alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008064EN.01002201.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/22

---

Action brought on 19 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-562/07)

(2008/C 64/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and I. Martinez del Peral Cagigal, agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that by treating differently capital gains obtained in Spain by non-residents from those obtained by residents until 31 December 2006, the Kingdom of Spain failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 39 and 56 EC and Articles 28 and 40 of the EEA Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that by treating differently capital gains obtained in Spain by non-residents from those obtained by residents until 31 December 2006, the Kingdom of Spain failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 39 and 56 EC and Articles 28 and 40 of the EEA Agreement;

| — | Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the Spanish legislation in force until 31 December 2006, the taxation of capital gains of non-residents was subject to a proportional rate of 35 %, while that of residents was subject to a progressive schedule if the capital assets remained their property for a period of less than one year, and to a proportional rate of 15 % if the period of ownership exceeded one year. Consequently, the tax burden borne by non-residents if they sold their assets after the lapse of one year following acquisition was always greater. In the event of disposal of assets within the year following acquisition, non-residents also bore a greater tax burden, except when the average rate applied to resident taxpayers exceeded 35 % (which would imply very considerable capital gains).

The Commission considers that there is no objective difference between the situations of those two categories of taxpayers, so that the higher tax burden on non-residents is discrimination which unlawfully restricts freedom of movement for workers and the free movement of capital provided for in Articles 39 and 56 EC and Articles 28 and 40 of the EEA Agreement.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3790 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3790

To repeal the annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts 
         for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2013

   Mr. Miller of Florida (for himself, Mr. Barber, Mr. Benishek, Mr. 
Bilirakis, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Buchanan, Mrs. Bustos, 
   Mrs. Capps, Mr. Coffman, Mr. Cole, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. 
 DeSantis, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. Enyart, 
 Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Fincher, Mr. Forbes, Ms. Frankel of Florida, Mr. 
Franks of Arizona, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Garcia, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Gibson, Mr. 
    Grayson, Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, Mr. Grimm, Ms. Hanabusa, Mr. 
Hinojosa, Mr. Honda, Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Johnson 
      of Ohio, Mr. Jones, Mr. Keating, Mr. King of New York, Mrs. 
 Kirkpatrick, Mr. Lance, Mr. Lankford, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. 
Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, Mr. Massie, Mr. McCaul, Mr. McKinley, 
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Mica, Mr. Murphy of Florida, Mr. 
 Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. O'Rourke, Mr. Owens, Mr. 
 Palazzo, Mr. Pearce, Ms. Pingree of Maine, Mr. Posey, Mr. Rahall, Mr. 
 Rigell, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Ross, Mr. Ruiz, 
Mr. Runyan, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Simpson, 
 Ms. Sinema, Mr. Southerland, Mr. Stivers, Mr. Takano, Mr. Terry, Ms. 
 Titus, Mr. Turner, Mr. Valadao, Mr. Vela, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Walz, Mr. 
 Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Yoder, Mr. Yoho, Mr. Cook, 
  Mr. Carter, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, and Mr. Perry) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts 
         for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF RETIRED PAY AND RETAINER PAY 
              AMOUNTS FOR RETIRED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES UNDER AGE 
              62.

    Section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 is hereby 
repealed.
                                 <all>
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136876 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: 136876 

 COA: 284805 

Wayne CC: 07-008767

DEON LATHERIO WILSON, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 16, 2008 order 

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

that the question 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FORM 10-KSB FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 OF COLECCIONES
DE RAQUEL, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         744,065
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     75,675
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               829,299
<PP&E>                                          28,816
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,185
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 861,766
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,269
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   861,766
<SALES>                                          5,563
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,613
<CGS>                                            1,865
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,865
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               346,085
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (307,337)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (308,137)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (308,137)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
H. R. 4189 

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 4000 Leap 

Road in Hilliard, Ohio, as the ‘‘Master Sergeant Shawn T. Hannon, Master 

Sergeant Jeffrey J. Rieck and Veterans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. MASTER SERGEANT SHAWN T. HANNON, MASTER SERGEANT JEFFREY J. RIECK AND VETERANS MEMORIAL 

POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

Service located at 4000 Leap Road in Hilliard, Ohio, shall be known 

and designated as the ‘‘Master Sergeant Shawn T. Hannon, Master 

Sergeant Jeffrey J. Rieck and Veterans Memorial 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 ‘‘Master Sergeant Shawn T. Hannon, Master Sergeant Jeffrey 

J. Rieck and Veterans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ETHAN REIMERS,

Appellant,

v.

VANESSA REIMERS, 

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00101-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2018DCM1777)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and 

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore dismiss 

the appeal. We further order Appellant pay all costs of this appeal, and this decision be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
State of North Carolina v. Zachary Hunt Wilcox

No. COA16-91

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 6, 2016

AFFIRMED.
# C_2011311EN.01003502.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — Olive Line International v OHIM — Knopf (O-live)

(Case T-485/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark O-live - Earlier national trade name Olive line - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Right to prohibit use of a subsequent mark - Likelihood of confusion - Article 7 of the Spanish Trade Mark Law and Article 8(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2011/C 311/62

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Olive Line International, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner and B. Schmidt, agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Reinhard Knopf (Malsch, Germany) (represented by: W. Weber, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2007 (Case R 1478/2006-2) in opposition proceedings between Olive Line International, SL, and Mr Reinhard Knopf.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 September 2007 (Case R 1478/2006-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 September 2007 (Case R 1478/2006-2);

| 2. | orders OHIM to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders OHIM to pay the costs;

| 3. | orders Mr Reinhard Knopf to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders Mr Reinhard Knopf to bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008

1

---
Abrons Family Practice & Urgent Care, PA, et al. v. NC Department of Health & Human Services, et al.

427A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 13, 2017

Camden R. Webb, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth Connolly Stone, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Abrons Family Practice And Urgent Care, PA, et al.

Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Assistant Attorney General, for North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.

Jennifer K. Van Zant, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Charles F. Marshall, III, Attorney at Law, Bryan Starrett, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Bryant C. Boren, Jr., Attorney at Law, Ryan L. Bangert, Attorney at Law, Van H. Beckwith, Attorney at Law, for Computer Sciences Corporation.

Mark S. Thomas, Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

*563The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 10th of February 2017 by Defendant (Computer Sciences Corporation):

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of February 2017."

Defendant (Computer Sciences Corporation) shall have up to and including the 29th day of March 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,290
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,619
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 1,032
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     11,624
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           2,840
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             3,752
<LOANS>                                        100,892
<ALLOWANCE>                                        935
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 130,708
<DEPOSITS>                                     112,947
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,989
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                552
<LONG-TERM>                                      2,360
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,877
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,987
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 130,708
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,584
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,590
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   346
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,520
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,922
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,038
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,482
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      122
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 390
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,849
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,384
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,384
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       898
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .61
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.10
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,436
<LOANS-PAST>                                       189
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    186
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   870
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       57
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  935
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               820
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            115
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7138

CURTIS J. BROWN, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, Kershaw Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

COUNTY OF CHARLESTON; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(8:07-cv-03059-DCN)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 24, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis J. Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Curtis J. Brown, Sr. seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
# C_2015381EN.01003601.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/36

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2015 — Slovakia v Commission

(Case T-678/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Own resources of the European Union - Financial responsibility of the Member States - Obligation to pay the Commission the amount corresponding to a loss of own resources - Letter from the Commission - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 381/41)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt, A. Tokár and M. Wasmeier, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for the annulment of the alleged decision of the Directorate-General for Budget of the Commission, contained in letter BUDG/B/03MV D (2014) 2351197 of 15 July 2014, by which the Commission formally demanded the Slovak Republic to make funds available to the Commission for the gross amount of EUR 1 6 02  457,33 (of which 25 % should be deducted to cover expense incurred in collection) corresponding to a loss of traditional own resources, at the latest by the first working day following the 19th day of the second month after the letter was sent.

th

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Holds that there is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene of the Federal Republic of Germany and Romania. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Holds that there is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene of the Federal Republic of Germany and Romania.

| 3. | Orders the Slovak Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Slovak Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | Orders the Slovak Republic, the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany and Romania each to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Slovak Republic, the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany and Romania each to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Dragan BLAZEVIC.

No. COA15-1343.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Michael V. Mecca, asPresident and Chief Executive Officer of BH/RE, L.L.C. (the “Company”), certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(A)  the accompanying Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(B)  the information in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

Dated: November 14, 2007

 
|   | /S/ Michael  V. Mecca                                                 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael V.  Mecca                                                     |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive  Officer) |

 

----
PRICE v. STATE of North Carolina, OFFICE OF the STATE AUDITOR.

No. 471P14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Brandon L. Truman, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina Office of the State Auditor.

Michael C. Byrne, Attorney at Law, for Price, John.

Gary R. Govert, Assistant Solicitor General, for State of North Carolina Office of the State Auditor.

Valerie L. Bateman, Raleigh, OSHR General Counsel, for State of North Carolina Office of the State Auditor.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, for State of North Carolina Office of the State Auditor.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of February 2015 by Respondent to Appear:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

ERVIN, J. recused.
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Lawrence KLINGLER

No. 278P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Michael Lawrence Klingler, for Klingler, Michael Lawrence.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 27th of July 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."