alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009032EN.01002801.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/28

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Torres v OHIM — Navisa Industrial Vinícola Española (MANSO DE VELASCO)

(Case T-259/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark MANSO DE VELASCO - Earlier national word mark VELASCO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 32/51)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedés, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Navisa Industrial Vinícola Española, SA (Montilla, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2006 (Case R 865/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Navisa Industrial Vinícola Española, SA and Miguel Torres, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Miguel Torres SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Miguel Torres SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 29, 2.12.2006.

1

---
# C_2008209EN.01001602.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/16

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 April 2008 — Focus Magazine Verlag GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Merant GmbH

(Case C-344/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Word mark ‘FOCUS’)

(2008/C 209/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Focus Magazine Verlag GmbH (represented by: M. Herrmann and B. Müller, Rechtsanwälte)

Applicant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, agent), Merant GmbH (represented by: A. Schultz, Rechtsanwält)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2007 in Case T-491/04 Merant v OHIM, by which the Court annulled decision R 542/2002-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 October 2004 upholding an action against the opposition decision which partially rejected the application for registration of Community word mark ‘FOCUS’ for goods and services in classes 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national figurative mark ‘MICRO FOCUS’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 41 and 42 — Likelihood of confusion between two marks

Merant

OHIM

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 10, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137297 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. In re ANDREW TEVON MCCLAIN Stephen J. Markman, 

and ALEX DEVON MCCLAIN, Minors. Justices 

_________________________________________/ 

CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICES OF 

OAKLAND COUNTY,

Petitioner-Appellee, 

and 

DARRICK RUSHING and LA’SHAWN 

RUSHING, Guardians,

Appellees, 

v SC: 137297 

 COA: 283151 
 Wayne Circuit Court

JULIA P. MCCLAIN-ALLEN, Family Division: 06-461567-NA 

Respondent-Appellant, 

and 

CLARENCE R. ALLEN,

Respondent. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 19, 2008 

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. 

d1007 

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 10, 2008 

Clerk
# CE2004065EN.01006302.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/63

---

(2004/C 65 E/067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1211/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Carrara

Subject:

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Carrara, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Carrara has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Carrara has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Carrara has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Carrara has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Sidney
L. Anderson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
of  Chatsworth Data Solutions, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended July 31, 2008 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Chatsworth Data
Solutions, Inc.





Date:  December
      17, 2008
              /s/ Sidney L. AndersonSidney
      L. AndersonChief
      Executive Officer and
President





I,
Clayton Woodrum, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Chatsworth Data Solutions, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
ended July 31, 2008 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of Chatsworth Data Solutions,
Inc.





Date:
      December 17, 2008
              /s/ Clayton WoodrumClayton
      WoodrumChief
      Financial Officer
• •Th ri ! d ke LP IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 06-0422
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ANGELIQUE FAYE LEHMANN WADDELL 

# FLED JAN 2 6 2021
Bovven Grem=R Clerk of Suprerii State of Montana Angelique Faye Lehmann Waddell has petitioned the Courtto waive the three-year test requirement for the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE)for purposes of applying for admission by motion to the State Bar of Montana. By rule, applicants for admission by motion must provide evidence ofthe requisite score on an MPRE taken "within three yearspreceding the date ofthe application for admission." Rule IV.A.3,Rules ofAdmission. Waddell passed the MPRE in 2006 when seeking admission to the practice of law in the State ofTexas, where Waddell was admitted. Waddell has practiced law continuously "for 14 years,without any ethical or disciplinary action in any jurisdiction where licensed or where admitted pro hac vice." Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition ofAngelique Faye Lehmann Waddell to waive the three-year testrequirement for the MPRE for purposes ofa current application for admission by motion to the State Bar ofMontana is GRANTED. The Clerk shall mail a copy ofthis order to Petitioner and to the Administrator of the Board ofBar Examiners at the State Bar ofMontana. DATED this 24:

4--t tay ofJanuary,2021.
ChiefJustice 01/26/2021

Case Number: PR 06-0422
State of North Carolina v. Stephen Lamont Ward

No. 435P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2017.

Mr. Raymond C. Tarlton, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Ward, Stephen Lamont.

Ms. Jill A. Bryan, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Mr. R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

Mr. Stephen Lamont Ward, Pro se.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st of December 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."
# Official Journal C 206/19 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 206 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6319 June 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 206

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6319 June 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 206/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 206/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 206/02 | State aid — Belgium — State aid SA.54817 (2020/C) (ex 2019/N) — Tax shelter aid scheme for video game production — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  ) | 11 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2020/C 206/02

State aid — Belgium — State aid SA.54817 (2020/C) (ex 2019/N) — Tax shelter aid scheme for video game production — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  )

1

11

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Quiwaneca Spikes Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3656 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3656

   To amend the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to expand the purposes of 
 advances and collateral available to community development financial 
                             institutions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 5, 2013

 Mr. Ellison (for himself, Mr. Stivers, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New 
    York, and Mr. Delaney) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to expand the purposes of 
 advances and collateral available to community development financial 
                             institutions.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``The Small Business and Community 
Investments Expansion Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. EXPANDING THE PURPOSES OF ADVANCES AND COLLATERAL AVAILABLE TO 
              COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

    Section 10(a) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1430(a)) 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``or community 
        development financial institution (as defined in section 103 of 
        the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act 
        of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4702))'' after ``community financial 
        institution''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3)(E), by inserting ``or community 
        development financial institution (as defined in section 103 of 
        the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act 
        of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4702))'' after ``community financial 
        institution''.
                                 <all>
```
In the Matter of: K.A.E.

No. COA16-488

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

REVERSED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7692

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEVIN LAMONT WALKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, 

District Judge. (4:05-cr-00005-RBS-JEB-1)

Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 23, 2011

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Lamont Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Lamont Walker appeals the district court’s 

orders denying his various motions seeking reconsideration of 

the court’s previous denial of Walker’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

(2006) motion, to correct a clerical error, for appointment of 

counsel, for civil contempt, and based on a miscarriage of 

justice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders and 

deny Walker’s motion for a certificate of appealability. See

United States v. Walker, No. 4:05-cr-00005-RBS-JEB-1 (July 23 & 

Nov. 10, 2010). 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
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-307-CR

LAVAR DANDRE YOUNG	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	----------

	FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

						----------

	We have considered the “Appellant’s Motion To Dismiss Appeal.”  The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure.   Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f). 							 										PER CURIAM

PANEL:  GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: September 25, 2008
----

----

|   | Exhibit      32.1 |
|--------|-------------------|

|   | CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO |
|--------|--------------------------------|

|   | 18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350 |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002 |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|

|   | a)  The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d)      of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:  and |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | b)  The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial      condition and results of operations  the      Company. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 SEPTEMBER 10, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-10769

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00040-CR-4-RH-WCS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

CLAYTON SHUNDEL GEE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(September 10, 2008)

Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Clayton Gee appeals his conviction for the possession of firearms and
2

ammunition as a felon and in furtherance of a trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g), 924(a)(2), 924(c)(1)(A)(i), possession with intent to distribute a

controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(D), and knowingly

and intentionally distributing five grams or more of cocaine base, id. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(B)(iii). Gee argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his

motion to discharge his appointed attorney, William Clark, Jr. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gee’s motion for

new counsel. United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1343 (11th Cir. 1997). 

The record reflects no irreconcilable conflict between Gee and Clark. Although

Gee had complained earlier that Clark had failed to prepare his case for trial and

had pressured him to accept a guilty plea, Gee expressed, at the hearing on his

motion for new counsel, concern only with Clark’s failure to pursue a baseless

motion to suppress. Clark represented Gee vigorously at trial and sentencing. In

the light of the record, any alleged lack of communication between Gee and Clark

was not so great that it prevented Gee from receiving an adequate defense. Gee

also fails to explain how he was prejudiced by being forced to proceed with Clark

as his lawyer. We affirm Gee’s conviction.

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. April Jean ANDERSON.

No. 432PA15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

James N. Freeman, Jr., Elkin, Attorney at Law, for Anderson, April.

Kimberly A. D'Arruda, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

David Learner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*513*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of December 2015 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:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 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).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the audited
consolidated financial statements of McLeodUSA Incorporated and subsidiaries for
the year ended December 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000

<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              326,856
<SECURITIES>                                        934,111
<RECEIVABLES>                                       225,219
<ALLOWANCES>                                         41,415
<INVENTORY>                                          27,461
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1,569,473
<PP&E>                                            1,442,579
<DEPRECIATION>                                      172,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    4,203,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               296,679
<BONDS>                                           1,763,775
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             1,000,000
<PREFERRED>                                              12
<COMMON>                                              1,576
<OTHER-SE>                                        1,106,954
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      4,203,147
<SALES>                                             908,792
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    908,792
<CGS>                                               457,085
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       457,085
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    562,970
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     20,412
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  136,868
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (220,282)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (220,282)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (220,282)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (1.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (1.61)


</TABLE>