alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 391/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 391 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6316 November 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 391

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6316 November 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2020/C 391/01 | Council Decision of 10 November 2020 appointing the President of the Boards of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2020/C 391/01

Council Decision of 10 November 2020 appointing the President of the Boards of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office

1

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 391/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 391/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 10 November 2020

appointing the President of the Boards of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office

(2020/C 391/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (1), and in particular Article 166(1) thereof,

Whereas:

On 8 June 2020, the Council received from the Management Board of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) a list of candidates proposed for the post of President of the Boards of Appeal of the EUIPO,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1.   Mr João Nuno MAROCO AMARAL NEGRÃO, born in Lisbon (Portugal) on 2 November 1970, is hereby appointed President of the Boards of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for a term of five years.

2.   The date on which the five-year term referred to in paragraph 1 commences shall be determined by the Management Board of the EUIPO.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 10 November 2020.

For the Council

The President

M. ROTH

---

(1)  OJ L 154, 16.6.2017, p. 1.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina, v. Kenneth GORE, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA17-267

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 21, 2017

NO ERROR.
JACKSON v. CENTURY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

337A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 29, 2017

Tony S. Botros, Attorney at Law, for Jackson, Thomas, et al.

Susan K. Burkhart, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Century Mutual Insurance Company.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of November 2017 by Plaintiffs to Amend Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of November 2017."
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

September 10, 2008

Mr. John Steven Mostyn

The Mostyn Law Firm

200 Westcott

Houston, TX 77007

Ms. April F. Robbins

Brackett & Ellis

100 Main Street

Fort Worth, TX 76102

RE:Case Number:  08-0208

Court of Appeals Number:  

Trial Court Number:  

Style:IN RE  HURRICANE RITA HOMEOWNERS' CLAIMS

Dear Counsel:

Today the Multidistrict Litigation Panel lifted issued the enclosed order.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

**Case No. 08-0208Page 1**
# C_2010113EN.01004001.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2010 — Mäurer + Wirtz v OHIM — (tosca de FEDEOLIVA)

(Case T-63/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark tosca de FEDEOLIVA - Earlier Community and national word marks TOSCA - Relative grounds for refusal - Failure to take an argument into consideration - Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 113/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mäurer + Wirtz GmbH & Co. KG (Stolberg, Germany) (represented by: D. Eickemeier, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Exportaciones Aceiteras Fedeoliva, AIE (Jaén, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 December 2006 (Case R 761/2006-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG and Exportaciones Aceiteras Fedeoliva, AIE.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 December 2006 (Case R 761/2006-2), to the extent that it rejects the opposition brought on the basis of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (now Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 December 2006 (Case R 761/2006-2), to the extent that it rejects the opposition brought on the basis of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (now Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark);

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Mäurer + Wirtz GmbH & Co. KG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) each to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mäurer + Wirtz GmbH & Co. KG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) each to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
# C_2009044EN.01000802.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine, Sollac Méditerrannée, Société Arcelor Packaging International, Société Ugine & Alz France, Société Industeel Loire, Société Creusot Métal, Société Imphy Alloys, Arcelor SA v Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Écologie et du Développement durable, Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

(Case C-127/07) (1)

1

(Environment - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scope - Installations in the steel sector included - Installations in the chemical and non-ferrous metal sectors excluded - Principle of equal treatment)

(2009/C 44/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine, Sollac Méditerrannée, Société Arcelor Packaging International, Société Ugine & Alz France, Société Industeel Loire, Société Creusot Métal, Société Imphy Alloys, Arcelor SA

Applicants:

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Écologie et du Développement durable, Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

Defendants:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État — Validity, in the light of the Community principle of equal treatment, of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32) — Difference in treatment as between, on the one hand, installations in the steel sector subject to the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme laid down by the Directive and, on the other, the aluminium and plastic industries, which emit identical greenhouse gases and which are not subject to that system — Objective justification for that difference in treatment?

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2004/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004, from the point of view of the principle of equal treatment has disclosed nothing to affect its validity in so far as it makes the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme applicable to the steel sector without including the chemical and non-ferrous metal sectors in its scope.

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

1

---
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 8, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN ORLANDO TITSWORTH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MIKE MULLIN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-7057

(D.C. No. 08-CV-00129-RAW-KEW)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before TACHA, KELLY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Steven Orlando Titsworth, a state inmate appearing pro se, seeks a

certificate of appealability (COA) allowing him to appeal from the district court’s

denial of his habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because the district

court’s conclusion that Mr. Titsworth’s petition was untimely is not reasonably

debatable, see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), we deny a COA and

dismiss the appeal.

On February 26, 2003, Mr. Titsworth pleaded guilty to petit larceny and

received a one-year suspended sentence. Because he did not appeal, his

conviction would become final ten days thereafter, on March 8, 2003. That date
-2-

was a Saturday, so the conviction became final on March 10, 2003. See Okla. Ct.

Crim. App. R. 1.4, 1.5, 4.2(A); Fisher v. Gibson, 262 F.3d 1135, 1142 (10th Cir.

2001). Mr. Titsworth then had one year to file his federal habeas corpus petition

under § 2244(d)(1)(A). This federal petition was filed on March 28, 2008. On

May 5, 2008, the State moved to dismiss the federal petition, and on May 29,

2008, the district court granted the motion on the merits and noted that Mr.

Titsworth had not responded within the time allowed. 1 R. Doc. 9. Thereafter,

Mr. Titsworth filed an objection to the motion to dismiss which was denied. 1 R.

Docs. 11 and 18. 

Mr. Titsworth argues that the one-year limitation period should run from

February 28, 2008, after the conclusion of various state post-conviction

proceedings, the earliest of which was a motion to withdraw his guilty plea filed

January 25, 2007. He also contends that he became aware of the factual predicate

of his claims on November 15, 2006, when he began researching and determined

that his counsel provided incorrect information about his sentence and the district

court did not properly advise him. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D). Neither

ground makes the district court’s order reasonably debatable. The state postconviction proceedings initiated after the one-year limitation period of §

2244(d)(1)(A) do not toll. See Fisher, 262 F.3d at 1142-43. Moreover, the

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that Mr. Titsworth should have been

aware of the sentencing problem on March 5, 2004, a factual determination that is
-3-

presumed correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Thus, Mr. Titsworth’s federal petition

was filed well after the one-year period commencing on March 5, 2004. 

Accordingly, we DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
BROWN v. STATE

345P17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 6, 2017

Eddricco Brown, for Brown, Eddrico Li'shaun.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Robert S. Banks, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of November 2017 by Petitioner for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of November 2017."
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40351 Summary Calendar

KENNETH I. GANTHER, REVEREND, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LESLIE WOODS, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-94-CV-405

- - - - - - - - - - March 2, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kenneth Ivory Ganther, Texas inmate #610862, challenges the judgment for the defendant following a jury trial in his suit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ganther argues that the district court abused its discretion when it set aside a default judgment against Woods. Woods showed good cause for the delay, and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it set aside the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c); In re Dierschke , 975 F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir. 1992).No. 97-40351 -2- Ganther argues that the district court erred when it denied his motion for summary judgment. Ganther, however, did not meet his initial burden of identifying those portions of the record which he believed demonstrated the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). Ganther also challenges the district court's refusal to appoint counsel. Ganther was not entitled to the appointment of counsel. See Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). Last, Ganther's arguments about the district court's refusal to grant a new trial are without merit. See Weaver v. Amoco Prod. Co. , 66 F.3d 85, 88 (5th Cir. 1995). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and Ganther’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                        507,041 
<SECURITIES>                                1,003,530 
<RECEIVABLES>                               4,233,000 
<ALLOWANCES>                                (214,000) 
<INVENTORY>                                 2,695,961 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            8,562,266       
<PP&E>                                      4,681,585      
<DEPRECIATION>                            (1,843,469)    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             12,262,324      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       2,178,245    
<BONDS>                                             0  
<COMMON>                                      104,077 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         2 
<OTHER-SE>                                  9,802,618       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               12,262,324         
<SALES>                                     6,257,840          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            6,257,840          
<CGS>                                       3,565,393          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               3,565,393          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            8,142,321       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             63,896       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             5,289,684       
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         5,289,684      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                5,289,684 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (0.601) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.601) 
        

</TABLE>
# C_2017382EN.01005601.xml

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/56

---

Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Helibética v Commission and SRB

(Case T-638/17)

(2017/C 382/69)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Helibética, SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

| — | Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos

Single Resolution Board

Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL

Single Resolution Board

Comercial Vascongada Recalde

Commission and Single Resolution Board

García Suárez and Others

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Fidesban and Others

Single Resolution Board

Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda

Commission and Single Resolution Board.

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

NO. 03-18-00473-CV

E. J., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 428TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY 

NO. 17-1409, THE HONORABLE MELISSA MCCLENAHAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant E.J. filed her notice of appeal on July 16, 2018. The appellate record 

was complete July 24, 2018, and appellant’s brief was due August 16, 2018. To date, appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. 

The rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals 

from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days 

for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule requires greater compliance with briefing 

deadlines. Therefore, we order counsel to file appellant’s brief no later than August 30, 2018. If 

the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why she should not be 

held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on August 20, 2018.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field
STATE of North Carolina v. Oscar GALLEGOS

No. 303P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Mr. Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Gallegos, Oscar.

Mr. K. D. Sturgis, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ms. N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th of September 2017 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:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of September 2017 by Defendant to Deem Petition for Discretionary Review Timely Filed:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of September 2017 by Defendant to Consider Petition for Discretionary Review a Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 21-0612

Mark F. Higgins

MACo Defense Services

2717 Skyway Drive, Suite F

Helena, MT 59602-1213

Phone (406) 441-5471

Fax (406) 441-5497

mhiggins@mtcounties.org

Attorneys for Defendant – Appellant

DALE YATSKO AND JANELLE 

YATSKO D/B/A GREEN CREEK 

DISPENSARY, 

Plaintiffs – Appellees,

v.

CASCADE COUNTY, MONTANA,

Defendant – Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon Review of Appellant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension to File 

Appellant’s Reply Brief and with good cause;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s are granted an extension of 

time up to and including August 10, 2022 in which to file and serve its reply brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

July 5 2022

07/05/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0612