alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018408EN.01006101.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/61

---

Action brought on 25 September 2018 — YS v Commission

(Case T-572/18)

(2018/C 408/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: YS (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare and adjudge that the individual decision no longer to grant the applicant the reimbursement of the school fees in connection with her child as of the 2017/2018 school year, processed on 14 November 2017 and reflected for the first time in her pay slip for December 2017, is annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare and adjudge that the individual decision no longer to grant the applicant the reimbursement of the school fees in connection with her child as of the 2017/2018 school year, processed on 14 November 2017 and reflected for the first time in her pay slip for December 2017, is annulled;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of general implementing provisions on the reimbursement of medical fees, in so far as the defendant’s amended interpretation infringed acquired rights, legitimate expectations, legal certainty and the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of general implementing provisions on the reimbursement of medical fees, in so far as the defendant’s amended interpretation infringed acquired rights, legitimate expectations, legal certainty and the principle of good administration.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the child, the right to family life and the right to education. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the child, the right to family life and the right to education.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging the failure properly to balance the applicant’s interests and to comply with the principle of proportionality, which failures vitiate the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging the failure properly to balance the applicant’s interests and to comply with the principle of proportionality, which failures vitiate the contested decision.

---
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00285-CR

IN RE ROBERT VINCENT ENRIGHT, SR.

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert Enright, Sr. filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting this Court to 

order the Johnson County Court to forward Enright’s notice of interlocutory appeal, 

which was filed with the county clerk on April 8, 2008, to this Court. The notice of 

appeal has now been forwarded to, and filed with, this Court.1

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as moot.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 15, 2008

Do not publish 

[OT06]

 

1

It has been assigned docket number 10-08-00342-CR and styled Enright v. State.
STATE v. Somchoi NOORSOB

131P16-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 17, 2016

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Somchoi Noonsab, for Noonsab, Somchoi.

Somchoi Noorsob, for Noorsob, Somchoi.

*252The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of October 2016 by Petitioner for Notice to Appeal and Request for a Certificate of Appealability:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of October 2016."
State of North Carolina v. Curtis Louis Sangster

No. 84P15-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Curtis Louis Sangster, Pro Se.

Mr. Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ms. N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, For State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 2nd of September 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 8th of December 2016."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DOUGLAS ALEXANDER AMADOR

GUTIERREZ, AKA Douglas Amador,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 71046 Agency No. A208

- 559

- 439

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2019 **
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Douglas Alexander Amador

- Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing

his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application s for asylum, withholding of remo val , relief under the Convention Against Torture

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 71046

(“CAT”) , and cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency ’s factual findings

. Garcia

Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 103 1 (9th C ir. 2014)

. We review de novo questions of law

. Cerezo v. Mukasey , 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Amador

- Gutierrez established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)

- (5)

. Thus, Amador

- Gutierrez ’s asylum

claim fails. In his opening br ief, Amador

- Gutierrez fails to challenge the agency’s

denial of his withholding of removal and CAT claims

. See Corro

- Barragan v.

Holde r , 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver)

. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Amador

Gutierrez failed to establish eligibility for humanitarian asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii) ; see also Singh v. Whitaker , 914 F.3d 654, 662 (9th Cir. 2019) ( discussing th e applicant’s burden to show that humanitarian relief is warranted). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal3 19

- 71046

because Amador

- Gutierrez raise s no colorable legal or constitutional claim. See

Martinez

- Rosas v. Gonzales , 424 F.3d 926, 9 29

- 30 (9th Cir. 2005) ( the court’s jurisdiction over challenges to the agency’s discretionary hardship determination is limited to constitutional claims or questions of law )

. The agency did not err in concluding that Amador

- Gutierrez could not
establish derivative legal status through his great

- grandmother. See 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1158(b)(3)( A ) (derivative asylum available to an asylee’s spouse or child) ; 8
U.S.C. § 1254a (discussing Temporary Protected Status)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Norman Alan KERR v. CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT FOR FORSYTH COUNTY

No. 206P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Norman Alan Kerr, for Kerr, Norman Alan.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 21st of June 2017 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Forsyth County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of June 2017 by Petitioner to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 – Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (350, 250
and 150)**

**(Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07)**

Community trade mark – Applications for Community word marks 350, 250 and 150 – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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)(c)) (see paras 25-31)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Three actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 December 2006 (Cases R 1033/2006-4, R 1034/2006-4 and R 1035/2006-4) concerning applications for registration of word marks 350, 250 and 150 as Community trade marks. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word marks 350, 250 and 150 for goods in Class 16 |
| Decision of the Examiner: | Registrations refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeals dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the actions; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

October 21, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-15552

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00949-CV-T-MAP

MORNINGSTAR HEALTHCARE, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GREYSTONE & CO., INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(October 21, 2008)

Before BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the district court’s awarding of fees and costs to

Greystone & Co., Inc., when it prevailed on its summary judgment motion in

Morningstar Healthcare, LLC’s suit against Greystone on a breach of contract

claim. Morningstar concedes the order granting fees and costs should be affirmed

if its appeal from the granting of summary judgment is unsuccessful. Because we

affirmed the district court’s summary judgment order in the companion case

Morningstar Healthcare, LLC v. Greystone & Co., Inc., 07-14829, the order

awarding fees and costs to Greystone is also AFFIRMED.

2
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has deter mined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-31293 Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KERRY JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CR-58-T)

______________________________________________

August 29, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

C ourt-appointed counsel for Kerry Jackson, Gary V. Schwab e ,
Jr., has filed a brief as required by Anders v. Calif ornia , 386

U.S. 738 (1967). We have independently reviewed the brief and

record and have found no non-frivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel2

is excused from further respo n sibilities herein and Jackson’s

APPEAL is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
# C_2008313EN.01000702.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v deutsche internet versicherung AG

(Case C-298/07) (1)

1

(Directive 2000/31/EC - Article 5(1)(c) - Electronic commerce - Internet service provider - Electronic mail)

(2008/C 313/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Applicant:

Defendant: deutsche internet versicherung AG

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1) — Service provider offering such services exclusively via the internet by indicating on his website only his electronic mail address and providing recipients with a field in which to ask written questions — Whether this service provider also has to provide a telephone number

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) must be interpreted as meaning that a service provider is required to supply to recipients of the service, before the conclusion of a contract with them, in addition to its electronic mail address, other information which allows the service provider to be contacted rapidly and communicated with in a direct and effective manner. That information does not necessarily have to be a telephone number. That information may be in the form of an electronic enquiry template through which the recipients of the service can contact the service provider via the internet, to whom the service provider replies by electronic mail except in situations where a recipient of the service, who, after contacting the service provider electronically, finds himself without access to the electronic network, requests the latter to provide access to another, non-electronic, means of communication.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.

1

---
# C_2009205EN.01004701.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/47

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — Du Pont de Nemours (France) and Others v Commission

(Case T-467/07) (1)

1

2009/C 205/86

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

1

---
STATE v. Montanelle Deangelo POSEY

314A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 12, 2017

Hannah H. Love, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Posey, Montanelle DeAngelo.

Heather Haney, Assistant Attorney General, Wes Saunders, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of October 2017 by State of NC to Substitute Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th of October 2017."
May 24, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOSHUA MORALES, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00829-CV V.

NEOMI FERNANDEZ, Appellee

____________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order signed 

by the court below on July 1, 2011. Having considered the motion and found it 

meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

JOSHUA MORALES.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
BRACKETT v. THOMAS

146PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 24, 2017

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, for Thomas, Kelly J. (Commissioner NC Division of Motor Vehicles).

Joel N. Oakley, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Brackett, Wayne T. (Jr.).

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 24th of October 2017 by Respondent:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of October 2017."

Respondent shall have up to and including the 29th day of November 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
EXHIBIT 11.1

STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF
BASIC EARNINGS AND DILUTED
EARNINGS PER SHARE



YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,                      2005          2004          2003
                                      -----------   -----------   -----------
Net income from continuing operations $ 2,469,000   $ 4,753,000   $ 4,063,000
Discontinued operations:
 Gain on disposal                            -             -          745,000
                                      -----------   -----------   -----------
Net income                            $ 2,469,000   $ 4,753,000   $ 4,808,000
                                      ===========   ===========   ===========

BASIC:
  Weighted average number of
   common shares basic                  4,296,525     4,157,081     4,501,342
Basic earnings per share from
  continuing operations                     $0.57         $1.14         $0.90
Basic gain per share on disposal of
  discontinued operations                     -             -            0.17
                                      -----------   -----------   -----------
Basic earnings per share                    $0.57         $1.14         $1.07
                                      ===========   ===========   ===========


DILUTED:
 Common and common equivalent shares
  outstanding:
   Weighted average number of common
    shares basic                        4,296,525     4,157,081     4,501,342
   Common stock equivalents from
    options computed utilizing the
    treasury-stock method based on the
    average fair market value of common
    stock during the period               177,586       207,602       210,078
                                      -----------   -----------   -----------
Weighted average number of common and
  common equivalent shares   diluted    4,474,111     4,364,683     4,711,420

Diluted earnings per share from
  continuing operations                     $0.55         $1.09         $0.86
Diluted gain per share on disposal of
  discontinued operations                     -             -            0.16
                                      -----------   -----------   -----------
Diluted earnings per share                  $0.55         $1.09         $1.02
                                      ===========   ===========   ===========
EXHIBIT 23.1

                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Forms S-8 pertaining to the BCB
Financial Services Corporation 1988 Stock Option Plan, the BCB
Financial Services Corporation 1989 Stock Option Plan, the BCB
Financial Services Corporation 1994 Stock Option Plan and the BCB
Financial Services Corporation 1996 Stock Option Plan and
Form S-3 pertaining the to BCB Financial Services Corporation
Shareholder Automatic Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase
Plan, of our report dated January 30, 1998 relating to the
consolidated financial statements of BCB Financial Services
Corporation and subsidiary included in its Annual Report
(Form 10- KSB) for the year ended December 31, 1997.


                              BEARD & COMPANY, INC.



Reading, Pennsylvania
March 3, 1998
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Marilyn Kelly

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 15, 2006 

Order 

 

September 15, 2006 

131767 & (64) 

PHILLIP GULLEY, as Guardian and 

Conservator of DARNELL HILL, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 131767 

v CoA: 259012 

 Wayne CC: 03-309246-NF 

AUTOMOBILE CLUB INSURANCE 

ASSOCIATION, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by the attorneys for the 

parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered and, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with 

prejudice and without costs.
##### 



Exhibit 32.0
 UNIVERSAL BIOSENSORS, INC.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13(a)-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.The undersigned have executed this Certificate as of the 14th day of November 2007.
 /s/ Mark MorrisonMark MorrissonChief Executive Officer and Executive Director/s/ Salesh BalakSalesh BalakChief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2375

___________________________

Jaysen McCleary; Bela Animal Legal Defense and Rescue

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants

v.

City of Des Moines; Scott Sanders; Jeffrey Lester; Katharine Massier; Dana

Wingert; James Butler; Ryan Mann; Doe, Officer; Thomas Starbuck; Linda Lane;

Ann Morgan; Jeff Morgan

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

Submitted: July 5, 2018

Filed: July 11, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
PlaintiffsJaysen McCleary and Bela Animal Legal Defense and Rescue appeal

after the district court

1

entered a post-remand order denying their requests for default

judgment and for sanctions. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court

affirms.

This court concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying plaintiffs’ request for default judgment. See Weitz Co. LLC v. MacKenzie

House, LLC, 665 F.3d 970, 977 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); Spirtas Co. v.

Nautilus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 667, 670-71 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that this court may

affirmon any basis supported by record); Johnson v. Dayton Elec. Mfg.Co., 140 F.3d

781, 784 (8th Cir. 1998) (setting forth factors court considersin determining whether

to set aside entry of default). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

plaintiffs’ request for sanctions. See Exec. Air Taxi Corp. v. City of Bismarck, 518

F.3d 562, 570-71 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review).

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

1The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa. 

-2-