alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Kornegay Family Farms, LLC, et al. v. Cross Creek Seed, Inc.

187PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 6, 2017

L. Neal Ellis, Jr., Attorney at Law, Wake Forest, J. P. Williamson, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Kornegay Family Farms, LLC, et al.

Steven B. Epstein, Attorney at Law, Caitlin Goforth, Attorney at Law, Saad Gul, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Cross Creek Seed, Inc.

Matthew N. Leerberg, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Kip David Nelson, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys.

Jon Ward, Attorney at Law, Michael W. Patrick, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Phillip Jacob Parker, Jr., Attorney at Law, H. Julian Philpott, Jr., Attorney at Law, for N.C. Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief filed on the 5th of January 2017 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of January 2017."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 31st day of January 2017 to file and serve his/her reply brief with this Court.
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 December 2007 – Commission v Sweden**

**(Case C‐257/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 2004/17/EC – Coordination of the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors
– Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p.1). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
# C_2008128EN.01001302.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/13

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Netherlands) — adidas AG, adidas Benelux BV v Marca Mode CV, C&A Nederland, H&M Hennes & Mauritz Netherlands BV, Vendex KBB Nederland BV

(Case C-102/07) (1)

1

(Trade marks - Articles 5(1)(b), 5(2) and 6(1)(b) of Directive 89/104/EEC - Requirement of availability - Three-stripe figurative marks - Two-stripe motifs used by competitors as decoration - Complaint alleging infringement and dilution of the mark)

(2008/C 128/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: adidas AG, adidas Benelux BV

Applicants:

Defendants: Marca Mode CV, C&A Nederland, H&M Hennes & Mauritz Netherlands BV, Vendex KBB Nederland BV

Defendants:

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Non-registration or invalidity — Lack of distinctive character — Acquisition through usage — General interest in not restricting unduly the availability of signs perceived by the relevant public as signs serving to embellish a product and not to distinguish it

Operative part of the judgment

First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of availability cannot be taken into account in the assessment of the scope of the exclusive rights of the proprietor of a trade mark, except in so far as the limitation of the effects of the trade mark defined in Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive applies.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina, v. Chester Burton GRICE, Defendant.

No. COA16-1274

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 18, 2017

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

June 7, 2024

SC-2024-0281

Ex parte C.G. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT 

OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: C.G. v. Marion County Department of 

Human Resources) (Marion Juvenile Court: JU-21-206.02; Civil Appeals: 

CL-2023-0401).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on June 7, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Wise, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Sellers, 

Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
# C_2008064EN.01002702.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/27

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amminstrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 28 December 2007 — Sea Srl v Comune di Ponte Nossa

(Case C-573/07)

(2008/C 64/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

The Tribunale Amminstrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sea Srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Comune di Ponte Nossa

Defendant:

Question referred

Is the direct award of a contract for the collection, transport and disposal of solid urban and similar waste to a wholly publicly owned limited company, the relevant statutes of which — for the purposes of Article 113 of Legislative Decree No 267 of 18 August 2000 — are set out in the grounds of this order, compatible with Community law and, in particular, with the freedom of establishment or freedom to provide services, the prohibition of discrimination and the obligations relating to equal treatment, transparency and free competition, as referred to in Articles 12 EC, 43 EC, 45 EC, 46 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC?

---
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4222 

To correct the boundaries of John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

System units in Florida, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 12, 2014 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To correct the boundaries of John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System units in Florida, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL 

4 BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The map included in the set of 

6 maps entitled ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources System’’ re7 ferred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources 

8 Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)) and relating to Indian Peninsula 

9 Unit FL–92 and Cape San Blas Unit P–30 in Florida 

10 is hereby replaced by another map relating to the same 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4222 IH

1 unit entitled ‘‘John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

2 System Corrected Indian Peninsula Unit FL–92 and Cape 

3 San Blas Unit P–30’’ and dated llllll. 

4 (b) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior 

5 shall keep the replacement map referred to in subsection 

6 (a) on file and available for inspection in accordance with 

7 section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 

8 U.S.C. 3503(b)). 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

June 25, 2013

p0617 

# Order

Clerk June 25, 2013

146827

CAPITOL INSURANCE CORPORATION,

Sub rogee of BROOKLYN MANOR, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146827

COA: 307949

Jackson CC: 11

- 000141

- NZ

CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 29, 2013

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
G.S.C. HOLDINGS, LLC ; T. and A Amusements, LLC; and Crazie Overstock Promotions, LLC v. Patrick MCCRORY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of North Carolina; Frank L. Perry, in his official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Prevention; Mark J. Senter, in his official capacity as Branch Head of the Alcohol Law Enforcement Division; Shannon Craddock, in his official capacity as the Chief of Police of the City of Archdale, North Carolina; and Maynard B. Reid, Jr., in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Randolph County

No. 88P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

William J. Brian, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Keith P. Anthony, Attorney at Law, Durham, for G.S.C. Holdings, LLC, et al.

Shannon R. Joseph, Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

Hal F. Askins, Special Deputy Attorney General, Patrick H. Flanagan, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, J. Joy Strickland, Assistant Attorney General, for McCrory, Patrick (Governor), et al.

*622James C. Lanik, Attorney at Law, Christopher Charles Finan, Attorney at Law, High Point, for Craddock, Shannon (Chief of Police).

Ben C. Morgan, Attorney at Law, Asheboro, for Reid, Maynard B. (Jr.) (Sheriff).

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 14th of March 2017 by Defendants (McCrory, Perry, Senter, and Craddock) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of June 2017."
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 382 

To provide for State approval of national monuments, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2013 

Ms. FOXX (for herself, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. GOHMERT, and Mr. MULVANEY) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for State approval of national monuments, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preserve Land Free5 dom For Americans Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS. 

7 The Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) in section 2 (16 U.S.C. 431), by striking 

10 ‘‘SEC. 2. That the’’ and inserting the following: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 382 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS. 

2 ‘‘After obtaining approval from the Governor and the 

3 legislature of each State within the boundaries of which 

4 the proposed national monument would be located, the’’; 

5 and 

6 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 5. RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLIC USE. 

8 ‘‘The Secretary of the Interior shall not implement 

9 any restrictions on the public use of a national monument 

10 until the expiration of an appropriate review period (as 

11 determined by the Secretary of the Interior) providing for 

12 public input and State approval under section 2.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4044 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4044

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the child tax 
                          credit for 2 years.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2014

Mr. Braley of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the child tax 
                          credit for 2 years.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Child Tax Credit Restoration Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY MODIFICATION OF CHILD TAX CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Section 24 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Special Rules for 2014 and 2015.--In the case of any taxable 
year beginning in 2014 or 2015--
            ``(1) Increased credit per child.--Subsection (a) shall be 
        applied by substituting `$2,000' for `$1,000'.
            ``(2) Increased refundability.--Subsection (d)(1)(B)(i) 
        shall be applied by substituting `30 percent' for `15 
        percent'.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee FOR the C-BASS MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-RP2, Plaintiff, v. Willie Lee PINKNEY, Clara Pinkney, Siddco, Inc., Poore Substitute Trustee, Ltd, Defendants.

No. COA15-797-2

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 1, 2017

REVERSED.
**Exhibit 31.2**
CFO CERTIFICATION
I, Joseph V. Green, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Winston Hotels, 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 the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4.  The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;
(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: March 16, 2005    /s/ Joseph V. Green  Joseph V. Green Chief Financial Officer
1
Motion Denied; Order filed April 2 , 2015

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00665

- CV

____________ DOV AVNI KAMINETZKY , Appellant

V.
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAI SAL DISTRICT , Appellee

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013

- 12988



### ORDER
Appellant’s brief was originally due January 8, 2015

. We granted two extension s of time to file appellant’ s brief until March 26, 2015

. No brief was filed.
On March 25, 2015
, appellant filed a further request for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. We deny the request and issue the following order.Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief with the clerk of this court on

or before April 10 , 201 5 . If appellant does not tim ely file the brief as ordered, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
### NO. 14TH COA NO. 14-14-00403-CR GEDRIC HOPES § IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL § V. § S s 

# J2ECEIVED THESTATEOFTEXAS § APPEALSATAUSTIN^EMSRIAfflNALAPPALS MOTIONFOREXTENTIONOFTIMETOFILEA ^2015 

# PETITIONFORDISCRETIONARYREVIEW AbelACOSta,Cl@fk COMES NOW, Cedric Hopes, #01932624, Petitioner in the above -styled and -numbered cause and files his motion for an extention 

### of time to file his Petition for Discretionary Review, and shows this Honorable Court GOOD CAUSE to GRANT this motion as follows: 

### 1* Petitioner is currently incarcerated in the TDCJ-CID Cof- 

## •FJLEDIN field in Anderson County, Texas, and is indigent. ^QURTOFCRlft/Mui 2* Petitioner does not have counsel for his help and irs"'-> ^ -«-.~..~ proceeding in the Pro se-status. 

## AbelAcosta Cierk 3* The -Coffield unit s law library only allows for each ' 

### offender to have 10 hours per week to conduct their research, draft out their briefs, and properly prepare for any legal docu
ment to be filed with the allotted time. 

### 4* The Petitioner's memorandum Opinion was handed down on 

### November 5, 2015. See 14th Court of Appeals' Opinion under No. 14-14-00403-CR. Therefore, the Petitioner's PDR is currently due
on December 5, 2015. 

### 5* The Petitioner is seeking for' a 60 day extention in order to properly prepare and file his PDR on his own behalf. 

### 6* The Petitioner's proposed deadline will fall on February page 13, 2016. 7* The Petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable Court to extend the current due date to February 3, 2016, or to a reasonable amount of time that will secure the Petitioner the 

### full opportunity to file a meaningful PDR on his own behalf.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF The Petitioner prays that this Honorable Court will GRANT this motion and reset the deadline to February 3, 2016, or to

a reasonable maount of time that this Hononrable Court sees fit.
y 

## Cedric T. Hopes u/ #01932624-Coffield ' 2661 FM 2054 

### Tenn. Colony, Tx. 75884 Pro se.

INMATE DECLARATION 

### I, Cedric T. Hopes, #01932624, Currently incarcerated in the TDCJ-CID Coffield unit in Anderson County, Texas, declares:."that' 

### the foregoing is true and correct under the penalty of perjury. Executed this day of November 25, 2(

### ^OLA^ /_. ^-f)g^v£^<-—" Cedric T. Hopes #01932624-Coffield 2661 FM 2054 

### Tenn.Colony, Tx. 75884 Pro se.

PROOF OF MAILING 

### i'l I, Cedric T. Hopes, #01932624, have placed this motion for an,extention of time into the internal mailing system of the Cof-


### :::.?:!•• page 2

### field unit inAnderson County, Texas, on November 25, 2015. This is true and correct under the penalty of perjury. Executed 

### this day of November 25, 2015.

Cedric T. Hopes #01932624-Coffield 2661 FM 2054 

### Tenn.Colony, Tx. 75884 Pro se.



### page 3 of 3 

# flfi^^
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCT 17, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-11895

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00153-CR-2-MEF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus

EUGENIO TORRES PADRON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

_________________________

(October 17, 2008)

Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Eugenio Padron, who conditionally pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm
as a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), appeals the denial of his motion to

suppress. Padron argues that the arresting officer lacked jurisdiction to make a

traffic stop of Padron; Padron did not voluntarily consent to the search of his

vehicle; his consent was invalid because it was given after the traffic stop ended or

should have ended; and he was arrested for a traffic misdemeanor. We affirm.

On denial of a motion to suppress, we review findings of fact for clear error

and the application of law to those facts de novo. United States v. Ramirez, 476

F.3d 1231, 1235 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2924 (2007). We construe all

facts in the light most favorable to the government. Id. at 1235–36. Arguments

that are not raised in the district court are reviewed for plain error. See United

States v. Ward, 486 F.3d 1212, 1221 (11th Cir. 2007). 

The district court did not err when it denied Padron’s motion to suppress. 

Officer Robbie Autrey stopped Padron within the officer’s jurisdiction for driving

an automobile without a registered license plate; Padron volunteered to a search of

his vehicle and consented a second time after he had received a written warning

for driving without a license and was free to leave; and Autrey discovered a

firearm in Padron’s vehicle and arrested Padron for possession of the weapon. At

the suppression hearing, Padron did not challenge Autrey’s testimony, which

supports the findings of the district court that the traffic stop, consent to search,

2
and arrest were lawful. See Ala. Code § 11-40-10(a); Ramirez, 476 F.3d 1231,

1236–40; United States v. Purcell, 236 F.3d 1274, 1277–82 (11th Cir. 2001). The

district court did not clearly err in its findings.

AFFIRMED.

3