alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016098EN.01004301.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — TVR Automotive v OHIM — Cardoni (TVR ENGINEERING)

(Case T-781/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark TVR ENGINEERING - Earlier Community figurative mark TVR - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 098/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: TVR Automotive Ltd (Whiteley, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Fabio Cardoni (Milan, Italy)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 (Case R 2532/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between TVR Automotive Ltd and Fabio Cardoni.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders TVR Automotive Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders TVR Automotive Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.

1

---
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 24

- 40350 Summary Calendar

**____________ James Logan Diez,** 
Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus
**Texas Department of Criminal Justice; McConnell Unit Mailroom Supervisor Ms. Salles; McConnell Unit**  **Unknown Mailroom Staff; Texas Prison Board; Director of Mail Services Coordinator Panel for**  **TDCJ; Executive Director of TDCJ,**
Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:23

- CV

- 269

**______________________________** Before **King, Southwick,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** James Logan Diez, Texas prisoner # 2399291, has appealed from the district court’s order dismissing in part the claims presented in his 42 U.S.C.

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 23, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 24-40350 Document: 32-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2024No. 24

- 40350

2 § 1983 complaint. The district court found that some of Diez’s claims should be dismissed without prejudice as barred by the Eleventh Amendment, some of his claims should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, and other cl aims should proceed because Diez alleged adequate facts to warrant further consideration. Diez seeks to challenge the conclusion that some of his claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. As a threshold matter, we must consider whether we have jurisdiction

to review the appeal. See Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). The district court’s order did not resolve all of Diez’s claims and therefore is

not a final judgment for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. See Elizondo v. Green , 671 F.3d 506, 509 (5th Cir. 2012). Moreover , the order does not evince an unmistakable intent to enter a final, appealable judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)

. See **Fed. R. Civ. P.** 54(b); Kelly v. Lee’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers, Inc. , 908 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1990) (en banc). Further , the Eleventh Amendment ruling do es not fit within the categories of appealable interlocutory orders listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) , and the district court did not certify that the order was appealable pursuant to § 1292(b). Finally, the collateral

- order doctrine is inapplicable because the district court’s order did not conclusively resolve disputed issues that are separate from the merits and that could not be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment. See Tracy v. Lumpkin , 43 F.4th 473, 475 (5th Cir. 2022); Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany , 187 F.3d 452, 467

- 68 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly , the appeal is **DISMISSED** for lack of jurisdiction. Case: 24-40350 Document: 32-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2024
# C_2016059EN.01001801.xml

| 15.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/18

---

Order of the General Court of December 2015 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-673/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - State aid - Transport - Establishment of Airport Handling SpA - Decision to open the formal examination procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU - Measure not open to challenge - Aid measures completely implemented by the date on which the action was brought - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 059/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and S. Fiorentino and A. De Stefano, avvocati dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 4537 final of 9 July 2014 to initiate a formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU concerning the establishment of the company Airport Handling (State Aid SA.21420 (2014/C) (ex 20 14/NN) (ex 20 13/PN)).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1) | The application is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2) | The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.

1

---
# C_2016106EN.01003101.xml

| 21.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2016 — Kicktipp v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (kicktipp)

(Case T-135/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark kicktipp - Earlier national word mark KICKERS - Rule 19 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 98(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 106/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kicktipp GmbH (Dusseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Società Italiana Calzature Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Cantaluppi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2013 (Case R 1061/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Società Italiana Calzature Srl and Kicktipp GmbH.

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) (OHIM) of 12 December 2013 (Case R 1061/2012-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 December 2013 (Case R 1061/2012-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Kicktipp GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Kicktipp GmbH;

| 3. | Orders Società Italiana Calzature Srl to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Società Italiana Calzature Srl to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

1

---
# C_2014261EN.01001201.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 15 January 2014 — Municipiul Piatra Neamţ v Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale şi Administraţiei Publice

(Case C-13/14)

2014/C 261/19

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Municipiul Piatra Neamţ

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale şi Administraţiei Publice

Defendant:

By Order of 12 June 2014, the Court (Eighth Chamber) has declared that the request for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Logical Software Solutions Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference herein of our report dated June 
30, 1998, with respect to the balance sheet of Logical Software Solutions 
Corporation as of December 31, 1997, and the related statements of operations, 
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, which report 
appears in the June 30, 1998, current report on Form 8-K/A of INTERLINQ 
Software Corporation and to the reference to our firm under the heading 
"Experts" in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus.


KPMG LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 26, 1999
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herron Love, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 52,816. (Abstract of Decision.)

First District, Second Division.

April 1, 1969.

*98Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant; Edward Y. Hanrahan, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and James R. Kavanaugh, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE BURKE.

Not to be published in full.
EX-10.4(F)



 Exhibit 10.4(F) 

[NOTICE OF OPTION EXERCISE DEADLINE FOR DIRECTORS] 

[date] 
 [Director’s Full Name] 

Re: Notice of Option Exercise Deadline 

Dear [First Name]: 
 I write regarding the stock
options that were granted to you by Yahoo! Inc. (the “Company”) under the Yahoo! Inc. Directors’ Stock Plan (the “Plan”) and are currently outstanding (your “Options”). As you know, the Company has entered into an
agreement to transfer certain of its assets to Yahoo Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (“Holdings”) and, following such transfer, to sell all of the shares of Holdings to Verizon Communications Inc. (together, the
“Transaction”). 
 Following the closing of the Transaction (the “Closing”), applicable law will prohibit the Company
from maintaining any outstanding stock option awards after a limited grace period. 
 In connection with the Closing, the Plan authorizes
the Board to establish an option exercise deadline. Accordingly the Board has determined that, effective as of the Closing, your outstanding Options will remain exercisable for a period of ninety (90) days following the Closing (or, if earlier,
until their respective scheduled expiration dates) and, to the extent not exercised by the last day of such exercise period, will terminate at the close of business on such day. 

By Order of the Board of Directors, 

YAHOO! INC. 

[Name] 

[Title]
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.3123 6-Ethoxy-2-(6-ethoxy-3-oxobenzo[b]thien-2(3H)-ylidene) benzo[b]thiophen-3 (2H)-one. ( a ) *Identity.* The color additive is 6-ethoxy-2-(6-ethoxy-3-oxobenzo [*b*]thien-2(3*H*)-ylidene)benzo[*b*]thiophen-3(2*H*)-one (CAS Reg. No. 3263-31-8), Colour Index No. 73335.
( b ) *Uses and restrictions.* ( 1 ) The substance listed in paragraph (a) of this section may be used as a color additive in contact lenses in amounts not to exceed the minimum reasonably required to accomplish the intended coloring effect.
( 2 ) Authorization for this use shall not be construed as waiving any of the requirements of sections 510(k), 515, and 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the contact lens in which the color additive is used.
( c ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additive shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( d ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health, and therefore the color additive is exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
[51 FR 11436, Apr. 3, 1986]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,643
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,648
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    271,688
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           8,732
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 330,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         97,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,500
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   330,212
<SALES>                                        129,357
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,357
<CGS>                                          105,560
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,607
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,886
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,254
<INCOME-TAX>                                       534
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    200
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,920
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14


</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 25, 2023

NO. 03

- 21

- 00619

- CR

Edward Raynard Lampkin , Appellant

v.

The State of Texs , Appellee

APPEAL FROM COMAL COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF COMAL COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRN E, JUSTICES TR IANA A ND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having review e d

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction

. The appel lant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the

court below.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Initial Review Group, Function, Integration, and Rehabilitation Sciences Subcommittee.                    

*Date:*                         March 22, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Legacy Hotel and Meeting Center, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Anne Krey, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-435-6908.                         *ak41o@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 25, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-4539 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2017195EN.01001701.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Green Source Poland v Commission

(Case T-512/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - ERDF - Article 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Refusal to grant a financial contribution to a major project - Undertaking responsible for project implementation - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 195/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Green Source Poland sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Armati, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by M. Clausen and B.-R. Killmann, and subsequently by B.-R. Killmann and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2289 final of 7 April 2014 refusing to make a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘Purchase and implementation of innovative manufacturing technology of biocomponents to produce biofuels’ forming part of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ for structural interventions under the ‘Convergence’ objective in Poland.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders Green Source Poland sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Green Source Poland sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.

1

---
Exhibit 31.2
Certification
I, Frank J. Prudente, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this special financial report pursuant to Exchange Act Rule15d-2 of National Atlantic Holdings Corporation;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: April 27, 2005                                          /s/ Frank J. Prudente   By:  Frank J. Prudente   Executive Vice President - Corporate Finance andTreasurer