alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009113EN.01003502.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/35

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 March 2009 — Telecom Italia Media v Commission

Case T-96/07 (1)

1

(State aid - Subsidies for the purchase of digital decoders - Telecommunications - Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market - Decision of the Member State, adopted during the proceedings, not to recover the aid from the undertaking which brought the action for annulment against the Commission decision - No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2009/C 113/72

Language of the case: Italian.

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Telecom Italia Media (TI Media) SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Bassam and S. Venturini, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini, G. Conte and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Sky Italia Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. González Díaz and D. Gerard, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for the annulment of Commission Decision 2007/374/EC of 24 January 2007 on State aid C 52/2005 (ex NN 88/2005, ex CP 101/2004) implemented by the Italian Republic for the subsidised purchase of digital decoders (OJ 2007 L 147, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 29.5.2007

1

---
LITTLE RIVER, LLC, Petitioner v. LEE COUNTY, North Carolina, Respondent, and Carolina Trace Association, Inc., South Landing Property Owners Association, Inc., Village at the Trace Property Owners Association, Sedgemoor Property Owners Association, Escalante Carolina Trace, LLC, Sandra Ward, Terry Ward, Laura Riddle, Bobby Riddle, Jr., Daniel Stanley, Kay Coles, Fred Berman, C. David Turner, John Beck, Lyona Beck, Gerald Merritt, Cheryl Merritt, Kermit Keeter, Louane Keeter, Alfred Rushatz, Sharwynne Blatterman, Barry Markowitz, Miriam Markowitz, Terri Dussault, and Homer Todd Spofford, Neighbor-Respondents

No. 32P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2018

Karen M. Kemerait, M. Gray Styers, Jr., Matthew N. Leerberg, Attorneys at Law, Raleigh, for Little River, LLC

Garris Neil Yarborough, Fayetteville, Whitney Parrish, Attorneys at Law, for Lee County

Michael C. Thelen, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Carolina Trace Association, Inc., et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of January 2018 by Respondent (Lee County) 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 11th of October 2018."
#### STATE ex rel. Eddie L. TEXADA v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2237.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Texada, Eddie L.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 98K0700; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 02-00141.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
Thomas Foy KENNIHAN, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Elizabeth Palmer KENNIHAN, Defendant.

No. COA17-1154

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 3, 2018

DISMISSED.
#### In the Matter of Steven Watson, Appellant, v Police Department of the City of New York, Respondent.

[718 NYS2d 853]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered February 8, 2000, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to vacate a determination of respondent New York City Police Department, dated June 3, 1999, denying petitioner’s application for appointment as a special patrolman, dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The circumstances underlying petitioner’s record of arrests, to the extent set forth in the administrative record, provided a rational basis for respondent’s denial of petitioner’s application for appointment as a special patrolman *(see,*Administrative Code of City of NY § 14-106; 38 RCNY 13-01 [d], [e]). Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
<PAGE>




                                                        February 11, 2002


Stephen M. Owen, C.P.A.
Chief Financial Officer/Vice President Finance
Coyne International Enterprises Corp.
140 Cortland Avenue
Syracuse, New York 13221

Dear Mr. Owen:

     We are unable to submit our opinion related to the financial statements of
Coyne International Enterprises Corp. for the year ended October 31, 2001, as
the audit of those financial statements has not been completed.

     The delay in completing the audit is due to the fact that the predecessor
accountants have not determined as yet whether certain items noted in the
current year audit require an adjustment to financial statements previously
issued.

                                                    Very truly yours,



                                                    Dannible & McKee, LLP

DM:amh
STATE v. John H. SAYRE

330A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

Nicholas C. Woomer-Deters, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Sayre, John H.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender.

Tracy Nayer, Assistant Attorney General, Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of December 2017 by State of NC to Take Judicial Notice of Court Records:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."
#### Patricia A. ALDAY, Appellant, v. Delbert D. GLEASON, Appellee.

No. 5D03-149.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Sept. 5, 2003.

*1106Francis P. Roche, Jr., of Law Office of Francis P. Roche, Jr., Orange City, for Appellant.

Debra S. Johnson, of Debra S. Johnson, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.

GRIFFIN, J.

Patricia Alday, i/k/a Patricia Gleason [“Patricia”], appeals a final judgment of modification of a dissolution of marriage. She raises five issues. First, she contends that, in designating Delbert Gleason [“Delbert”], her ex-husband, as primary residential parent of their son, the trial court did not make the required finding that it was in the child’s best interests. Second, she maintains that the trial court erred as a matter of law by awarding retroactive child support for two years prior to the filing of Delbert’s petition for modification. Third, Patricia asserts that the trial court erred in awarding certain relief that she claims was not specifically requested in the pleadings. Fourth, she complains that the trial court erred in adopting verbatim the final judgment prepared by Delbert’s attorney. Finally, Patricia maintains that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award her attorney’s fees for defending against Delbert’s motions for contempt. We affirm.

Because there is no transcript of the trial, we are unable to determine whether the trial court made a finding on the record during the trial that it was in the best interests of the parties’ child that Delbert be designated the primary custodial parent. *See Clark v. Clark,*825 So.2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Nor did Patricia complain of such an omission in the trial court. Similarly, because, section 61.30(ll)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), allows the trial court, in some circumstances, to award retroactive child support prior to the time the petition/motion was filed, we have no basis to reverse that award.

The record does not support Patricia’s contention that the trial court awarded Delbert relief not contained in the pleadings. Nor do we find harmful error in the trial court’s use of the husband’s proposed judgment. Patricia did not demonstrate that the final judgment was inconsistent with any earlier pronouncement of the trial court. *See Ford Motor Co. v. Starling,*721 So.2d 335, 337 n. 4 (Fla. 5th DCA *1998)(citing White v. White,*686 So.2d 762 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)); *Polizzi v. Polizzi,*600 So.2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Patricia’s request for attorney’s fees. AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON and TORPY, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                      ----------



           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
       ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
                          TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officers of DuraVest, Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Company"),
does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company of Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "10-KSB Report") that: (1) the 10-KSB 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 10-KSB Report
fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


                                        DURAVEST, INC.


Dated:  April 7, 2004                  By: /s/ Patti Cooke
                                            -------------------
                                            Patti Cooke, President and Principal
                                            Executive, Financial and Accounting
                                            Officer
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58791-58792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20245]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34751]


Louisiana Southern Railroad, Inc.--Lease and Operation 
Exemption--The Kansas City Southern Railway Company

    Louisiana Southern Railroad, Inc. (LSRR), a noncarrier,\1\ has 
filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease from 
The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS)

[[Page 58792]]

and operate four rail lines totaling approximately 165.8 miles. The 
rail lines are located between: (1) A point 1,600 feet south of LN&W 
milepost 62, near Gibsland, LA, and milepost B-192, near Pineville, LA; 
(2) milepost 148.8, at Winnfield, LA, and the end of the track, at 
Joyce, LA; (3) milepost 78.8, at Minden, LA, and milepost 83.5, at 
Sibley, LA; and (4) milepost 48.48, south of Springhill, LA, and 
milepost B-102, east of Hinkle, LA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ LSRR is controlled by Watco Companies, Inc., a noncarrier 
that also controls thirteen (13) Class III railroads operating in 
thirteen States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This transaction is related to STB Finance Docket No. 34752, Watco 
Companies, Inc.--Continuance in Control Exemption--Louisiana Southern 
Railroad, Inc., wherein Watco Companies, Inc., has concurrently filed a 
verified notice of exemption to continue in control of LSRR upon LSRR's 
becoming a Class III rail carrier.
    LSRR certifies that the projected annual revenues as a result of 
this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class 
I rail carrier, and further certifies that its projected annual 
revenues will not exceed $5 million.
    The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or shortly after 
September 25, 2005.
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34751, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one 
copy of each pleading must be served on Karl Morell, Of Counsel, BALL 
JANIK LLP, Suite 225, 1455 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: October 3, 2005.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-20245 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
#### STATE ex rel. Larry SHELBY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2172.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Shelby, Larry;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 400-013; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-K-0652.

Denied.
Patricia Cates GAINES, Plaintiff, v. Henry Peden GAINES, Defendant.

No. COA17-1114

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 2, 2018

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
#### Elsie E. Rounds, complainant-respondent, v. John J. Newmeyer, Cecelia F. Dougherty and Frank Dougherty, defendants-appellants.

[Argued October 21st, 1946.

Decided January 17th, 1947.]

*Mr. David Goldsmith*and *Mr. Matthew F. Mélico,*for the' complainant-respondent.

*Messrs. Parsons, Labrecque, Gamona <& Combs (Mr. Theodore J.*Labrecque), for the defendants-appellants Cecelia F. Dougherty and Frank Dougherty.

*Messrs. Heuser ■& Heuser (Mr. Ralph Heuser),*for the defendant-appellant John J. Newmeyer.

Per Curiam.

The appeal is from a decree in Chancery which declared invalid, and set aside, a deed bearing date March 3d, 1938, purporting to have been given by Elsie E. Newmeyer and John J. Newmeyer, her husband, to Cecelia F. Newmeyer, recorded April 3d, 1941, in the county clerk’s office of Monmouth County in Book 1851 of Deeds, page 149. The respondent, who was the complainant, is the person so named as Elsie E. Newmeyer. None of the defendants testified.

We have reviewed the proofs and the applicable law. We conclude that there was no delivery or intent to deliver. Failing those elements no title passed. *Crawford*v. *Bertholf, 1 N. J. Eq. 458; Woodward*v. *Woodward, 8 N. J. Eq. 779;*
      *264
      *Cannon*v. *Cannon, 26 N. J. Eq. 316; Ruckman*v. *Ruckman, 33 N. J. Eq. 354; Hildebrand*v. *Willig, 64 N. J. Eq.*249; *Rowley*v. *Bowyer, 75 N. J. Eq. 80; Abbe*v. *Donohue, 90 N. J. Eq. 597; Blachowski*v. *Blachowski, 135 N. J. Eq. 425; Folly*v. *Vantuyl, 9 N. J. Law 153.*The decree correctly determined the issues, including the allowances.

The decree under appeal will be affirmed.

*For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Paeiceb, Bodine, Donges, Hei-iee, Peesicie, Colie, Waoi-ienfeld, Eastwood, Wells, Raffeety, Dill, Refund, McGeei-ian, McLean, JJ. 15.

*For reversal*— None.
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
  Date:
    
    May 12, 2008
 /s/ Curt Hecker
    
    /s/ Doug WrightCurt Hecker
    
    Doug WrightChief Executive Officer
    
    Chief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24D0208. EUTHA L. DORSEY v. BYUNG KIM.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. After that

court issued a writ of possession and judgment in favor of Byung Kim, Eutha Dorsey

appealed to the state court. The state court entered a final judgment in favor of Kim

on December 2, 2022. Ten days later, Dorsey filed a direct appeal to this Court; we

dismissed the appeal as untimely and for failure to comply with the discretionary

review procedures. See Dorsey v. Kim, Case No. A24A0415 (Oct. 16, 2023); OCGA

§§ 5-6-35 (a) (11); 44-7-56 (b) (1).

Following dismissal of her first appeal, Dorsey filed a motion in the trial court

pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60 (d), seeking to set aside the December 2022 order. The

trial court denied that motion on November 9, 2023, and Dorsey filed a direct appeal

that same day. As we did with her first appeal, we dismissed Dorsey’s second appeal

for lack of jurisdiction. In doing so, we noted that an appeal from a trial court order

denying a motion to set aside a judgment must be initiated by filing an application for

discretionary review. See Dorsey v. Kim, Case No. A24A0734 (Jan. 5, 2024); OCGA

§ 5-6-35 (a) (8), (b). Four days after we dismissed Dorsey’s second appeal, she filed

the current application for discretionary review, seeking to appeal the trial court’s

December 2022 and November 2023 orders. Again, however, we lack jurisdiction.

To be timely, a discretionary application must be filed within 30 days of the

entry of the order, decision, or judgment sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d).

This statutory deadline is jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application

for appeal that fails to comply with the statute. See In the Interest of B. R. F., 299 Ga.

January 25, 2024
294, 298 (788 SE2d 416) (2016) (holding that an appellate court lacksjurisdiction over

an untimely application for discretionary appeal); Hair Restoration Specialists v. State

of Georgia, 360 Ga. App. 901, 903 (862 SE2d 564) (2021) (compliance with the

discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional, and failure to comply with that

procedure requires dismissal of the appeal). Here, Dorsey filed her application more

than a year following entry of the order of final judgment and 61 days after entry ofthe

order denying her motion to set aside. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider

this application, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/25/2024
----

----

**EXHIBIT        32.**

**CERTIFICATION**

|  | (1) | the                  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Oxford Media, Inc. for the quarter                  ended June 30, 2006 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                  the                  quarter ended June 30, 2006, fairly presents in all material respects,                  the                  financial condition and results of operations of Oxford Media,                  Inc.. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By: | Lewis                  Jaffe |
|-----|------------------------------|

| Title: | Chief                  Executive Officer |
|--------|------------------------------------------|

| By: | David                  Noyes |
|-----|------------------------------|

| Title: | Chief                  Financial Officer |
|--------|------------------------------------------|

----
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

N O

. P D-1038-14

RYAN WA LLACE, App ellant

v.

THE S TATE O F TEXAS

ORDER P URSUANT TO TEXAS RULE S OF

AP P ELL ATE PR OCEDURE RULE 9.10

P e r c u r i a m

.

O R D E R

T h i s c a u s e i s b e f

o r e t h i s C o u r t o n A p p e l l a n t ’ s P e t i t i o n f o r D i s c r e t i o n a r y R e v i e w f r o m

t r i a l c o u r t c a s e n u m b e r F 1 0

- 7 3 1 1

- R i n t h e 2 6 5 t h D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f D a l l a s C o u n t y

.

T h e C l e r k o f t h i s C o u r t h a s d i s c o v e r e d s e n s i t i v e d a t a i n t h e r e c o r d

, n a m e l y : t h e n a m e

o f t h e c o m p l a i n a n t w h o w a s a m i n o r a t t h e t i m e t h e o f f e n s e w a s c o m m i t t e d a n d a n

i n d i v i d u a l ’ s p e r s o n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n n u m b e r

. T E X

. R

. A P P

. P

. 9

. 1 0 ( a )

. P u r s u a n t t o T e x a s R u l e

o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e 9

. 1 0

, t h e C l e r k s o u g h t a r u l i n g f r o m t h e C o u r t a n d t h e r e a f t e r n o t i f i e d

t h e p a r t i e s

. T h e C o u r t n o w o r d e r s t h e C l e r k o f t h i s C o u r t t o r e d a c t o r s e a l t h e d i s c o v e r e dRule 9.10 Order - 2

s e n s i t i v e d a t a f

r o m t h e r e c o r d s i d e n t i f

i e d a n d l i s t e d b e l o w

. T h e C o u r t f u r t h e r o r d e r s t h e t r i a l

c o u r t c l e r k

, t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s

, o r a n y e n t i t y o r i n d i v i d u a l p o s s e s s i n g t h e

f o l l o w i n g d o c u m e n t s t o r e d a c t o r s e a l t h e d o c u m e n t s p u r s u a n t t o t h i s o r d e r :

1

. C l e r k ’ s R e c o r d

2

. R e p o r t e r ’ s R e c o r d

3

. A p p e l l a n t ’ s B r i e f o n A p p e a l

4

. A p p e l l a n t ’ s P r o S e P e t i t i o n f o r D i s c r e t i o n a r y R e v i e w

F i l e d : A p r i l 6

, 2 0 1 5

D o n o t p u b l i s h