alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010134EN.01002902.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/29

---

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 March 2010 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case T-42/06) (1)

1

(Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Decision not to defend his privileges and immunities - Action for annulment - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate - Action for damages - Conduct alleged against the Parliament - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Causal link)

2010/C 134/48

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented by: W. de Saint Just and G. Dubois, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, C. Karamarcos and A. Padowska and subsequently by H. Krück, D. Moore and A. Padowska, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for, first, annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 13 December 2005 not to defend the immunity and privileges of Mr Bruno Gollnisch and, second, compensation for the damage suffered by Mr Gollnisch as a result of that decision

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Rules that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Rules that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment;

| 2. | Dismisses the claim for damages; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the claim for damages;

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Mr Bruno Gollnisch, including those relating to the application for interim measures; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Mr Bruno Gollnisch, including those relating to the application for interim measures;

| 4. | Orders Mr Bruno Gollnisch to bear one third of his costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Bruno Gollnisch to bear one third of his costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54908-54909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18534]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; Seahawk 
Biosystems Corporation

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent 
to grant to Seahawk Biosystems Corporation, a revocable, nonassignable, 
exclusive license to practice in the fields of pathogen detection, 
disease and infection diagnostic testing, and genetic testing for 
veterinary applications (small and large animals, including equine); 
pathogen and toxin detection and genetic testing in food products 
derived from animals; pathogen and toxin detection and genetic testing 
in food processing; pathogen and toxin detection in, and monitoring of, 
public water, wastewater, and groundwater in the United States and 
certain foreign countries, the Government-Owned inventions described in 
Navy Case No. 97,198 entitled ``Method for Modifying Nitride Substrates 
for Covalent Immobilization of Aminated Molecules'' and any 
continuations, divisionals or re-issues thereof.

DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file 
written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later 
than October 4, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Research 
Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-
5320.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jane F. Kuhl, Technology Transfer 
Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555, Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20375-5320, telephone 202-767-3083. Due to U.S. Postal delays, please 
fax 202-404-7920, E-Mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#59322c3135192c2d3629303877372b357737382f2077343035"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3f544a57537f4a4b504f565e11514d5311515e494611525653">[email protected]</span></a> or use courier 
delivery to expedite response.


[[Page 54909]]


(Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR 404.)

    Dated: September 13, 2005.
I.C. Le Moyne Jr.,
Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Alternate 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-18534 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 18 December 2008 – Torres v OHIM – Gala-Salvador Dalí (TG Torre
Galatea)**

**(Case T-8/07)**

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community figurative mark TG Torre Galatea – Earlier Community word mark TORRES 10 – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion

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 43, 71)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 October 2006 (Case R 168/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Fundacion Gala-Salvador Dalí. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Fundación Gala-Salvador Dalí |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark TG Torre Galatea for goods in Class 33 – Application No 2730513 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Miguel Torres, SA |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Community word mark TORRES 10 for goods in Class 33 (Application No 466896), and various other Community, national and international marks |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld and application for registration of the mark refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal allowed, contested decision set aside and opposition dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Miguel Torres, SA to pay the costs. |
Jamar Seron Randall, Plaintiff, v. Cloud & Williams, PLLC and Cory A. Williams, Defendants.

No. COA16-477

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3947 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3947

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 
                      work opportunity tax credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2014

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 
                      work opportunity tax credit.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 51(c)(4) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 
2013'' and inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to individuals who begin work for the employer after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2009069EN.01003001.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/30

---

Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-112/06) (1)

1

(2009/C 69/55)

Language of the case: Greek

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.

1

---
# C_2009193EN.01001701.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/17

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — ISD Polska and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-273/06 and T-297/06) (1)

1

(State aid - Scheme for restructuring aid granted by the Republic of Poland to a steel producer - Decision declaring the aid to be in part incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Protocol No 8 on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry - Actions for annulment - Right of action - Period within which proceedings must be brought - Admissibility - Legitimate expectations - Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Rate of interest to be applied to the repayment of incompatible aid - Duty to cooperate closely with the Member State - Compound interest rate - Articles 9(4) and 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004)

2009/C 193/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants in Case T-273/06: ISD Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw Poland) and Industrial Union of Donbass Corp. (Donetsk Ukraine) (represented: initially by C. Rapin and E. Van den Haute, and subsequently by C. Rapin, E. Van den Haute and C. Pétermann, lawyers)

Applicants in Case T-273/06:

Applicant in Case T-297/06: ISD Polska sp. z o.o. (formerly Majątek Hutniczy sp. z o.o.) (Warsaw) (represented: initially by C. Rapin and E. Van den Haute, and subsequently by C. Rapin, E. Van den Haute and C. Pétermann, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-297/06:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/937/EC of 5 July 2005 on State aid C 20/04 (ex NN 25/04) in favour of Huta Częstochowa S.A. (OJ 2006 L 366, p. 1) to the extent to which it declares some of that aid to be incompatible with the common market and orders the Republic of Poland to effect its recovery.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders ISD Polska sp. z o.o. and Industrial Union of Donbass Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ISD Polska sp. z o.o. and Industrial Union of Donbass Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

1

---
State of North Carolina v. Jarvis Javone Jones, Defendant.

No. COA16-290

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 18, 2016

NO ERROR.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6809

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERNEST FREDERICK HODGES, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District

Judge. (7:05-cr-00040-sgw-1)

Submitted: August 22, 2008 Decided: September 24, 2008

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest Frederick Hodges, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew

Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ernest Frederick Hodges, Jr., seeks to appeal the

district court order denying his motion for discovery in his

previously closed criminal case. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. United States v. Hodges, No. 7:05-

cr-00040-sgw-1 (W.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2007). 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.

AFFIRMED
**Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2008 – Commission v Poland**

**(Case C‐170/07)**

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Internal taxation – Requirement for imported second-hand vehicles to undergo a roadworthiness test – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Directive 96/96/EC – Recognition of roadworthiness tests carried out in other Member States

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC; Council Directive 96/96, Art. 3(1) and (2)) (see paras 42-52, operative
part)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Article 28 EC – National legislation requiring imported second-hand vehicles to undergo a roadworthiness test prior to their registration, whereas domestic vehicles with the same characteristics are not subject to such a requirement. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by subjecting imported second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States to a roadworthiness test prior to their registration in Poland, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POSTAL SERVICE, 

Tampa, FL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1202 

Issued: October 22, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Lenin Perez, for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

On April 29, 2014 appellant filed an application for review of an April 15, 2014 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

 The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that the case is not in posture for a 

decision and must be remanded to OWCP. In the case of William A. Couch,1

 the Board held that 

when adjudicating a claim, OWCP is obligated to consider all evidence properly submitted by a 

claimant and received by OWCP before the final decision is issued. Following the July 26, 2013 

decision that denied appellant’s claim for a left shoulder injury because she failed to establish a 

causal relationship between her left shoulder condition and her employment duties, appellant’s 

representative requested an oral hearing. Following the hearing, appellant submitted a new 

April 10, 2014 report from Dr. Robert R. Reppy, an osteopath. OWCP received this report on 

April 11, 2014. In an April 15, 2014 decision, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

July 26, 2013 decision denying appellant’s claim for a left shoulder condition. The hearing 

representative referenced the medical evidence OWCP had received following the hearing, but 

he did not reference the April 10, 2014 report from Dr. Reppy. It is clear that the new evidence 

had not been reviewed. 

 1

 41 ECAB 548 (1990). 
2

For this reason, the case will be remanded to OWCP to enable it to properly consider all 

the evidence submitted prior to the issuance of the April 15, 2014 decision. Following this and 

such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue an appropriate merit 

decision. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 15, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs set aside. The case record is remanded to OWCP for further 

proceedings consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: October 22, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF GAME TECH INTERNATIONAL, INC. (THE "COMPANY") AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1998
AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                          21,485
<SECURITIES>                                     4,103
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,726
<ALLOWANCES>                                        49
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,333
<PP&E>                                          16,356
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,860
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,073
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,312
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,477
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,177
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,327
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   638
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   180
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,370
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,070
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
Peter Jerard Farrell v. United States Army Brigadier General, Retired, Kelly J. Thomas, Commissioner of NC Division of Motor Vehicles, in His Official Capacity

No. 179A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, for Thomas, Kelly J. (Commissioner), et al.

Richard W. Farrell, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Farrell, Peter Jerard.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Petitioner on the 10th of May 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Respondent, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the Notice of Appeal Based on a Constitutional Question is

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

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15 (g)(2).
STATE v. Thomas J. VALENTINE

360P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Thomas J. Valentine, Pro Per.

Ms. Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, Ms. Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of September 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
# C_2010161EN.01003901.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2010 — Comune di Napoli v Commission

(Case T-388/07) (1)

(ERDF - Reduction in assistance - Urban pilot project for the development of a telematic network for the city of Naples - Notion of ‘irregularity’ - Eligible expenses)

(2010/C 161/59)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Comune di Napoli (Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, G. Tarallo, G. Pizza and R. Sciaudone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, Agent, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

First, annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3893 of 8 August 2007, concerning a reduction in the assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88, amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93, to the city of Naples (Italy) by Commission Decision PH/1997/2761, approving the granting of ERDF assistance in the context of urban pilot project No 97.05.29.002 and, secondly, an application for damages seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the contested decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Comune di Napoli to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Comune di Napoli to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

---