alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 – Italy v Commission**

**(Joined Cases T-166/07 and T-285/07)**

Rules on the use of languages – Notice of open competitions for the recruitment of administrators and assistants – Publication in three official languages – Amendments – Publication in all the official languages – Choice of the second language from three languages – Regulation No 1 – Articles 27, 28 and 29(1) of the Staff Regulations – Article 1(1) and (2) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations – Duty to state reasons – Principle of non-discrimination – Misuse of power

1.                     *European Communities – Rules on languages – Regulation No 1 – Scope (Council Regulation No 1) (see paras 52-54)*

2.                     *European Communities – Rules on languages – No general principle giving each citizen the right to have any document capable
of affecting his interests drafted in his own language (Council Regulation No 1) (see para. 73)*

3.                     *Officials – Competitions – Notice of competition – Publication in the Official Journal only in certain official languages
(see paras 77-85)*

4.                     *Officials – Competitions – Notice of competition – Full publication in the Official Journal only in certain official languages
(see paras 91, 93-94)*

5.                     *Officials – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions (see paras 110-112)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for the annulment of Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/94/07 for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of Administrators (AD 5) in the field of information, communication and the media (OJ 2007 C 45 A, p. 3) and Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AST/37/07 for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of Assistants (AST 3) in the field of communication and information (OJ 2007 C 45 A, p. 15), and Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/95/07 for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of Administrators (AD 5) in the field of information science (library/documentation) (OJ 2007 C 103 A, p. 7). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the Republic of Lithuania and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs. |
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135645 & (63)(64)(65)(66) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135645 

 COA: 272542 

Wayne CC: 05-010625-01

JOHN JAMES SNYDER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motions to add issues and for miscellaneous relief are 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the November 29, 2007 judgment of the 

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

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motions for appointment of 

counsel and for remand are DENIED. 

d0910 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 17, 2008 

 Clerk
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.39

                                AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                      TO
              JAYHAWK ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION AMENDED AND RESTATED
                  1994 STOCK OPTION AND RESTRICTED STOCK PLAN


     The Jayhawk Acceptance Corporation Amended and Restated 1994 Stock Option
and Restricted Stock Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended as follows:

     1.  By replacing "one million (1,000,000) shares" in Section 5(a) with "one
         million five hundred thousand (1,500,000) Shares".

     2.  By adding the following Section 6(k) immediately after Section 6(j) of
         the Plan:

             (k) LIMITATION ON GRANTS. Notwithstanding any other provision
                 --------------------
         contained in this Plan, no Employee may receive in any one calendar
         year Options under this Plan to acquire in excess of 150,000 Shares.
1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2997

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Arketa Willis, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 4, 2008

Filed: September 19, 2008

___________

Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arketa Willis pleaded guilty to traveling in interstate commerce with intent to

distribute the proceeds of an unlawful activity (namely, possession with intent to

distribute and distribution of controlled substances) in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1952(a)(1). At sentencing, the district court1

 rejected Willis’s position that her base

offense level should be 6 under U.S.S.G. § 2E1.2(a)(1). Rather, finding that the seized

currency ($100,950) was the proceeds of marijuana sales, the court converted the

currency into 36.6 kilograms of marijuana to arrive at a base offense level of 18. See
-2-

U.S.S.G. § 2E1.2(a)(2) (use offense level applicable to underlying unlawful activity

in respect to which travel was undertaken), § 2D1.1(a)(3), (c)(11). The court then

sentenced Willis to 41 months in prison. She appeals, arguing that the district court’s

findings of fact for an upward adjustment under section 2E1.2(a)(2) were clearly

erroneous because insufficient evidence existed of any underlying offense.

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the seized

currency represented the proceeds of marijuana distribution for purposes of applying

section 2E1.2(a)(2). Likewise, we see no clear error in the court’s conversion of the

currency into a drug quantity. See United States v. King, 518 F.3d 571, 575 (8th Cir.

2008).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR

   
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of Form S-8 (file nos. 33-8976 and 33-95138) and in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (file nos. 333-05379 and 333-27841) of our report, dated
February 19, 1998, with respect to the financial statements appearing on page 
F-2 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.     




                                             /s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

   
Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 30, 1998
STATE of North Carolina v. Titus BATTS

No. 104P11-9

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Ernie Lee, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Titus Batts, for Batts, Titus.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 29th of March 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

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

Ervin, J. recused
# C_2009113EN.01003402.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/34

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — allsafe Jungfalk v OHIM (ALLSAFE)

(Case T-343/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark ALLSAFE - Absolute grounds for refusal of registration - Absence of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

2009/C 113/70

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: allsafe Jungfalk GmbH & Co. KG (Engen, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, J. Bühling, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt and M. Bergermann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 July 2007 (Case R 454/2006-4) concerning the registration of the word sign ALLSAFE as a community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders allsafe Jungfalk GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders allsafe Jungfalk GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
# C_2008285EN.01001202.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/12

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 June 2008 — Philip Morris Products SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-497/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a packet of cigarettes - Refusal to register)

(2008/C 285/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (represented by: T. Van Innis, avocat)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Rassat, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-140/06 Philip Morris Products v OHIM by which the Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2006 concerning its application for registration of the shape of a packet of cigarettes as a Community trade mark — Infringement of Articles 4 and 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Distinctive character of a three-dimensional shape — Ways of embodying that shape and time at which it is to be assessed

Philip Morris Products

OHIM

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed;

| 2. | Philip Morris SA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Philip Morris SA shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22 of 26.1.2008.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0622

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

KEITH CHARLES HARRISON,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until January 26, 2024, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

December 21 2023

12/21/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0622
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of January 24, 1998; the Condensed 
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the 12 Weeks Ended January 24, 1998; 
and the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for the 12 Weeks Ended 
January 24, 1998, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 
financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-24-1998
<CASH>                                           7,159
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,869
<ALLOWANCES>                                       907
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,288
<PP&E>                                          39,143
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,928
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,926
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,414
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           103
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,782
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,926
<SALES>                                        140,702
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,155
<CGS>                                          110,078
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  136,838
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (83)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   242
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 674
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,726
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,490
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,236
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,236
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>
NO. 07-08-0310-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	OCTOBER 15, 2008

	______________________________

	FRANK WALTER STASZEWSKI, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 2678-E/53,728-E; HONORABLE ABE LOPEZ, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant Frank Walter Staszewski filed a notice of appeal from a default judgment entered against him on April 28, 2008.  The clerk’s record was filed in this Court on August 21, 2008.  No reporter’s record was made in this matter.

	By letter of September 30, 2008, this Court reminded appellant that his appellate brief was due no later than Monday, September 22 and thus, was past due.  The letter notified appellant that his appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution unless his brief was filed, along with a motion for extension of time, by October 10, 2008.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6.

	An appellate court may dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution if an appellant fails to timely file a brief unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the failure.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).  On its own motion, with ten days’ notice to the parties, an appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).  Here, the record reveals appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension by the date specified by the Court, despite notice that his failure to do so would subject the appeal to dismissal.  We further find the Court has given the parties the required ten days’ notice.

	Accordingly, we dismiss appellant’s appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the Court.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

							James T. Campbell

							          Justice
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1
                                                                    ------------

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8) pertaining to the Integ Incorporated 1990 Incentive and Stock Option Plan,
1991 Incentive and Stock Option Plan, 1994 Long-Term Incentive and Stock Option
Plan, 1996 Directors' Stock Option Plan  and 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
of our report dated February 13, 1998, with respect to the financial statements
of Integ Incorporated for the three years ended December 31, 1997, included in
its Annual Report (Form 10-K) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                  /s/   Ernst & Young LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 23, 1998
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 2008 – HUP Uslugi Polska v OHIM – Manpower (I.T.@MANPOWER)**

**(Case T-248/05)**

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark ‘I.T.@MANPOWER’ – Absolute grounds for refusal – Distinctive character – Lack of descriptive character – No signs or indications which have become customary – Not a trade mark of such a nature as to deceive the public – Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d) and (g) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(b) to (d) and (g) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 43-45,
52-54, 60-63, 66-68)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 April 2005 (Case R 124/2004-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between MP Temporärpersonal GmbH and Manpower Inc. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Registered Community trade mark subject to an action for cancellation: | Word mark I.T.@MANPOWER for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 – Community mark No 861559 |
| Proprietor of the Community trade mark: | Manpower Inc. |
| Party applying for cancellation: | MP Temporärpersonal GmbH |
| Basis of the application for cancellation: | Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94, in connection with Article 7(1)(b) to (d) and (g) of that regulation |
| Decision of the Cancellation Division: | Action for cancellation dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders HUP Uslugi Polska sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
H. R. 4030 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 18640 

NW 2nd Avenue in Miami, Florida, as the ‘‘Father Richard Marquess-Barry 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FATHER RICHARD MARQUESS-BARRY POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 18640 NW 2nd Avenue in Miami, Florida, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Father Richard Marquess-Barry 

Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Father Richard Marquess-Barry Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification



Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Ronald W. Bachli hereby certifies as follows:



| | 1. | He is the duly appointed Chief Executive Officer of Placer Sierra Bancshares, a California corporation (the Company).
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on his knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the
Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this 11th day of May 2005.



/s/ Ronald W. BachliName: Ronald W. BachliTitle:   Chief Executive Officer
Donald Edward Owen, Jr., Employee, Plaintiff v. Bruce Hogsed and/or Tammy Hogsed d/b/a Hogsed Landscaping & Tree Service, Employer, Noninsured, and St. Paul Travelers/zurich, Carrier, and Sydney Bruce Hogsed and Tammy Hogsed, Individually, Defendants.

No. COA15-1321

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 16, 2016

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

            In connection with the Annual Report of Renal Care Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
M. Dill, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the 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 results of operations
            of the Company.

/s/ David M. Dill
----------------------------------
David M. Dill
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
March 1, 2005