alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013129EN.01001501.xml

| 4.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2013 — Bottega Veneta International v OHIM (Shape of a handbag)

(Case T-409/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a handbag - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Failure to take account of an element of the trade mark applied for - Rule No 9 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

2013/C 129/28

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bottega Veneta International Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto and E. Gavuzzi, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2010 (Case R 1247/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of a handbag as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bottega Veneta International Sàrl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bottega Veneta International Sàrl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     CONDENSED  BALANCE  SHEETS AND CONDENSED  STATEMENTS  OF OPERATIONS  AND IS
     QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-03-1998
<CASH>                                          8,852
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12,472
<ALLOWANCES>                                    4,144
<INVENTORY>                                     7,673
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               28,154
<PP&E>                                          9,194
<DEPRECIATION>                                  7,190
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 30,359
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14,509
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       26,772
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,922)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   30,359
<SALES>                                        51,433
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               51,433
<CGS>                                          35,959
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  35,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               27,924
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,973)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    2,462
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,435)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,435)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.57)
        


</TABLE>
§ 354.133 Reinspection of edible products; ingredients. ( a ) Any inspected and certified edible product may be brought into an official plant only if the container of such product is marked for identification in the manner prescribed in § 354.71(b) and the product is reinspected by an inspector at the time it is brought into such plant. Upon reinspection, if any such product or portion thereof is found to be unsound, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food, such product, or portion thereof, shall be condemned and shall receive treatment as provided in § 354.127.
( b ) Any product which is prepared under inspection in an official plant shall be inspected in such plant as often as the inspector deems it necessary in order to ascertain whether such product is sound, wholesome, and fit for human food at the time such product leaves such plant. Upon any such inspection, if any such product or portion thereof is found to be unsound, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food, such product or portion thereof shall be condemned and shall receive treatment as provided in § 354.127.
( c ) All substances and ingredients used in the manufacture or preparation of any edible product shall be clean, sound, wholesome, and fit for human food. Liquid and frozen egg products used in the preparation of any edible product shall have been prepared under continuous inspection of the Department.
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Seeks Applications for Technical Assistance and Training for Innovative 

Regional Wastewater Treatment Solutions Pilot Grant Program

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5, 2020 – United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Deputy Under Secretary for 

Rural Development Bette Brand today announced that USDA is seeking applications for grants under a pilot 

program to help develop innovative treatment solutions of regional wastewater systems in rural America. 

The funding will help historically impoverished communities (defined as any county that has had 20 percent or 

more of its population living in poverty over the past 30 years) develop regional solutions to longstanding

wastewater treatment problems where soil conditions make traditional wastewater treatment ineffective and 

economically unfeasible. 

The Technical Assistance and Training for Innovative Regional Wastewater Treatment Solutions (TAT/RWTS) 

Grant Pilot Program was authorized by the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020. Grants will help 

finance wastewater-related technical assistance, including services such as feasibility studies, preliminary 

design assistance and supervision, oversight, or technical assistance to develop an application. 

USDA is making up to $5 million in competitive grants available to eligible entities that include a consortium of 

institutions of higher education; academic, health and research institutes; or economic development entities. The 

consortium must include a regional university, or the proposed scope of work must include coordinating with 

one, to solve untreated raw sewage issues with innovative technologies, strategic management and regulatory 

models.

Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time by 

November 4, 2020. For additional information, please see page 62691 of the October 5 Federal Register.

USDA encourages applications that will support recommendations made in the Report to the President of the 

United States from the Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity (PDF, 5.4 MB) to help improve life in 

rural America. Applicants are encouraged to consider projects that provide measurable results in helping rural 

communities build robust and sustainable economies through strategic investments in infrastructure, 

partnerships and innovation. Key strategies include:
• Achieving e-Connectivity for Rural America

• Developing the Rural Economy

• Harnessing Technological Innovation

• Supporting a Rural Workforce

• Improving Quality of Life

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page. 

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
EXHIBIT 23


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



          As  independent  public accountants,  we  hereby  consent to  the
          incorporation  by  reference  in  the previously  filed  Form S-8
          Registration Statements of KU  Energy  Corporation  and  Kentucky
          Utilities  Company  (File  Nos. 33-44234 and 33-57087) of our reports
          dated January 29, 1996, included in Or incorporated by reference in KU
          Energy Corporation's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995.



                                              /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                              Arthur Andersen LLP

          Chicago, Illinois
          March 8, 1996


                                         -67-
# C_2007096EN.01002301.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/23

---

Order of the Court of 20 April 2007 — TEA-CEGOS, SA, Services techniques globaux (STG) SA v GHK Consulting Ltd, Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-189/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Public contracts for services - Call for tenders relating to a multiple framework contract for the short term recruitment of experts responsible for providing technical assistance to third countries - Rejection of the appellants' tender - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

(2007/C 96/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: TEA-CEGOS, SA, Services techniques globaux (STG) SA (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: GHK Consulting Ltd, Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Wilderspin and G. Boudot, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 February 2006 in Joined Cases T-376/05 and T-383/05 TEA-CEGOS and Others v Commission dismissing the application for annulment, first, of the Commission's decisions of 12 October 2005 rejecting the tenders submitted by the applicants in the context of the procedure for the call for tenders bearing the reference ‘EuropeAid/119860/C/SV/multi-Lot 7 ’and, second, of any other decision taken by the Commission in the context of the same call for tenders following the decisions of 12 October 2005

TEA-CEGOS and Others

Commission

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders TEA-CEGOS SA and Services techniques globaux (STG) SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders TEA-CEGOS SA and Services techniques globaux (STG) SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

1

---
# C_2014448EN.01001601.xml

| 15.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 448/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 November 2014 — Vtesse Networks v Commission

(Case T-362/10) (1)

1

((State aid - Aid to support the deployment of next generation broadband networks in the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly region - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Action for annulment - No substantial effect on the competitive position - Locus standi - Procedural rights of the interested parties - Partial inadmissibility - No doubts which justify initiating the formal investigation procedure))

(2014/C 448/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vtesse Networks Ltd (Hertford, United Kingdom) (represented by: H. Mercer QC)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and L. Armati, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, and subsequently by B. Majczyna, Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer and L. Seeboruth, and subsequently by L. Seeboruth, J. Beeko and L. Christie, Agents, and initially by K. Bacon, and subsequently by S. Lee, Barristers); and British Telecommunications plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by M. Nissen and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, then by M. Nissen and G. van de Walle de Ghelcke and lastly by G. van de Walle de Ghelcke, J. Rivas Andrés, lawyers, and J. Holmes, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 3204 of 12 May 2010 declaring the aid measure ‘Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Next Generation Broadband’, providing aid from the European Regional Development Fund to support the deployment of next generation broadband networks in the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly region, compatible with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU (State Aid No 461/2009 — United Kingdom).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Vtesse Networks Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission and British Telecommunications plc; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Vtesse Networks Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission and British Telecommunications plc;

| 3) | Orders the Republic of Poland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Republic of Poland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.

1

---
### §1223. Limitations

Any action brought pursuant to this chapter shall be forever barred unless commenced within three years after the cause of action shall have accrued.

(Aug. 8, 1956, ch. 1038, §3, 70 Stat. 1125.)
# C_2010221EN.01002102.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/21

---

Action brought on 28 May 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-265/10)

()

2010/C 221/35

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the penalties for infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, or in any event in failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of Article 126 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the penalties for infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, or in any event in failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of Article 126 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006;

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

As the Kingdom of Belgium has not adopted all the measures with regard to the implementation of penalties for infringement of the REACH Regulation, which should have entered into force by 1 December 2008 at the latest, or at least has failed to inform the Commission thereof, the Commission concludes that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 126 of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1.

1

---
Faulk, Scott (OST) From: IFCCadmin <admin@islandfamily.org> Wednesday, October 30, 2013 3:37 PM EAS (OST) Sent: To: .-' ,·;• Cc: ' ' '
--- .....**~·** ..... Subject: EAS (OST); admin@islandfamily.org Makani Kai

To Whom It May Concern: We are writingwith regards to Makani Kai. They have been our airline ofchoice forthe past 2years. They are avery good company, ourgroupflies to Kalaupapa several times a year, and their prices and service have been affordable forthe local people. Otherairlines have higher prices tofly into Kalaupapa and the service is notas good
.. We hope theywill be the carrier of choice forthose flying into Kalaupapa, as they are our number one airline. 1 We support Makani Kai and all agree that this is a needed and necessary service provider. j 

### 1. Mahala Ke Akuallmua 

### I 1 Pamela M. Garza**~** Dr. Armando K. Garza Elroy N. Kaniho Dr. Mitchell 

### C. Eli Eleanor A. Eli Janet B. Eli Desiree D.N. Eli Pastor Ken Humphries 

# I William Akiona Marjorie K. Garza Lael K. Garza Armando 

### I. Garza
12 Tiffany L.Garza Juanita K. Mayeda Glenn D. Mayeda
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 17, 2015.

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.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 17, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15A0965. JEAN PATRICIA HILTON A/K/A JEAN PATRICIA ENSTROM v. THE

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a THE BANK OF NEW YORK.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Statement on Eligibility of Rural Electric Cooperatives for Small Business 

Administration Paycheck Protection Program Loans; and USDA Compliance with Presidential 

Executive Order 13920

WASHINGTON, May 19, 2020 – Statement from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utilities 

Service Administrator Chad Rupe:

“The Small Business Administration (SBA) has issued an interim final rule that clarifies the eligibility of 

electric cooperatives for the Paycheck Protection Program. Electric cooperatives that are 501(c)(12) eligible are 

approved to access the program by the SBA. Furthermore, USDA has approved usage of the Paycheck 

Protection Program provided electric cooperatives notify the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) if they end up using 

that resource. They do not need pre-approval to do so.

“Secondly, under the leadership of President Trump and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Perdue, USDA will be fully 

engaged with the new task force created by the President’s Executive Order 13920 designed to protect the U.S.

bulk power system. We will use our authorities to set standards and approve purchases. We will leverage our 

excellent relationships with individual borrowers to support appropriate actions to protect the electric grid. 

System improvements that enhance grid security on RUS-financed and RUS-eligible electric systems are fully 

eligible to be considered for financing from USDA Rural Development.”

# 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
§ 200.5 Agency considerations. The Commission's decision on the petition for rulemaking may include, but will not be limited to, the following considerations— ( a ) The Commission's statutory authority;
( b ) Policy considerations;
( c ) The desirability of proceeding on a case-by-case-basis;
( d ) The necessity or desirability of statutory revision;
( e ) Available agency resources.
§ 381.175 Records required to be kept. ( a ) Every person within any of the classes specified in paragraph (a) (1), (2), or (3) of this section is required by the Act to keep such records as are properly necessary for the effective enforcement of the Act: ( 1 ) Any person that engages in the business of slaughtering any poultry or processing, freezing, packaging, or labeling any carcasses, or parts or products of carcasses, of any poultry, for commerce, for use as human food or animal food;
( 2 ) Any person that engages in the business of buying or selling (as a poultry products broker, wholesaler, or otherwise) or transporting, in commerce, or storing in or for commerce, or importing, any carcasses, or parts or products of carcasses, of any poultry;
( 3 ) Any person that engages in business, in or for commerce, as a renderer, or engages in the business of buying, selling, or transporting in commerce, or importing, any dead, dying, disabled, or diseased poultry or parts of the carcasses of any poultry that died otherwise than by slaughter.
( b ) The required records are: ( 1 ) Records, such as bills of sale, invoices, bills of lading, and receiving and shipping papers, giving the following information with respect to each transaction in which any poultry or poultry carcass, or part or product of a poultry carcass, is purchased, sold, shipped, received, transported, or otherwise handled by said person in connection with any business subject to the Act. ( i ) The name or description of the poultry or other articles;
( ii ) The net weight of the poultry or other articles;
( iii ) The number of outside containers;
( iv ) The name and address of the buyer of the poultry or other articles sold by such person, and the name and address of the seller of the poultry or other articles purchased by such person;
( v ) The name and address of the consignee or receiver (if other than the buyer);
( vi ) The method of shipment;
( vii ) The date of shipment; and
( viii ) The name and address of the carrier.
( 2 ) Guaranties provided by suppliers of packaging materials under § 381.144.
( 3 ) Records of canning as required by part 431 of this chapter.
( 4 ) Records of irradiation as required by sections 381.149 of this part.
( 5 ) Records of nutrition labeling as required by subpart Y of this part.
( 6 ) Records of all labeling, along with the product formula, processing procedures, and any additional documentation needed to support that the labels are consistent with the Federal meat and poultry regulations and policies on labeling, as prescribed in § 412.1 of this chapter.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0583-0015) [37 FR 9706, May 16, 1972, as amended at 47 FR 746, Jan. 7, 1982; 49 FR 2236, Jan. 19, 1984; 51 FR 45633, Dec. 19, 1986; 57 FR 43600, Sept. 21, 1992; 58 FR 675, Jan. 6, 1993; 60 FR 67458, Dec. 29, 1995; 78 FR 66838, Nov. 7, 2013; 83 FR 25308, May 31, 2018]
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CLARENCE EUGENE FREEMAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-2990

[May 3, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Glenn D. Kelley, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502013CF001912A.

Charles G. White of Charles G. White, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.