alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50079

Summary Calendar

BRIAN K MCPHERSON

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CV-990

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brian K. McPherson, Texas prisoner # 390173, moves for a certificate of

appealability (COA) and to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the denial

of his 28 U.S.C. § 2554 petition challenging disciplinary procedure

# 20070275873. He argues that (1) although he lost no previously-earned goodtime credits,the mandatory language and substantive predicates of the TDCJ-ID

regulations created a liberty interest entitling him to procedural due process

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 27, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50079

2

protections during his disciplinary proceeding and (2) he had a property interest

in the craftshop tools confiscated as a result of his disciplinary conviction, which

deprivation also required that he be afforded procedural due process protections.

With regard to his liberty interest claim, McPherson has not shown “that

reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). With

regard to his property interest claim,the district court did not address thatissue

below. We therefore DENY COA in part, GRANT COA in part, GRANT IFP,

VACATE the district court’s judgment and REMAND for the district court to

consider only the property interest claim. See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d

384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998). The district court should consider whether McPherson

has stated a cognizable claim under either 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or § 2254 and

whether the procedural due process requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418

U.S. 539, 564-66 (1974), were satisfied.
Filed 7/12/12 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2012 ND 125

Derek Lynn Foreid, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20120105

Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Douglas L. Mattson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Travis W. Finck, 314 East Thayer Avenue, Suite 200, Bismarck, ND 58504, for petitioner and appellant.

Ashley E. Beall, Assistant State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 5005, Minot, ND 58702- 5005, for respondent and appellee.

Foreid v. State

No. 20120105

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Derek Lynn Foreid appealed from a district court order summarily dismissing his second petition for post-conviction relief.  In 2007, Foreid was convicted of gross sexual imposition, and this Court affirmed the conviction.  State v. Foreid, 2009 ND 41, 763 N.W.2d 475.  Foreid subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the district court summarily dismissed.  This Court affirmed the dismissal on appeal.  Foreid v. State, 2011 ND 16, 798 N.W.2d 878.

[¶2]On appeal, Foreid argues the district court clearly erred in denying his petition for post-conviction relief because the jury instruction on the definition of force within the charge of gross sexual imposition was inadequate.  The State argues Foreid’s argument is barred by misuse of process because it was not raised in his previous petition for post-conviction relief.  Foreid did not raise this issue in the proceeding leading to his conviction, in the direct appeal of his conviction, or in his first petition for post-conviction relief.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).  See Heyen v. State, 2001 ND 126, ¶¶ 7, 11, 630 N.W.2d 56 (holding a claim for post-conviction relief was barred by misuse of process when petitioner inexcusably failed to raise the issue in a direct appeal or in the initial petition for post-conviction relief); Syvertson v. State, 2000 ND 185, ¶ 18, 620 N.W.2d 362 (explaining a misuse of process occurs if a defendant inexcusably fails to: (1) raise an issue in a proceeding leading to a judgment of conviction; (2) pursue an issue on appeal that was raised and litigated  in the  original district court proceedings; or (3) raise an issue in an initial petition for post-conviction relief).

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner
# C_2008285EN.01003801.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/38

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2008 — FVB v OHIM

(Case T-10/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark FVB - Earlier national word mark FVD - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 285/68)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: FVB Gesellschaft für Finanz- und Versorgungsberatung mbH (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: P. Koehler, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: FVD Gesellschaft für Finanzplanung und Vermögensberatung Deutschland mbH, formerly FVD Gesellschaft für Finanzplanung und Vorsorgemanagement Deutschland mbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented: first by J. Mattes and P. Heigl, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2006 (Case R 1343/2005-4), relating to opposition proceedings between FVD Gesellschaft für Finanzplanung und Vorsorgemanagement Deutschland mbH and FVB Gesellschaft für Finanz- und Versorgungsberatung mbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders FVB Gesellschaft für Finanz- und Versorgungsberatung mbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FVB Gesellschaft für Finanz- und Versorgungsberatung mbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

1

---
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 12 November 2008 – EOS v OHIM (PrimeCast)**

**(Case T-373/07)**

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark PrimeCast – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 24-29, 36)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 July 2007 (Case R 333/2005-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark PrimeCast as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | EOS GmbH Electro Optical Systems |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark PrimeCast for goods and services in Classes 1, 19, 40 and 42 – Application No 2854677 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Partial refusal of registration |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the application; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders EOS GmbH Electro Optical Systems to pay the costs. |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00444-CV

In the Interest of J. D. F.

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 223,645-B, HONORABLE RICK MORRIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Bridgette L. Davidson has filed a letter in which she states that “there will be no

appeal filed” from the decree designating her parentsthe joint managing conservators ofJ. D. F. We

consider this a motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: October 23, 2008
# C_2011211EN.01002202.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Arkema France and Others v Commission

(Case T-217/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for methacrylates - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Actual impact on the market - Deterrent effect of the fine - Repeat infringement - Ne bis in idem principle - Principle of proportionality - Attenuating circumstances - Actual non-application of the agreements - Attribution of liability for payment within a group of companies - Unlimited jurisdiction)

2011/C 211/48

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Arkema France (Colombes, France), Altuglas International SA (Puteaux, France) and Altumax Europe SAS (Puteaux, France) (represented by: initially A. Winckler, S. Sorinas Jimeno and P. Geffriaud, subsequently S. Sorinas Jimeno and E. Jégou, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Arbault and V. Bottka, subsequently V. Bottka and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

By way of principal claim, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, application for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Reduces the fine for which Arkema SA (now Arkema France), Altuglas International SA and Altumax Europea SAS were held jointly and severally liable under Article 2(b) of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) to EUR 113 343 750; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Reduces the fine for which Arkema SA (now Arkema France), Altuglas International SA and Altumax Europea SAS were held jointly and severally liable under Article 2(b) of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) to EUR 113 343 750;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.

1

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00614-CV

In re Kevin L. Gamble

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM DALLAS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Kevin L. Gamble requests that this Court issue a writ of mandamus against the

district clerk of Dallas County to provide court records to Gamble. Our mandamus authority does

not extend beyond our district in such cases. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004).

Dallas County is not within this Court’s geographical jurisdictional limits. See id. § 22.201(d)

(West Supp. 2008). The petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed.

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Filed: October 23, 2008
FTNT-EX10.3_2014.06.30-Q John Whittle






Exhibit 10.3
FORTINET, INC.
AMENDMENT 1
TO
CHANGE OF CONTROL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT


This Amendment 1 to the Change of Control Severance Agreement (the “Agreement”) that was made and entered into by and between John Whittle (“Executive”) and Fortinet, Inc. (the “Company”), effective as of August 7, 2009, is made and entered into by and between the Executive and Fortinet as of the date stated in the paragraph that immediately follows.
For all of the reasons stated in the Recitals of the Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and agreed, Executive and the Company hereby agree that the Effective Date of the Agreement is amended to be August 7, 2014 and such date shall be the defined term “Effective Date” throughout the Agreement.
Except for the amendment stated immediately above, the Agreement and its terms remain in place as-is.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has executed this Amendment 1 to Change of Control Severance Agreement effective as of July 31, 2014.


	
			
	COMPANY
	FORTINET, INC
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ Ken Xie

	 
	Title:
	Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer




    




	
			
	EXECUTIVE
	By:
	/s/ John Whittle

	 
	Title:
	Vice President, General Counsel
STATE of North Carolina v. Gregory Lawrence MACE, Defendant.

No. COA16-703

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 21, 2017

NO ERROR.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jason Charles KONIFKA

No. COA16-1013

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 5, 2017

NO ERROR IN PART; DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART.
# Official Journal C 201/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.201.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 201 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 548 July 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.201.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 201

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 548 July 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2011/C 201/01 | Update of the list of residence permits referred to in Article 2(15) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2011/C 201/01

Update of the list of residence permits referred to in Article 2(15) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)

1

---

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

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          11,289
<SECURITIES>                                    16,577
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,998
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (582)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,063
<PP&E>                                          13,795
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,557)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,042
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,217
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,287
<SALES>                                         41,663
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,663
<CGS>                                           11,281
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,281
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,167
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,215
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,113
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,897
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,897
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16


</TABLE>
# C_2010288EN.01006602.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/66

---

Order of the General Court of 3 September 2010 — Huta Buczek v Commission

(Joined Cases T-440/07 and T-1/08) (1)

()

(2010/C 288/119)

Language of the case: Polish

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that Case T-440/07 be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1916]



[[Page 5503]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Advisory Circular (AC) 23.1523, Minimum Flight Crew

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of advisory circular.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 
23.1523. This Advisory Circular (AC) sets forth one method that may be 
used to show compliance to the requirements contained within 14 CFR, 
part 23, 23.1523, which prescribes the certification requirements for 
minimum flight crew on part 23 airplanes. This AC is one method that 
can be used to determine workload factors and issues for normal, 
utility, acrobatic and commuter category airplanes. Material in this AC 
is neither mandatory nor regulatory in nature and does not constitute a 
regulation.
    This material is a reference for part 23 airplane manufacturers, 
modifiers, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design evaluation 
engineers, flight test engineers, engineering flight test pilots 
[Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), and Flight Standards, and 
Manufacturers] as well as human factors engineering evaluators. This 
material may be used by FAA authorized designees to perform workload 
evaluations. This AC encourages participation and coordination from all 
the test community participants described above. This AC is consistent 
with the flight test guidance and workload factors described in the 
minimum flight crew evaluation sections and workload factors described 
in AC 23-8B. This AC is an acceptable means of showing compliance for 
part 23 on flight tests and pilot judgments.
    The draft advisory circular was issued for Public Comment on July 
2, 2004 (69 FR 40451). When possible, comments received were used to 
modify the draft advisory circular.

DATES: Advisory Circular (AC) 23.1523 was issued by the Manager, Small 
Airplane Directorate on January 12, 2005.
    How to Obtain Copies: A paper copy of AC 23.1523 may be obtained by 
writing to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Subsequent 
Distribution Office, DOT Warehouse, SVC-121.23, Ardmore East Business 
Center, 3341Q 75th Avenue, Landover, MD 20785, telephone (301) 322-
5377, or by faxing your request to the warehouse at (301) 386-5394. The 
policy will also be available on the Internet at http://www.airweb.faa.gov/AC.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on January 12, 2005.
Michael K. Dahl,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-1916 Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20- 003 6 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. JUSTIN LEE LONGTINE ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 1 5 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 7 2020

04/07/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0036
**Exhibit 31.2****UNIVERSAL BIOSENSORS, INC.****CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Salesh Balak, Chief Financial Officer of Universal Biosensors, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Universal Biosensors, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a)  Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under oursupervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating tothe registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during theperiod in which this report isbeing prepared;  b)  Not applicable;  c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation;and  d)  Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reportingthat occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a)  All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controlover financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize andreport financial information; and b)  Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or otheremployees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date:November 14, 2007         /s/ Salesh Balak     Salesh Balak  Chief Financial Officer  Universal Biosensors, Inc.