alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011139EN.01001601.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2011 — Ford Motor v OHIM

(Case T-486/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark CA - Earlier Community word and figurative marks KA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 139/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ford Motor Company (Dearborn, Michigan, United States) (represented by: R. Ingerl, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alkar Automotive, SA (Derio, Spain) (represented by: S. Alsonso Maruri, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2007 (Case R 85/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ford Motor Company and Alkar Automotive, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ford Motor Company to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ford Motor Company to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Travis Lanier WILKINS

No. COA16-1146

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 16, 2017

NO ERROR.
COOPER v. BERGER, et al.

52PA17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2017

D. Martin Warf, Attorney at Law, Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Candace S. Friel, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Berger, Philip E.

Jim W. Phillips, Jr., Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Eric M. David, Attorney at Law, Daniel F.E. Smith, Attorney at Law, for Cooper, Roy A. (III).

Grayson Kelley, Chief Deputy.

Alexander McC. Peters, Special Deputy Attorney General, Alexander McC. Peters, Senior Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

John R. Wester, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, J. Dickson Phillips, III, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, Adam K. Doerr, Attorney at Law, Kevin Crandall, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Hunt, James B., Jr., et al.

Andrew H. Erteschik, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, et al.

Allison J. Riggs, Attorney at Law, Anita S. Earls, Attorney at Law, Emily E. Seawell, Attorney at Law, for County Board Members.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of August 2017 by the Honorable James B. Hunt, Jr. and the Honorable Burley B. Mitchell, Jr. for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 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).
CORR-2013.3.31-10Q EX 10.10 (3)






SCHEDULE 1.1
Lenders and Commitments


	
		
	Lender
	Commitment

	KeyBank National Association
	$20,000,000.00

























SCHEDULE 6.7
Litigation


None.













SCHEDULE 6.10
Tax Audits


None.













SCHEDULE 6.15
Transactions with Affiliates


Management or advisory agreements to which the Borrower is a party from time to time, as such agreements may be amended, restated or otherwise modified from time to time.













SCHEDULE 6.20(f)
Unresolved Real Estate Claims or Disputes


None.













SCHEDULE 6.20(g)
Material Real Estate Agreements


None.
Exhibit 23.2


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements Nos.
33-90820,  33-90822, 333-42685 and 333-47591 of PennFed Financial Services, Inc.
on Forms S-8, and  Registration  Statement  No.  333-20499 of PennFed  Financial
Services,  Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated August 27, 2004,  September  12,
2005, as to Note U (which report  expresses an unqualified  opinion and includes
an  explanatory  paragraph  relating to the  restatement  described  in Note U),
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of PennFed Financial Services, Inc.
for the year ended June 30, 2006.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey
September 13, 2006
STATE of North Carolina v. Joshua SANCHEZ

No. 410PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed December 8, 2017

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Ebony J. Pittman, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.

Rudolph A. Ashton, III, New Bern, for defendant-appellee.

*142PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
EXHIBIT 11


<PAGE>



Exhibit No. 11  Statement re: Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                               Year                       Year
                                                               Ended                      Ended
                                                         December 31, 1997          December 31, 1996
                                                        ---------------------   ---------------------

<S>                                                         <C>                       <C>
Net income..............................................    $ 4,874,000               $ 3,479,000
Weighted average common shares outstanding..............      3,656,924                 4,066,615
Basic Earnings per share................................    $      1.33               $       .86
Weighted average common shares outstanding..............      3,656,924                 4,066,615
Effect of dilution securities stock options.............        251,667                   127,372
Total weighted average common shares outstanding for                                    4,193,987
  diluted earnings per share computation................      3,908,591
Diluted earnings per share..............................    $      1.25               $      0.83

</TABLE>
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFMONTANAFILEDPR07-0011JUN252021BowenGreenwoodClerkofSupremeCourtStateofMontanaINTHEMATTEROFCALLINGARETIREDDISTRICTJUDGETOACTIVESERVICEORDERTheHonorableJohnW.Parker,JudgeoftheDistrictCourtfortheEighthJudicialDistrictoftheStateofMontana,hasrequestedtheassistanceofretiredDistrictJudgeMikeSalvagnitoassumejurisdictionofCascadeCountyCauseNos.DDI21-010,MatterofEkoueE.Abalo,andADR-16-099,JuanAnastasioRodriguezv.SharleeJoyRodriguez.JudgeParkeralsorequestsassistancewiththeEighthJudicialDistrictAdultDrugTreatmentCourtonJune30,2021.JudgeSalvagnihasretiredundertheprovisionsoftheMontanaJudges'RetirementSystemand,beingsubjecttocallfordutypursuantto§19-5-103(a)and(b),MCA,hasadvisedthatheisagreeabletoassistingtheEighthJudicialDistrictCourtwiththeabove-listedmatters.ITISHEREBYORDERED:1.TheHonorableMikeSalvagni,retiredDistrictJudge,isherebycalledtoactiveserviceintheDistrictCourtoftheEighthJudicialDistrictoftheStateofMontana,toassumejudicialauthorityofCascadeCountyCauseNos.DDI21-010,MatterofEkoueE.Abalo,andADR-16-099,JuanAnastasioRodriguezv.SharleeJoyRodriguez,andtopresideovertheEighthJudicialDistrictAdultDrugTreatmentCourtonJune30,2021.JudgeSalvagniisherebyauthorizedtoproceedwithanyandallnecessaryhearings,opinions,andorders,includingfinalresolutionofsaidmatters.2.Forallactiveservice,JudgeSalvagnishallbepaidthesalarycompensationtowhichheisentitledby§19-5-103(2)(b),MCA,andactualexpenses,ifany,shallbereimbursed.06/25/2021Case Number: PR 07-00113.AcopyofthisOrdershallbefiledwiththeClerkofCourtofCascadeCounty,withtherequestthatthisOrderbesenttoallcounselofrecordintheabove-listedmatters.4.AcopyofthisOrdershallalsobefurnishedtotheHonorableJohnW.Parker,theHonorableMikeSalvagni,andtoCathyPennie,OfficeoftheSupremeCourtAdministrator.ThisOrderisenteredbytheChiefJusticepursuanttoArticleVII,Section6(3)ofthe1972MontanaConstitution,andstatutesenactedinconformitytherewithandinimplementationthereof.L4.DATEDthisZ-E-dayofJune,2021.ChiefJustice2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7047

DANIEL W. KINARD, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

TERRY O’BRIEN, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior 

District Judge. (7:07-CV-00601-jlk-mfu) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Daniel W. Kinard, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Daniel W. Kinard, a prisoner in federal custody 

serving a sentence imposed by the District of Columbia, seeks to 

appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Madley v. 

United States Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 

2002). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find any 

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is 

debatable or wrong, and any dispositive procedural ruling by the 

district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Kinard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### John R. NORRIS v. Martin W. GOULD, Jr. and Malise Prieto in Her Capacity as Clerk for the 22nd Judicial District, Parish of St. Tammany, State of Louisiana.

No. 2003-C-2492.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 10, 2003.

In re Norris, John R.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2003-14063; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CE 1876.

Denied.
# C_2012089EN.01002902.xml

| 24.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/29

---

Order of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Prym and Others v Commission

(Case T-454/07) (1)

1

2012/C 89/49

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

1

---
#### David Lynn ALEXANDER (Doc # 85828) and Harry Junius Granger (Doc # 85829) v. Burl CAIN, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary Angola, Louisiana.

No. 2001-KP-2919.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Alexander, David Lynn et al.; Granger, Henry Junius; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 26,375.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J.,

would grant in part and order the district court to hold a hearing. In all other respects, I would deny the writ application.

JOHNSON, J.,

would grant in part and order the district court to hold a hearing. *620In all other respects, I would deny the writ application.
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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2018 (the “Report”) of Hercules Capital, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Manuel A. Henriquez, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. 

 

| Date: August 2, 2018 | By:    | /S/ MANUEL A. HENRIQUEZ

                                   |
|----------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   | Manuel A. Henriquez                                              |
|                 |   | Chairman, President, and                                         |
|                 |   | Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer) |
STATE of North Carolina v. Dawayne David KNOLTON

No. 425P15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Jennifer T. Harrod, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kristy M. Newton, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Knolton, Dawayne David

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st of June 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
STATE of North Carolina v. Marcus Reshawn SINGLETON

No. COA17-392

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 21, 2017

VACATED. REMANDED.
#### EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Appellant, v. APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, INC., and Local 978, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Appellees.

No. 76-2422.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Dec. 13, 1977.

Decided Jan. 9, 1978.

Vella M. Fink, Atty., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D. C. (Abner W. Sibal, Gen. Counsel, Joseph T. Eddins, Associate Gen. Counsel, Beatrice Rosenberg, Asst. Gen. Counsel and Marian Halley, Atty., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellant.

William B. Poff and Thomas T. Lawson, Roanoke, Va. (Richard M. Thomas, Woods, Rogers, Muse, Walker *&*Thornton, Roanoke, Va., Guy Farmer, Farmer, Shibley, McGuinn & Flood, Roger H. Schnapp, New York City, on brief), for appellees.

Before FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge, and WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Following a charge filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and unsuccessful conciliation efforts, on February 10, 1976, the EEOC filed a civil suit against Appalachian Power Company and Local 978 of the International *355Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.,*(the Act). The EEOC sought prohibitory and mandatory injunctive relief against sexual and/or racial discrimination, and back pay. Appalachian Power moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction asserting that the Commissioner’s charge which commenced the proceedings prior to the federal suit was not given under oath or affirmation as was required by Section 706(b) of the Act, as amended, in 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b).

Following a hearing, the district court agreed with Appalachian. Judge Dalton held that since the underlying “charge” by the EEOC was not under “oath or affirmation,” then it was not a valid charge. Accordingly, since the EEOC had no jurisdiction to proceed with its investigation, then neither did the district court. The EEOC appeals, and we affirm.

We have carefully considered the oral arguments in this case, the briefs, and the record. We affirm for the reasons set forth by the district court in its opinion and judgment entered September 10, 1976, as supplemented by its order and judgment entered September 30, 1976, *Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Appalachian Power Company, et al.,*Civil Action No. 76-0019(R), Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division.

Like the court below, we note that Section 706(b) of the Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) is cast in mandatory terms requiring that “[cjharges [including those instituted by EEOC itself] shall be in writing under oath of affirmation . . .” We have previously held the requirements of § 706(b) of the Act to be mandatory, *Patterson v. American Tobacco Co.,*535 F.2d 257, 271-272 (4th Cir. 1976), and see no reason to ignore the plain language that Congress has enacted.

The judgment of the district court is

*AFFIRMED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4253 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4253

     To permanently withdraw, reserve, and transfer Bureau of Land 
Management lands used for military purposes in Alaska, Nevada, and New 
    Mexico to the appropriate Secretary of the military department 
                               concerned.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2014

Mr. Bishop of Utah (for himself, Mr. Amodei, Mr. Pearce, and Mr. Young 
  of Alaska) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To permanently withdraw, reserve, and transfer Bureau of Land 
Management lands used for military purposes in Alaska, Nevada, and New 
    Mexico to the appropriate Secretary of the military department 
                               concerned.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF TERMINATION DATE.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Bureau of Land 
Management Withdrawn Military Lands Efficiency and Savings Act''.
    (b) In General.--Section 3015(a) of the Military Lands Withdrawal 
Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-65) is amended by striking ``shall'' the 
first place it appears and all that follows through the period and 
inserting ``shall not terminate other than by an election and 
determination of the Secretary of the military department concerned or 
until such time as the Secretary of the Interior can permanently 
transfer administrative jurisdiction of the lands withdrawn and 
reserved by this Act to the Secretary of the military department 
concerned.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3016 of the Military Lands 
Withdrawal Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-65) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
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 Colony Resorts LVH Acquisitions, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rodolfo Prieto, Chief Executive 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:



(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Rodolfo Prieto                                      
|Rodolfo Prieto Chief Executive Officer November 15, 2004
Exhibit 32.2



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 Colony Resorts LVH Acquisitions, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert Schaffhauser, Executive Vice President of Finance, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert Schaffhauser                                                  
|Robert Schaffhauser Executive Vice President of Finance November 15, 2004
# Official Journal C 17/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.017.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 17 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5419 January 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.017.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 17

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5419 January 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 017/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 017/01

Euro exchange rates

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 017/02 | Call for expression of interest in the appointment as members of the joint Board of Appeal of the three European Supervisory Authorities for the financial services sector (European Securities and Markets Authority, European Banking Authority, European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) | 2 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 017/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6095 — Ericsson/Nortel Group (MSS & Global Services)) (1) | 6 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2011/C 017/02

Call for expression of interest in the appointment as members of the joint Board of Appeal of the three European Supervisory Authorities for the financial services sector (European Securities and Markets Authority, European Banking Authority, European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority)

2

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2011/C 017/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6095 — Ericsson/Nortel Group (MSS & Global Services)) (1)

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN