alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 – Zero Industry v OHIM – zero Germany (zerorh+)**

**(Case T-400/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for figurative Community mark zerorh+ – Earlier national figurative and word marks zero – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Similarity between products – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 25-28, 77-89)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 (Case R 958/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between zero Germany GmbH & Co. KG and Zero Industry Srl. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Zero Industry Srl |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark ‘zerorh+’ for goods in Classes 9, 18 and 25 – Application No 2004547 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | zero Germany GmbH & Co. KG, formerly zero International Holding GmbH & Co. KG |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | The national figurative mark ‘zero’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 and the national word mark ‘zero’ for goods in Class 9 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

1.      Dismisses the action;

2.      Orders Zero Industry Srl to pay the costs.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCT 23, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-10656

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-02831-CV-2-IPJ

SUSAN KEITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,

d.b.a. Prudential Financial,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(October 23, 2008)

Before BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG, Judge.

*

PER CURIAM:

 Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of International, sitting by *

designation.
This case comes before us for a second time. Susan Keith appeals the

district court’s decision affirming the plan administrator’s denial of long-term

disability benefits, specifically presenting two arguments: (1) the district erred in

finding that the plan administrator’s decision was wrong but reasonable at step

three; and (2) the district court erred in finding that the plan administrator’s

decision was not tainted by self-interest at step six.

Having considered the arguments presented in the briefs as well as at oral

argument, we remand this case to the district court in light of Oliver v. Coca Cola

Co., 497 F.3d 1181, vacated in part on petition for reh’g, 506 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir.

2007) as to step three, and our Circuit’s recent decision in Doyle v. Liberty Life

1

Assurance Co. of Boston, __ F.3d __, 2008 WL 4272748 (11th Cir. Sept. 18, 2008)

as to step six.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

The district court first affirmed the denial of benefits on or about December 12, 2006. 1

We remanded on November 29, 2007 as to step six, and the district court again affirmed on or

about January 14, 2008, addressing only step six. Our Circuit decided Oliver on August 29,

2007, and hence, the district court has not yet considered Keith’s case with the benefit of Oliver. 

2
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: V.I.P. Royal Palace, LLC and Anna Eaglin v. Hobby Event 

Center

Appellate case number: 01-18-00621-CV

Trial court case number: 2017-08762

Trial court: 133rd District Court of Harris County

Appellants, V.I.P. Royal Palace, LLC and Anna Eaglin, have filed a notice of 

appeal of the trial court’s final judgment, signed on June 5, 2018. Appellant’s brief 

initially was due on October 12, 2018. After we granted their motions for extension, 

appellants’ brief was due by December 27, 2018, with no further extensions absent 

extraordinary circumstances. On January 18, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified 

appellants that neither a brief nor a motion for extension of time had been filed and that, 

if a brief was not filed by January 28, 2019, the Court might dismiss the appeal for want 

of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d), 38.8(a)(1),42.3. Appellants have filed a 

fourth motion for an extension of time, requesting an extension “of 30-45 days” to file 

their brief. The motion is granted.

Appellant’s brief is due to be filed no later than 30 days from the date of this 

order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d). No further extensions will be granted.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Julie Countiss

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___February 5, 2019___
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 08-1257

IN RE ENGAGE, INC., ET AL.,

Debtors

ROPES & GRAY LLP,

Appellant,

v.

CRAIG R. JALBERT, as Liquidating Supervisor,

Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on October 6, 2008 is

amended as follows:

On page 5, line 2, replace "December 27, 2008" with

"December 28, 2007".

On page 5, line 10, omit "v. Century Indem. Co.,".

On page 6, footnote 5, line 19, remove underline from "v."
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA BALICAT OLIVEROS; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71512

Agency Nos. A047-872-565

 A047-872-566

 A047-872-567

 A047-872-568

 A047-872-569

 A047-872-570

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Maria Balicat Oliveros and her five daughters, natives and citizens of the

Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. 

FILED

JUL 21 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71512

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.

2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ September 30,

2008, motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed over three years after the

BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (generally, a motion

to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final order of removal), and petitioners

did not show they were entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at

897 (deadline for filing motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner

is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the

petitioner acts with due diligence”).

In light of this disposition, petitioners’ remaining contention is unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
In the Matter of: D.M.

No. COA16-503

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

AFFIRMED.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. TY RE J A M A R M A Y ERS, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 30190 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 8 -cr-0 0 3 5 2 -M JP ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on M a r s haJ . P e c hm a n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 8, 2011 ** B efo re: F A R R IS , L E A V Y , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T y r e J a m a rM a y e r s ap p e a ls f r o m h is s e n te n c e im p o s e df o llo w in g h is g u ilty pl e at o tw o c ount s of

be i ng af

e l on i n pos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 922( g) ( 1) . M a y e r s c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n de t e rm i ni ng thathi s pri or conv i ct i on for thefti n the fi rs tdegree, i n v i ol at i on of form erR evi se d 

# FI LED MA R 17 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSC o d e o f

W a s h in g to n § 9 A .5 6 .0 3 0 ( 1 ) ( b ) , w a s a" c r im e o f v io le n c e " u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2 K 2 . 1 . A s M ayers co n ced es, th i s co n t en t i o n i s fo recl o sedb y U ni ted States v. A lde rm an , 60 1 F . 3d 94 9 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). AF F I RME D.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

 Submitted October 17, 2008∗

Decided October 24, 2008

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

No. 08-2042

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LEVENCE SIMPSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Central District of Illinois

No. 1:01-cr-10038-JBM-JAG-4

Joe Billy McDade, Judge.

Order

After the Sentencing Commission reduced the guideline ranges for crack cocaine, 

and made the change retroactive, see Amendments 706 and 711, LeVence Simpson 

asked the district court to reduce his sentence. A judge is authorized to implement a 

retroactive change in the guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2).

The district court denied Simpson’s motion, observing that his sentence of 240 

 

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After 

examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08-2042 Page 2

months is the statutory minimum for his offense and criminal record. A change in 

guidelines does not entitle a court to disregard a statutory minimum sentence. Neal v. 

United States, 516 U.S. 284 (1996). Simpson’s appellate brief ignores this problem and 

relies entirely on decisions such as Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), that 

concern the Guidelines rather than statutes. No more need be said to show that the 

district court’s order is correct.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
     financial  statements  of Grove  Property  Trust as of 12/31/98 and for the
     year then ended and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
     statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000920776
<NAME>                        Grove Property Trust
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                              15,262
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    18,167
<PP&E>                                             318,599
<DEPRECIATION>                                       9,651
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     327,115
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               24,069
<BONDS>                                            196,391
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                86
<OTHER-SE>                                          73,697
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       294,243
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    38,832
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    30,950
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   6,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        747
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    747
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        888
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (141)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.02)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Parent
------

TF Financial Corporation


                                          Percentage         State of
Subsidiaries                                 Owned        Incorporation
------------                              ----------      -------------

Third Federal Savings Bank (a)                100%          United States

TF Investments Corporation (a)                100%          Delaware

Teragon, Inc.                                 100%          Delaware

Penns Trail Development Corporation (a)       100%          Delaware


---------------------
(a)        The operations of this  subsidiary  are included in the  consolidated
           financial   statements   contained  in  the  1997  Annual  Report  to
           Stockholders incorporated herein by reference.
<PAGE>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-98474 and 333-55835 of Owosso Corporation on Form S-8 and Registration
Statement No. 33-99526 of Owosso Corporation on Form S-3 of our report dated
December 10, 1998 (except for Note 8, as to which the date is January 22, 1999),
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Owosso Corporation for the year
ended October 25, 1998.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    January 22, 1999
SAULS v. SAULS

395P14-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

W. Gregory Duke, Attorney at Law, Greenville, for Sauls, Roland Gary.

Jonathan G. McGirt, Attorney at Law, for Sauls, Lois A.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of March 2017 by Plaintiff for Leave to Withdraw Response to Petition for Discretionary Review and Motion for Sanctions:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."
STATE of North Carolina v. Layton Allen WATERS, Defendant.

No. COA16-985

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 16, 2017

NO ERROR.
STATE of North Carolina v. Ruth WALKER

No. COA16-1195

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 6, 2017

NO ERROR.
# C_2008301EN.01003301.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/33

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Agrar-Invest-Tatschl v Commission

(Case T-51/07) (1)

1

(Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Sugar originating from Croatia - Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Notice to importers published in the Official Journal - Good faith)

(2008/C 301/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Agrar-Invest-Tatschl GmbH (St. Andrä im Lavanttal, Austria) (represented by: U. Schrömbges and O. Wenzlaff, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and S. Schønberg, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

ACTION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 5789 final of 4 December 2006.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Agrar-Invest-Tatschl GmbH to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Agrar-Invest-Tatschl GmbH to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137082 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 137082 

 COA: 285816 

Genesee CC: 06-019208-FC 

FELTON JUNE SEALEY, III,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 10, 2008 order 

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. 

l1020 

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 27, 2008 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

                                   Jurisdiction of      Other Names under which
  Subsidiaries of the Company       Incorporation       Subsidiary does Business

Ahab Investment Company               Delaware                  N/A

Cramer Company                        Delaware                  N/A

DewEze Manufacturing, Company       Pennsylvania         Parker Industries

Great Bend Manufacturing 
  Company, Inc.                       Kansas                    N/A

The Landover Company                Pennsylvania        Dura-Bond Bearing Co.

Motor Products - 
  Ohio Corporation                    Delaware                  N/A

Motor Products - 
  Owosso Corporation                  Delaware                  N/A

Owosso Motor Group, Inc.              --------               --------

Snowmax, Incorporated               Pennsylvania                N/A

Snyder Industries, Inc.               --------               --------

Sooner Trailer Manufacturing Co.      Delaware                  N/A

Stature Electric, Inc.                New York                  N/A
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<CIK>                         0000919967
<NAME>                        Guaranty Financial Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,431
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,164
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      9,714
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,731
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             3,879
<LOANS>                                         84,081
<ALLOWANCE>                                        788
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 110,161
<DEPOSITS>                                      74,687
<SHORT-TERM>                                    18,604
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,131
<LONG-TERM>                                      8,144
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,149
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,201
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 110,161
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,442
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,175
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,617
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,133
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,192
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,425
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       57
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 243
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,487
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    988
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         988
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       643
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .69
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   7,617
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,458
<LOANS-PAST>                                        19
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    11
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,116
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   747
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       39
<RECOVERIES>                                        23
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  788
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               157
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            631
        



</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Evan COX

No. COA16-992

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 5, 2017

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
RADCLIFFE v. AVENEL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.

356P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

H. Clifton Hester, Attorney at Law, Elizabethtown, for Radcliffe, Virginia.

James B. Stephenson, II, Attorney at Law, Philip T. Gray, Attorney at Law, Cary, for Avenel Homeowners Association, Inc.

Clay A. Collier, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for Dinero, Thomas.

Donald Ennis, Attorney at Law, for Murray, Stephen, et al.

Derek M. Crump, Attorney at Law, John S. Byrd, II, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Reid Russell, Attorney at Law, for Hull, David.

Jeffrey H. Blackwell, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for Zanzarella, Ron.

Stacey E. Tally, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, for Progelhof, Richard.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of October 2016 by Defendant to File Supplemental Response to Petition:

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