alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016410EN.01001202.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Intercon v Commission

(Case T-632/14) (1)

1

((Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Commission decision to require repayment of the sums paid to the applicant - Contractual nature of the dispute - Article 44(1)(c) and Article 44(5a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991 - Admissibility - Scope of the audit - Documents and observations made after expiry of the prescribed periods))

(2016/C 410/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Intercon Sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: B. Eger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herbout-Borczak and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Principally, application based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the Commission infringed the provisions of the grant agreement No 224635 relating to financing the project ARTreat, and annulment of the Commission’s letter of 28 July 2014 informing the applicant, on the basis of an audit carried out by it, of the recovery of a sum of EUR 258 479,21 which had been unduly paid to the applicant as an EU financial contribution and, alternatively, application based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the sums paid corresponded to eligible expenditure and need not, therefore, be repaid.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Intercon sp. z o.o. to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Intercon sp. z o.o. to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1340 Urinary glucose (nonquantitative) test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A urinary glucose (nonquantitative) test system is a device intended to measure glucosuria (glucose in urine). Urinary glucose (nonquantitative) measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of carbohydrate metabolism disorders including diabetes mellitus, hypoglycemia, and hyperglycemia.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
# C_2015073EN.01003502.xml

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/35

---

Order of the General Court of 6 January 2015 — St'art and Others v Commission

(Case T-93/14) (1)

(Action for annulment - ‘European Creative Industries Alliance’ programme - ‘C-I Factor’ project aimed at establishing new instruments to encourage the funding of the cultural and creative industries - Debit note - Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable - Inadmissibility)

(2015/C 073/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles (Mons, Belgium); Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen (Amsterdam, Netherlands), and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Dehin and C. Brüls, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, J. Estrada de Solà and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the ‘decision of an unknown date, formalised on 29 November 2013 by the European Commission’, seeking to recover the sum of EUR 140 500,01 in the context of the ‘C-I Factor SI2.609157-2/G/ENT/CIP/11/C/N03C011’ project, issuing a debit note to that end and insisting, if necessary, on the joint and several liability of the other members of the consortium.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles, Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd shall bear their own respective costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles, Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd shall bear their own respective costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                33,706
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                        172,474
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           0
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       206,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      0
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                             122,146
<OTHER-SE>                            84,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         206,180
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      (5,367)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (5,367)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                         4,928
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                             439
<EPS-BASIC>                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0



</TABLE>
# C_2017121EN.01002301.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — Yingli Energy (China) and Others v Council

(Case T-160/14) (1)

1

((Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Undertakings - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Exporting country - Scope of the investigation - Sampling - Normal value - Definition of the product concerned - Time limit for the adoption of a decision on a market economy treatment claim - Temporal application of new provisions - Injury - Causal link - Rights of the defence - Calculation of the injury margin))

(2017/C 121/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Yingli Energy (China) Co. Ltd (Baoding, China) and the 14 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented initially by A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, and subsequently by A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, acting as Agent, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche, and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, and subsequently by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche, and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1), in so far as it applies to the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Yingli Energy (China) Co. Ltd, and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Yingli Energy (China) Co. Ltd, and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

1

---
§ 740.10 Labeling of cosmetic products for which adequate substantiation of safety has not been obtained. ( a ) Each ingredient used in a cosmetic product and each finished cosmetic product shall be adequately substantiated for safety prior to marketing. Any such ingredient or product whose safety is not adequately substantiated prior to marketing is misbranded unless it contains the following conspicuous statement on the principal display panel: *Warning*—The safety of this product has not been determined.
( b ) An ingredient or product having a history of use in or as a cosmetic may at any time have its safety brought into question by new information that in itself is not conclusive. The warning required by paragraph (a) of this section is not required for such an ingredient or product if: ( 1 ) The safety of the ingredient or product had been adequately substantiated prior to development of the new information;
( 2 ) The new information does not demonstrate a hazard to human health; and
( 3 ) Adequate studies are being conducted to determine expeditiously the safety of the ingredient or product.
( c ) Paragraph (b) of this section does not constitute an exemption to the adulteration provisions of the Act or to any other requirement in the Act or this chapter.
[40 FR 8917, Mar. 3, 1975]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN KNEIZYS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION, as Receiver for 

Washington Mutual Bank, Henderson, 

Nevada; ELIZABETH RICE; NORMAN R. 

MORRISON, Jr.; FRANKLIN H. 

MORRISON; JAMES BOHANON; JAMES 

MCLAUGHLIN; VICKI MCLAUGHLIN; 

RONALD V. RICE, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 23-35276 

D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01402-RSL 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 20, 2024**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, RAWLINSON, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

Steven Kneizys appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 28 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-35276 

in his action against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as 

receiver for Washington Mutual Bank arising out of a dispute over land in Maine. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Desire, LLC v. 

Manna Textiles, Inc., 986 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2021) (summary judgment);

Olson Farms, Inc. v. Barbosa, 134 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 1998) (the district 

court’s determination of subject matter jurisdiction). We vacate the judgment and 

remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Kneizys’s claim seeking reformation of a deed. 

The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Kneizys’s claim 

seeking reformation of a deed because Kneizys failed to file a timely 

administrative claim under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and 

Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”). See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(3)-(10), (13)(D)

(setting forth FIRREA’s administrative claims process and providing that courts 

lack jurisdiction over claims that have not been exhausted through this process);

Intercontinental Travel Mktg., Inc. v. FDIC, 45 F.3d 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)

(concluding that FIRREA’s claims bar date is a jurisdictional requirement). We

vacate the district court’s summary judgment for the FDIC on Kneizys’s 

reformation claim and remand with instructions to dismiss the claim for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. 

We reject as unsupported by the record Kneizys’s contentions that the 
3 23-35276 

district court denied him due process or was biased against him.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 

929 (9th Cir. 2003).

The parties will bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED with instructions.
### Multiple files are bound together in this PDF Package. Adobe recommends using Adobe Reader or Adobe Acrobat version 8 or later to work with documents contained within a PDF Package. By updating to the latest version, you’ll enjoy the following benefits: • Efficient, integrated PDF viewing • Easy printing • Quick searches

Don’t have the latest version of Adobe Reader? 

### Click here to download the latest version of Adobe Reade r If you already have Adobe Reader 8, click a file in this PDF Package to view it.
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 Justice

###### Office of Justice Programs

          - [OJP (NIJ) Docket No. 1512]

# AGENCY:

National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, DOJ.

# ACTION:

Notice of Draft NIJ Restraints Standard for Criminal Justice and Certification Program Requirements.

# SUMMARY:

                        In an effort to obtain comments from interested parties, the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice will make available to the general public two draft documents: (1) A draft standard entitled, “NIJ Restraints Standard for Criminal Justice” and (2) a draft companion document entitled, “NIJ Restraints Certification Program Requirements”. The opportunity to provide comments on these two documents is open to industry technical representatives, criminal justice agencies and organizations, research, development and scientific communities, and all other stakeholders and interested parties. Those individuals wishing to obtain and provide comments on the draft documents under consideration are directed to the following Web site:                         *http://www.justnet.org*.                    

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before April 19, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Casandra Robinson, by telephone at 202-305-2596 [                        **Note:**                         this is not a tollfree telephone number], or by e-mail at                         *casandra.robinson@usdoj.gov.*

Kristina Rose,

Acting Director, National Institute of Justice.

[FR Doc. 2010-4434 Filed 3-2-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
# C_2016251EN.01002401.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Revolution v EUIPO (REVOLUTION)

(Case T-654/14) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark REVOLUTION - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 251/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Revolution LLC (Washington DC, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented initially by P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by D. Gája and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2014 (Case R 2143/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign REVOLUTION as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Revolution LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Revolution LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.

1

---
# C_2016007EN.01002601.xml

| 11.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Société des produits Nestlé v OHIM — Terapia (ALETE)

(Case T-544/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ALETE - Earlier national word mark ALETA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2016/C 007/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and S. Cobet-Nüse, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Terapia SA (Cluj Napoca, Romania)

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 19 May 2014 (Case R 1128/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Terapia SA and Société des produits Nestlé SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1128/2013-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1128/2013-4);

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Société des produits Nestlé. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Société des produits Nestlé.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1505 Mucopolysaccharides (nonquantitative) test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A mucopolysaccharides (nonquantitative) test system is a device intended to measure the levels of mucopolysaccharides in urine. Mucopolysaccharide measurements in urine are used in the diagnosis and treatment of various inheritable disorders that affect bone and connective tissues, such as Hurler's, Hunter's, Sanfilippo's, Scheie's Morquio's and Maroteaux-Lamy syndromes.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 862.9.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 2307, Jan. 14, 2000]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40053 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHUCKY RAY JOHNSON, SR., Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:93-CR-214

- - - - - - - - - - December 9, 1997 Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Chucky Ray Johnson, Sr., appeals his convictions and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Johnson argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the district court clearly erred in determining the quantity of cocaine base on which his sentence should be based. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we AFFIRM.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Data Dimensions, Inc.
One Bellevue Center
411 - 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2100 
Bellevue, Washington 98004

         RE:      DATA DIMENSIONS, INC. FORM S-8


      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of Data Dimensions, Inc. of our report dated February 17,
1998, appearing on page F-2 of Data Dimensions, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1997.



BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Seattle, Washington 
September 10, 1998