2006 promotion procedure Ms Acosta Iborra and the nine other officials of the Commission of the European Communities whose names appear annexed to this judgment;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicants;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007, p. 44.

1

---