alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008301EN.01003902.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/39

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 September 2008 — Stepek v OHIM

(Case T-294/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ‘GOLF-FASHION MASTERS THE CHOICE TO WIN’ - Earlier national figurative mark ‘The Masters GOLF COMPANY’ - Withdrawal of appeal brought before the Board of Appeal - Costs incurred before the Board of Appeal)

(2008/C 301/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wilhelm Stepek (Stadl-Paura, Austria) (represented by: H. Heigl, W. Berger and G. Lehner, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: The Masters Golf Company Ltd (Weston-super-Mare, United Kingdom)

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 First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2007 (Case R 95/2007-1) concerning opposition proceedings between The Masters Golf Company Ltd and Mr Wilhelm Stepek.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Wilhelm Stepek is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Wilhelm Stepek is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.

1

---
# C_2010024EN.01007002.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/70

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2009 — O v Commission

(Joined Cases F-69/07 and F-60/08) (1)

1

(Staff case - Members of the Contractual staff - Article 88 of the CEOS - Stable employment - Article 100 of the CEOS - Medical proviso - Article 39 EC - Free movement of workers)

2010/C 24/127

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: O (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially, in Case F-69/07, I. Šulce and M. Simm, Agents, and, in Case F-60/08, I. Šulce and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents, and, subsequently, in both cases, by K. Zieleśkiewicz and M. Bauer, Agents.

Intervener:

Re:

Re:

F-69/07: Annulment of the Commission’s decisions fixing the conditions of employment of the applicant as a member of the contract staff in so far as they, first, provide for the application of the proviso laid down in Article 100 of the CEOS and in Article 1 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, and, second, limit the duration of the contract to the period from 16 September 2006 to 15 September 2009.

F-60/08: Annulment of the decision of the Commission to apply to the applicant, following the opinion of the Invalidity Committee, the proviso laid down in Article 100 of the CEOS.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 14 September 2006 in so far as it imposes a medical proviso in respect of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 14 September 2006 in so far as it imposes a medical proviso in respect of the applicant;

| 2. | Dismisses Case F-69/07 O v Commission for the remainder as unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses Case F-69/07 O v Commission for the remainder as unfounded;

| 3. | Dismisses Case F-60/08 O v Commission as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses Case F-60/08 O v Commission as inadmissible;

| 4. | In Case F-69/07, the European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay half of the applicant’s costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

In Case F-69/07, the European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay half of the applicant’s costs;

| 5. | The applicant is ordered to bear half its costs in Case F-69/07 and to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission in Case F-60/08. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The applicant is ordered to bear half its costs in Case F-69/07 and to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission in Case F-60/08.

---

(1)  F-69/07: OJ C 235, 6.10.2007, p. 29.

1

F-60/08: OJ C 223 of 30.8.2008, p. 63.

---
In Re: Foreclosure of Real Property Under Deed of Trust from Michael D. Gutowski and Mary Anne Gutowski, in the Original Amount of $286,000.00, Dated November 9, 2006 and Recorded on November 15, 2006 in Book 4367 at Page 502, Union County Registry; Trustee Services of Carolina, LLC, Substitute Trustee

No. 280P15

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Michael D. Gutowski, Pro Se.

*520Ms. Mary Anne Gutowski, Pro Se.

Ms. Emily F. Lowder, Mr. Michael T. Hosmer, Mr. Jeremy B. Wilkins, Attorneys at Law, For Bank of America, N.A.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Respondents on the 10th of August 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Petitioner, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of August 2015 by Respondents 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 December 2016."
#### Weston P. SPOONIRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D03-173.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 26, 2003.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Angela D. McCravy, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See State v. Causey,*503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987).

SAWAYA, C.J., SHARP, W., and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion on Remand filed September 23 , 2014 .

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 12
- 00876
- CR

JOE AMOS SHAW , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1292395

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND
Appellant Joe Amos Shaw appeals his conviction for murder . On original submission, appellant argued that there wa s insufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s costs of $ 334 reflected in the judgment . We agreed and modified the trial court’s judgment to delete the specific amount of costs assessed

. Shaw v. State , 420 S.W.3d 857, 864

– 65 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 201 4 ) vacated and remanded , No. PD

- 249

- 14 ; 2014 WL 4160116 (Tex. Crim. App. A ug.2

20 , 2014). The Court of Criminal Appeals vacated our judgment and remanded in light of its opinion in Johnson v. State , 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). We review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there is a basis for the costs, not to determine whether there was sufficient evidence offe red at trial to prove each cost

. Id. at 390 . Traditional sufficiency

- of

- the

- evidence standards of review do not apply. Id

. Generally, a bill of costs must (1) contain the items of cost, (2) be signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost, and (3) be certified. Id . at 392

– 93 ; see Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. arts. 103.0 01, 103.006 . The record in this case contains a computer

- screen printout of the Harris County Justice Information Management System (JIMS) “Cost Bill Assessment.” In Johnson , the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a JIMS report constitutes an appropriate bill of costs because the report itemized the accrued court costs, was certified by the district clerk, and was signed by a deputy clerk. Johnson , 423 S.W.3d at 393. T he JIMS report in this record is a compliant bill of costs because it contains an itemize d list of costs, is certified by the district clerk, and is signed by a deputy district clerk

. See id. at 392

– 93 ; Perez v. State , No. 14

- 12

- 00893

- CR (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] April 22, 2014, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

. The fact that the bill of costs was not prepared until after the court signed the judgment does not defeat the lawfulness of the bill of costs. Id. at 394. (“[M]atters pertaining to the imposition of court costs need not be brought to the attention of the tri al court, including a bill of costs prepared after a criminal trial.”). The trial court assessed $ 334 in costs against appellant. The sum of the itemized costs in the JIMS report is $ 334

. There being no challenge to any specific cost or the basis for the a ssessment of such cost, the bill of costs supports $ 334 of3

the costs assessed in the judgment. Id . at 396

. On remand, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Busby, and Donovan. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2( b).
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

22 November 2007

Case F-34/06

**Christos Michail**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Civil service – Officials – Appraisal – Career development report – 2004 appraisal – Action for annulment – Action for damages)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Michail seeks annulment of his career development report for the period
from 1 January to 31 December 2004, annulment of the decision of 4 November 2005 rejecting his complaint against the 2004
career development report, and an order for the Commission to pay him compensation of EUR 120 000 for the non-material damage
he alleges he has suffered.

**Held:**The action is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

**Summary**

*Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report*

*(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)*

Since an assessment cannot be made of an official’s ability, efficiency and conduct in the service for a period when he was
not assigned any duties, it follows that an official cannot complain that his career development report for a particular year
does not include an assessment for such a period.

(see para. 31)

See:

F-67/05 *Michail* v *Commission* [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, para. 33
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19311]


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

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act; Briefing on Commission Functions and Procedures

AGENCY: Postal Rate Commission.

ACTION: Notice of briefing.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission will serve as a general host for a visiting 
delegation from PostEurop on October 11 through 14, 2005. The agenda 
includes briefings on Commission operations, functions and activities, 
as well as related issues, such as postal reform, efficient component 
pricing, negotiated service agreements, worksharing, and distinctions 
between domestic and European postal models. It also includes Postal 
Service briefings, a postal facility tour, meetings with members of 
Congress and their staff, and discussions with mailers.

DATES: October 11 through 14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Postal Rate Commission, 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, 
Washington, DC 20268-001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 
202-789-6818.

    Dated: September 22, 2005.
Steven W. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-19311 Filed 9-22-05; 4:41 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-M
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, B. Alva Schoomer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.  /s/ B. Alva Schoomer B. Alva Schoomer Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer October 8, 2008
Danielle Star MALDONADO-REYNOLDS v. Frank L. PERRY, Secretary, N.C. Department of Public Safety

No. 323P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 1, 2016

Ms. Danielle Star Maldonado-Reynolds, for Maldonado-Reynolds, Danielle Star.

Mr. Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Perry, Frank (Secretary of NC Public Safety).

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 31st of August 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Unknown County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of September 2016."
In the Matter of: A.G.

No. COA16-687

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

VACATED AND REMANDED.
Union County v. Town of Marshville

No. 411P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Karlene Scott Turrentine, Attorney at Law, Warrenton, for Town of Marshville.

S. C. Kitchen, Attorney at Law, Durham.

J. Daniel Bishop, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Union County.

Scott A. Hefner, Attorney at Law.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 7th of November 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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."
In the MATTER OF: D.L.L.M.

No. COA16-1181

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 5, 2017

VACATED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
Kevin S. LASECKI, Plaintiff, v. Stacey M. LASECKI, Defendant.

No. COA17-544

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 17, 2017

Kevin S. Lasecki ("Plaintiff") appeals from the trial court's order holding him in civil contempt of court. We vacate and remand.

VACATED. REMANDED.
In the MATTER OF: A.E.C.

No. 82PA15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Joyce L. Terres, Assistant Appellate Defender, for McCoy, James.

Beth Hall, GAL Attorney Advocate, for GAL.

Elizabeth Kennedy-Gurney, Attorney at Law, for Cumberland County DSS

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 21st of November 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000920691
<NAME> TRIPOS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            8728
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    10635
<ALLOWANCES>                                        77
<INVENTORY>                                         29
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 19900
<PP&E>                                            6431
<DEPRECIATION>                                    5267
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   24509
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             9540
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                       14337
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     24509
<SALES>                                          28786
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 28786
<CGS>                                             9991
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     9991
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 16491
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (425)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2712
<INCOME-TAX>                                       760
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1952
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1952
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .59
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978.  This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadena G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm.755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On July 27, 2005, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of permit applications received.  A permit was issued on September 20, 2005 to: Sarah Andrews, Permit No. 2006-018.                

Nadene G. Kennedy, 

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-19254  Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
1522.

#### Gate City Fire Insurance Company *v.*Thornton.

Powell, J.

1. The objection that an action is prematurely brought can be raised only by a timely formal plea in abatement, or, if the defect appears on the face of the pleading, by a special .demurrer filed at the first term. *Realty Company*v. *Ellis,*4 *Ga. App.*402 (61 S. E. 832), and cit.; *Jester*v. *Bainbridge Bank, 4 Ga. App.*469 (61 S. E. 926).

*586Action on insurance policy, from city court of Waycross — Judge Myers. September 15, 1908.

Argued January 26,

Decided February 9, 1909.

*W. I. Heyward,*for plaintiff in error. *A. B. Spence,*contra.

2. A person in possession of personal property is presumed to be the owner, until the contrary appears. Where a fire-insurance company insures certain property as belonging to the insured, the burden is on the-insurance company, in an action on the policy, to prove that the insured did not own the property.

3. Even though one of the parties .to the case be sworn as a witness, he will not be required to answer as to the contents of a writing accessible-by proper diligence, over the objection that the writing is the highest and best evidence. While the answer might be an admission against, interest, it is not such an admission as the court may require of the party sworn as a witness.

4. Refusal to direct a verdict is not subject-matter for a valid exception, in this State. - *Judgment affirmed.*
STATE of North Carolina, v. Jeremy Jason WALLACE, Defendant.

No. COA17-245

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 19, 2017

NO ERROR.
STATE v. Harry Sharod JAMES

514PA11-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 22, 2017

*276David W. Andrews, Assistant Appellate Defender, for James, Harry Sharod

Sandra Wallace-Smith, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Eric J. Zogry, Marsha L. Levick, Juvenile Defender, for Juvenile Law Center

Mark Dorosin, Elizabeth M. Haddix, Brent Ducharme, Allen Buansi, Peggy Nicholson, Attorneys at Law, Jennifer W. Marsh, Director of Research, K. Ricky Watson, Jr., Co-Director of Youth Justice Project, for Senator Angela Bryant, et al.

Morgan, J.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of May 2017 by Juvenile Law Center for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of May 2017."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
On petition for review filed April 13,

of an order of dismissal filed by the Court of Appeals March 9,

petition for review allowed; decision of Court of Appeals vacated and case remanded to Court of Appeals August 12, 1999

#### In the Matter of Helen M. Wirth, a Protected Person. John WIRTH, *Petitioner on Review, v.*Janice DIMICK, Joan Slegelmilch, Jim Wirth and Pioneer Trust Bank, N.A., *Respondents on Review.*

(CC 97C-12400; CA A103882; SC S46374)

984 P2d 853

John Wirth, petitioner *pro se,*filed the petition.

No appearance *contra.*

PER CURIAM

*316PER CURIAM

It appears that the order of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal in this case was based on an incorrect factual premise respecting petitioner’s filing of an undertaking on appeal.

The petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.