alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1436

WILLIAM SHERROD HENDERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COUNTY OF HENRICO, VIRGINIA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (3:08-cv-00032-RLW)

Submitted: September 10, 2008 Decided: September 24, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Sherrod Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Thomas

Tokarz, II, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Sherrod Henderson appeals the district court’s

order granting summary judgment in favor of Henrico County on

Henderson’s complaint alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17

(2000), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.

§§ 621-634 (2000), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2000). This court reviews a district

court’s order granting summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable

inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Doe v. Kidd, 501 F.3d 348, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128

S. Ct. 1483 (2008). Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings,

the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322

(1986). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Henderson v.

County of Henrico, No. 3:08-cv-00032-RLW (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 14,

2008; entered Apr. 15, 2008). 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 of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 17 June 2009 – Portugal v Commission**

**(Case T-50/07)**

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Arable crops – Durum wheat – Period of 24 months – First communication referred to in Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 – On-the-spot checks – Remote sensing – Effectiveness of checks – Results of checks – Corrective action to be taken by the Member State concerned – Existence of financial harm to the EAGGF

1.                     *Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulations Nos 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c), and 1258/1999, Art. 7(4), fifth
para.; Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8(1), first, second and fourth subparas) (see paras 27-30, 32-34, 74-77, 84-87,
95-97)*

2.                     *Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing (Commission Regulation No 3887/92, Art. 6(1)) (see paras 101-102)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 355, p. 96), in so far as it excludes from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic in the sector of arable crops (durum wheat). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as that decision excludes in respect of the Portuguese Republic certain expenditure incurred in the sector of arable crops (durum wheat) during the marketing year 2003; |

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
In the Matter of: M.D.

No. COA16-325

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

AFFIRMED.
**Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2007 – Commission v Italy**

**(Case C‐85/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2000/60/EC – Articles 5(1) and 15(2) – Community action in the field of water policy – River basin district – Summary report and analyses – Communication thereof – None

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 13)

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 5(1) and 15(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) – Failure to submit summary reports on the analyses required under Article 5 as regards certain river basin districts – Failure to carry out the analyses and studies provided for in Article 5(1) of that directive. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Declares that, in respect of the pilot river basin district of the River Serchio and a part of the river basin districts of the Eastern Alps and the Northern, Central and Southern Apennines, by failing to submit a summary report on the analyses required under Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as provided for in Article 15(2) thereof, and by failing to carry out the analyses and the study referred to in Article 5(1) thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 15(2) of that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
# C_2009141EN.01001001.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

(Case C-406/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Taxation of dividends from shares in companies - Rate of taxation for partnerships)

2009/C 141/14

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos, M. Tassopoulou and I. Pouli, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — National rules providing for tax exemption for dividends distributed by national companies but not for dividends distributed by companies whose seat is in another Member State

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by applying a tax regime for dividends from abroad that is less favourable than that applied to domestic dividends, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 56 EC and the corresponding articles of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, namely Articles 31 and 40 thereof;
  Declares that, by maintaining in force the provisions of the Income Tax Code (Law 2238/1994, as amended by Law 3296/2004), by which foreign partnerships in Greece are taxed more heavily than domestic partnerships, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by applying a tax regime for dividends from abroad that is less favourable than that applied to domestic dividends, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 56 EC and the corresponding articles of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, namely Articles 31 and 40 thereof;

Declares that, by maintaining in force the provisions of the Income Tax Code (Law 2238/1994, as amended by Law 3296/2004), by which foreign partnerships in Greece are taxed more heavily than domestic partnerships, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
Will participate as a member of the en banc court pursuant to 3d Cir. I.O.P. 9.6.4. 1

 Will participate as a member of the en banc court pursuant to 3d Cir. I.O.P. 9.6.4. 2

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

 

No. 09-2238

 

SINGER MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC.;

LIVE GOLD OPERATIONS, INC.,

 Appellants. 

v.

ANNE MILGRAM, 

Attorney General of the State of New Jersey

PRESENT: McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, SCIRICA, RENDELL, BARRY,

AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN,

GREENAWAY, Jr., VANASKIE and ALDISERT ROTH , Circuit Judges 1 2

ORDER

A majority of the active judges having voted for rehearing en banc in the above

captioned case, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The Clerk of 

this Court shall list the case for rehearing en banc at the convenience of the Court. The 

opinion and judgment entered August 5, 2010, are hereby vacated.

By the Court,

 /s/ Theodore A. McKee 

Chief Circuit Judge

Date: September 1, 2010

tyw/cc: William L. Charron, Esq.

Jeffrey A. Kozier, Esq.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SouthCrest Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the “ Periodic Report”), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to Title 18, Section 1350 United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his individual knowledge and belief, that the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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.
 
 Dated: May 15, 2009
 
 /s/ Douglas J. HerthaDouglas J. HerthaChief Financial Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 1, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135914 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 135914 

 COA: 283180 

ANTHONY STEVEN LYNCH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Wayne CC: 82-000329;

82-001668 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 6, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

p0924 

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. 

October 1, 2008 

 Clerk
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Winston Hotels,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
W. Winston, III, Chief Executive 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:

         (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/ Robert W. Winston III
----------------------------
Robert W. Winston, III
Chief Executive Officer
March 12, 2004


                                       1
STATE of North Carolina v. Shannon Nicole CHAVIS.

No. COA16-222.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 21, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reversed and Remanded.
**Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 April 2008 – Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM**

**(Case C‐108/07 P)**

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Likelihood of confusion – Application for Community word mark FERRO – Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word mark FERRERO – Evidence of the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark

1.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition
by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood
of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35-37)*

2.                     *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 57-59)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2006 in Case T-310/04 | Ferrero Deutschland | v | OHIM and Cornu | against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2004 (Case R 540/2002-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero OHG mbh and Cornu SA Fontain – Interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) – Likelihood of confusion between two trade marks – Weak degree of similarity between the goods – Distinctiveness of the earlier mark. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 15 December 2006 in Case T‐310/04 Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM– Cornu (FERRO); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 March 2004 (Case R 540/2002‐4); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Cornu SA Fontain to pay the costs of the appeal; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4. | | Orders Ferrero Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance, except for those relating to the intervention of Cornu SA Fontain; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 5. | | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance, except for those relating to the intervention of Cornu SA Fontain; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6. | | Orders Cornu SA Fontain to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ferrero Deutschland GmbH and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in relation to its intervention. |
State of North Carolina v. Anton Tolandis Smith

No. 144P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Ms. Anne Bleyman, Attorney at Law, for Smith, Anton Tolandis.

Mr. Daniel Hirschman, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 19th of April 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 State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of April 2016 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*782"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
In the Matter of: C.L.S.

No. 54A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed September 23, 2016

Jennifer G. Cooke, Wilmington, for New Hanover County Department of Social Services, petitioner-appellee.

Ellis & Winters LLP, Greensboro, by Steven A. Scoggan, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

David A. Perez, Thomasville, for respondent-appellant father.

*458PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2008327EN.01002302.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/23

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 November 2008 — Speiser v Parliament

(Case T-390/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Staff case - Temporary staff - Admissibility - Expatriation allowance - Purely confirmatory decision - Complaint made out of time)

(2008/C 327/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Michael Alexander Speiser (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: F. Theumer, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: initially A. Lukošiūtė and N. Lorenz and subsequently A. Lukošiūtė and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 10 September 2007 in Case F-146/06 Speiser v Parliament, not yet published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside

Speiser

Parliament

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18693]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Schedule and Venue Change: FCC to Hold Open Commission Meeting in 
Atlanta, GA at 11 a.m.

September 14, 2005.
    Please note that the time and venue for the Federal Communications 
Commission's September Open Meeting has changed.
    As described in the Commission's Thursday, September 8th Notice, on 
Thursday, September 15th, the Commission will hold an open meeting. At 
this meeting, it will hear presentations from Commission staff and 
various industry representatives concerning their role in Hurricane 
Katrina recovery efforts. For the convenience of those testifying, the 
Federal Communications Commission will hold its meeting in Atlanta, 
Georgia at BellSouth Telecommunications Inc.'s Emergency Control Center 
located at the following address:
    BellSouth Midtown I Building, 4th Floor, 754 Peachtree Street, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30309.
    The meeting is scheduled to commence at 11 a.m. Seating is limited 
and will be on a first come, first serve basis.
    The prompt and orderly conduct of Commission business permits less 
than 7-days notice be given.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-18693 Filed 9-15-05; 3:43 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
People of North Carolina, ex rel. Christopher Charles Friscia and Maria Adriana Friscia v. Nathan J. Taylor, et al. d/b/a Nathan J. Taylor, Mcguire Woods LLP, et al., Law Firm

No. 389P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Christopher Charles Friscia, Pro Se.

Mr. Nathan J. Taylor, Attorney at Law, Pro Se.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 13th of October 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
# C_2009267EN.01008203.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/82

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 2009 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-404/07) (1)

1

2009/C 267/147

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.

1

---
# C_2008128EN.01001601.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/16

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2008 — Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

a

(Case C-212/07) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark HAIRTRANSFER - Refusal of registration - Lack of distinctive character)

(2008/C 128/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Lda (represented by: T. Wallentin, lawyer)

Appellant:

a

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Weberndörfer, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 February 2007 in Case T-204/04 Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Lda
  v OHIM, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the decision refusing registration of the word mark HAIRTRANSFER for goods and services in Classes 8, 22, 41 and 44 — Distinctiveness of the mark

Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Lda

OHIM

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Lda is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Lda is ordered to pay the costs.

a

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

1

---