alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136340 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: 136340 

 COA: 281315 

Wayne CC: 98-007542-FC

JAMES ASKEW,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0915 

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. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3817 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3817

             For the relief of Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2014

  Mr. Polis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             For the relief of Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JEANETTE VIZGUERRA-RAMIREZ.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez 
shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 
of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez enters the 
United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 
she shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 
shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez, 
the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 
1, during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number 
of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Jeanette 
Vizguerra-Ramirez shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be 
accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2008 – ratiopharm v OHIM (BioGeneriX)**

**(Case T-48/07)**

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark BioGeneriX – Absolute ground for refusal – Partially descriptive 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 – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 21, 25-27, 37)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 December 2006 (Case R 1048/2004-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BioGeneriX as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | ratiopharm GmbH |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark BioGenerix for goods in Classes 1 and 5 – Application No 1603124 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Registration partially refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 December 2006 (Case R 1048/2004-4), in so far as chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs, falling within Class 1, are concerned; |

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders ratiopharm GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay half of OHIM’s costs. OHIM is ordered to bear the other half of its costs. |
# C_2014292EN.01002301.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2014 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-463/07) (1)

1

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Premiums for bovines - Olive oil and fats - Dried fodder - Effectiveness of controls - System for penalties))

2014/C 292/27

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, agent, and by G. Aiello and F. Bucalo, avvocati dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga and D. Nardi, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2007/647/EC of 3 October 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2007 L 261, p. 28), in so far as that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

1

---
# C_2009113EN.01003401.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/34

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — Anheuser-Busch v OHIM — Budějovický Budvar (BUDWEISER)

(Case T-191/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BUDWEISER - Earlier international word and figurative marks BUDWEISER and Budweiser Budvar - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 - Infringement of rights of defence - Statement of reasons - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 - Late submission of documents - Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94)

2009/C 113/69

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (Saint Louis, Missouri, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and A. Renck, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (České Budějovice, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Čermák, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2007 (Case R 299/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik and Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Anheuser-Busch, Inc. to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of OHIM and Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Anheuser-Busch, Inc. to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of OHIM and Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.

1

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________

No. 95-60545 

Summary Calendar

______________

WILLIE RELLIFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HOLLY SPRINGS, MISSISSIPPI; ANTHONY MARION, Chief of Police,

Individually and in his official capacity; WILLIAM HENLEY,

Individually and in his official capacity as an Alderman of 

the City of Holly Springs, Mississippi; EDDIE LEE SMITH, JR., 

Mayor, Individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of

Holly Springs, Mississippi; WESLEY CRUTCHER, Individually and in

his official capacity,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(1:93-CV-113-B-A)

_________________________________________________________________

February 8, 1996

Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM*:

Plaintiff-Appellant Willie Relliford ("Relliford") appeals the

district court's granting of Defendants-Appellees' motion for

summary judgment and dismissal of Relliford's pendent state law

claims. After review of the record and counsels' briefs in this

case, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the

following reasons.
2

With regard to Relliford's § 1983 claim alleging DefendantsAppellees deprived him of property and liberty interests in

violation of his due process rights, we find that our decision in

McMillian v. City of Hazlehurst, 620 F.2d 484 (5th Cir. 1980) is

controlling. Relliford's reliance on Conley v. Board of Trustees

of Grenada County Hospital, 707 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. 1983) is

misplaced. In Conley, we distinguished McMillian because the

statutes governing municipal and hospital employees were different.

Id. at 175. The language in the policy manual in the instant case

"does not purport to limit the municipality's employment rights or

abrogate the application of Miss. Code Ann. § 21-3-5 to permit it

to discharge police employees without cause." McMillian, 620 F.2d

at 485. And like the ordinance in McMillian, the policy manual

does not undertake to make its provisions the exclusive basis for

dealing with the municipality's police officers. Moreover, while

the language in the policy manual specifies that major offenses may

result in termination, it does not limit the possible reasons for

termination to those offenses listed. Thus, we find that the

policy manual in effect in this case does not create a property

interest. See Moulton v. City of Beaumont, 991 F.2d 227, 232 n.28

(5th Cir. 1993).

As to Relliford's pendent state law claims, we find that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing them

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). See Noble v. White, 996 F.2d 797,

800 (5th Cir. 1993). Dismissal of pendent state law claims

pursuant to § 1367(c) is without prejudice. See Wong v. Stripling,
3

881 F.2d 200, 204 (5th Cir. 1989). AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3995 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3995

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the deduction for 
                      mortgage insurance premiums.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 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 extend the deduction for 
                      mortgage insurance premiums.

    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 ``Mortgage Tax Cut Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION FOR MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 163(h)(3)(E)(iv)(I) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 2013'' and 
inserting ``December 31, 2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
* 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. 07-20905

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANTONIO GARCIA, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-345-1

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Antonio Garcia, Jr.,

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Garcia has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136994 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: 136994 

 COA: 281544

 Calhoun CC: 2007-001800-FC 

RICKY SCOTT ROE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2008 order 

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

that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court. 

s0915 

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. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
----

            COUNCIL DECISION         

of 13 June 2005         

appointing a Member of the European Economic and Social Committee

(2005/456/EC, Euratom)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 259 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 167 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2002/758/EC, Euratom of 17 September 2002 appointing the Members of the Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2002 to 20 September 2006 (1),

Having regard to the nomination submitted by the Italian Government,

Having regard to the opinion of the Commission,

Whereas:

A Member’s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has fallen vacant following the resignation of Mr Giacomino TARICCO, of which the Council was informed on 28 October 2004,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr Angelo GRASSO is hereby appointed a Member of the European Economic and Social Committee in place of Mr Giacomino TARICCO for the remainder of the latter’s term of office, which runs until 20 September 2006.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 13 June 2005.

For the Council

The President

J. ASSELBORN            

----

(1)OJ L 253, 21.9.2002, p. 9.

----
State of North Carolina v. Danny Wayne Powell

No. 458P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

*365Jillian C. Katz, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Powell, Danny Wayne.

Staci T. Meyer, Attorney at Law, David Learner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of December 2016 by Defendant 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 26th of January 2017."
Exhibit 21

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                   SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


                                                               Percentage            State of
                                                                  of              Incorporation
       Parent                         Subsidiary               Ownership         or Organization
       ------                         ----------               ---------         ---------------

<S>                           <C>                                 <C>                <C>
Horizon Financial             Horizon Federal Savings Bank        100%               Federal
  Services Corporation

Horizon Federal                  Horizon Investment               100%                 Iowa
  Savings Bank                    Services, Inc.

</TABLE>

     The financial  statements of Horizon  Financial  Services  Corporation  are
consolidated with those of its subsidiaries.
Teague v. DOT

281P06-9

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Joseph E. Teague, Jr., for Teague, Joseph E., Jr.

Tina A. Krasner, Assistant Attorney General, Lars F. Nance, Special Deputy Attorney General, for NC DOT.

Julian Mann, III, Chief Administrative Law Judge.

Thelma Hill, Senior Deputy Commissioner.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of September 2016 by Plaintiff for Petition for Properly Hearing 281P06-8 to Dismiss Underlying Case of Wrongful Termination:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017." Martin, C.J., recused
# C_2009006EN.01003002.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/30

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 November 2008 — Union nationale de l'apiculture française and Others v Commission

(Case T-403/07) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Directive 91/414/EEC - Plant protection products - Directive 2007/52/EC - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2009/C 6/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Union nationale de l'apiculture française (Paris, France); Deutscher Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund eV (Utting am Ammersee, Germany); Unione nazionale associazioni apicoltori italiani (Unaapi) (Castel Sanpietro Terme, Italy); and Asociación Galega de Apicultura (AGA) (Santiago de Compostela, Spain) (represented by: B. Fau, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin and B. Doherty, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Directive 2007/52/EC of 16 August 2007 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include ethoprophos, pirimiphos-methyl and fipronil as active substances (OJ 2007 L 214, p. 3)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene.

| 3. | Union nationale de l'apiculture française, Deutscher Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund eV, Unione nazionale associazioni apicoltori italiani and Asociación Galega de Apicultura shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Union nationale de l'apiculture française, Deutscher Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund eV, Unione nazionale associazioni apicoltori italiani and Asociación Galega de Apicultura shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.

1

---
* 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. 07-60657

DELOIS BUXTON, As Mother and Duly Appointed Guardian

of Stacy Shanta Buxton

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

LIL’ DRUG STORE PRODUCTS INC; NOVARTIS

PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION; NOVARTIS

CONSUMER HEALTH INC

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges..

PER CURIAM:*

We have reviewed the briefs, pertinent portions of the record, and the

applicable law and have heard the arguments of counsel. It is clear that the

district court in its thorough opinion committed no reversible error. Its

judgment, therefore, is AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 24, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Joyce Mae NORRIS, Defendant.

No. COA16-683

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 21, 2017

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
In the MATTER OF Mary Lucille HUGHES, BY AND THROUGH Virginia Hughes INGRAM, Administratrix of the Estate of Mary Lucille Hughes, Claim for Compensation Under the North Carolina Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program

No. 87A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed March 17, 2017

UNC Center for Civil Rights, by Elizabeth Haddix, Pittsboro, and Mark Dorosin ; and Pressly, Thomas & Conley, PA, Statesville, by Edwin A. Pressly, for claimant-appellant/appellee.

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, and Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, for defendant-appellant/appellee State of North Carolina.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in *In re Redmond* , --- N.C. ----, 797 S.E.2d 275, 2017 WL 1034554 (Mar. 17, 2017) (No. 86A16), the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and this case is remanded to the Court of Appeals.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.