alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015034EN.01005002.xml

| 2.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 34/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 34/50

---

Action brought on 30 October 2014 — ZZ v Commission and EEAS

(Case F-126/14)

(2015/C 034/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Tallent, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Commission and European External Action Service (EEAS)

Defendants:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision taken by the European External Action Service authority empowered to conclude contracts, confirming a reimbursement ceiling as regards the applicant’s removal costs from Montenegro to his country of origin.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision adopted by the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment dated 23 July 2014 notified on 1 August 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment dated 23 July 2014 notified on 1 August 2014;

| — | declare that ZZ is to be reimbursed the actual costs incurred by him in respect of his removal of EUR 17  940; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that ZZ is to be reimbursed the actual costs incurred by him in respect of his removal of EUR 17  940;

| — | in the alternative, declare that ZZ is to be reimbursed his removal costs up to an amount of EUR 7  960; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, declare that ZZ is to be reimbursed his removal costs up to an amount of EUR 7  960;

| — | declare that all the costs of the proceedings are to be borne by the European External Action Service. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that all the costs of the proceedings are to be borne by the European External Action Service.

---
<Page>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.25

                          UNITED STATIONERS SUPPLY CO.

                                 First Amendment
                                     to the
                          United Stationers Supply Co.
                           Deferred Compensation Plan

                        Effective as of November 30, 2001



          WHEREAS, United Stationers Supply Co., an Illinois corporation (the
"Company"), maintains the United Stationers Supply Co. Deferred Compensation
Plan (the "Plan"); and

          WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7, MODIFICATION AND TERMINATION, of
ARTICLE V, Miscellaneous, the Company has reserved the right to amend the Plan
at any time by action of its Board of Directors; and

          WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan as set forth herein.

          NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of November 30, 2001, the Plan is hereby
amended as follows:

          1.   Section 2, ELECTION TO DEFER, of ARTICLE II, Participation, is
     amended by deleting the first two sentences thereof and substituting the
     following in their place:

          "Each Participant may elect to defer any portion of compensation (for
          purposes hereof, consisting of base salary, cash incentive pay or
          bonus or qualifying severance pay, or any combination thereof)
          ("Deferred Amount") by filling out the applicable deferral election
          form(s) then prescribed by the Committee ("Deferral Election Form")
          and stating thereon the percentage or amount of qualifying
          compensation subject to deferral, as permitted by the Committee (as
          hereinafter defined) in conformity with the Plan. Subject to the
          following two sentences, the election to defer any such compensation
          must be submitted on or before December 31 preceding the calendar year
          to which the election applies."

          2.   Section 1, METHOD OF PAYMENT, of ARTICLE III, Payment of Deferred
Amounts, is amended by adding the following sentence at the end thereof:

          "A Participant may, with the consent of the Committee, defer the
          commencement date or extend the distribution period for any Deferred
          Amount, within the guidelines set forth above, by filing a written
          request with the Committee, in such form as the Committee may require;
          provided, that any such request must be filed not later than six
          months prior to, and in the calendar year preceding, the date
          distribution would otherwise commence."



<Page>


          3.   In all other respects, the Plan, as amended hereby, shall
continue in full force and effect.



                                   UNITED STATIONERS SUPPLY CO.

                                   By: _____________________________
                                   Its: _____________________________
#### Sidney Cohen *v.*Holloways’, Inc.

*Herbert A. Krasow,*in support of the motion.

*William Pease,*in opposition.

Submitted September 16

decided September 24, 1969

The motion by the defendant that the time for filing its motion for reargument of the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County be extended to October 10,1969, is granted.
EXHIBIT 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To the Stockholders and Board of Directors
of The CIT Group, Inc.:

      We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in Registration  Statements
No. 33-85224, No. 333-70249,  No. 333-36061,  No. 333-22283,  No. 333-43323, No.
333-64539,  No. 333-64529,  No. 333-73255,  No. 333-74847, No. 333-34793 and No.
333-71361  on Form S-3 of The CIT Group,  Inc. of our report  dated  February 2,
2000,  relating to the  consolidated  balance sheets of The CIT Group,  Inc. and
subsidiaries  as of  December  31, 1999 and 1998,  and the related  consolidated
statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999, which report appears
in the December 31, 1999 Annual Report on Form 10-K of The CIT Group, Inc.

                                                KPMG LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey
March 24, 2000
# C_2015311EN.01004702.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/47

---

Order of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Representation of a blue sphere)

(Case T-626/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark representing a blue sphere - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2015/C 311/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2014 (Case R 169/2014-5) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a blue sphere as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.

1

---
# C_2015026EN.01003302.xml

| 26.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/33

---

Order of the General Court of 21 October 2014 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v OHIM — Gap (ITM) (GAPPol)

(Case T-125/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 026/42)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Gap (ITM), Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2014 (Case R 686/2013-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Gap (ITM), Inc. and PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska and Gap (ITM), Inc. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska and Gap (ITM), Inc.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

1

---
EXHIBIT 21.1





SUBSIDIARIES OF AMBASSADORS INTERNATIONAL, INC.




1. Ambassadors, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors International, Inc.




2. Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors International, Inc.




3. American West Steamboat Company, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC




4. EN Boat LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC




5. QW Boat Company LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC




6. DQ Boat, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC




7. AQ Boat, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC




8. MQ Boat, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC




9. Ambassadors International Cruise Group (USA), LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors International Cruise Group, LLC




10. Ambassadors International Marshall Islands, a Marshall Islands limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC




11. Ambassadors International Cruise Group LLC, a Marshall Islands limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors International Marshall Islands, LLC




12. Ambassadors International Cruise Group, LLC, a Marshall Islands limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors International Marshall Islands, LLC




13. Windstar Sail Cruises Limited, a Bahamas company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors International Cruise Group, LLC




14. Wind Spirit Limited, a Bahamas company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Windstar Sail Cruises Limited




15. Wind Star Limited, a Bahamas company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Windstar Sail Cruises Limited




16. Degrees Limited, a Bahamas company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Windstar Sail Cruises Limited




17. Ambassadors International Investments, LLC, a Marshall Islands company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors International Cruise Group, LLC




18. CQ Boat, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC




19. Contessa Boat, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC
(logo) KATZ

SAPPER

& MILLER

 

**Report ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

Managing Member

Park Bridge LenderServices LLC

New York, NY

 

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of 2017 Compliance by ParkBridge Lender Services LLC with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’sReport”), that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the “Company”) complied withthe servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission’s Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December 31,2017, excluding those criteria determined by management and noted as notapplicable (N/A) within Exhibit B to Management’s Report. The transactionscovered by this report are only those transactions processed by the Company inits capacity as trust advisor or operating advisor for the asset backedsecurities transactions (the “Platform”) identified in Management’s Report.Reference Exhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by thisexamination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion onmanagement’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted inaccordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidenceabout the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Ourexamination included tests on a sample basis of the servicing activitiesrelated to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed thoseselected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria duringthe specified period, and performingsuch other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to the selectedservicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by thisreport and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicingactivities related to each asset backed transaction included in the Platform. An examination is not designed to detectnoncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the periodspecified above or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the Company’sservicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides areasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legaldetermination on the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertionthat the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteriaidentified in Exhibit B to Management’s Report with respect to the transactionsidentified in Exhibit A to Management’s Report as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2017, for the Platform, is fairly stated, in all material aspects.

 

 

/s/ Katz, Sapper& Miller LLP 

 

 

New York, NY

February 15, 2018
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                               ------------

     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
     Registration Statement of Ambassadors International, Inc. on Form S-8
     of our report, which includes an explanatory paragraph concerning a
     change in accounting for derivative instruments in 1998 and the
     impairment of long-lived assets in 1996, dated February 5, 1999, on
     our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Ambassadors
     International, Inc. as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and for the three
     years in the period ended December 31, 1998, which report is included
     in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                         /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

     Spokane, Washington
     March 30, 1999
<PAGE>
§ 812.38 Confidentiality of data and information. ( a ) *Existence of IDE.* FDA will not disclose the existence of an IDE unless its existence has previously been publicly disclosed or acknowledged, until FDA approves an application for premarket approval of the device subject to the IDE; or a notice of completion of a product development protocol for the device has become effective.
( b ) *Availability of summaries or data.* ( 1 ) FDA will make publicly available, upon request, a detailed summary of information concerning the safety and effectiveness of the device that was the basis for an order approving, disapproving, or withdrawing approval of an application for an IDE for a banned device. The summary shall include information on any adverse effect on health caused by the device.
( 2 ) If a device is a banned device or if the existence of an IDE has been publicly disclosed or acknowledged, data or information contained in the file is not available for public disclosure before approval of an application for premarket approval or the effective date of a notice of completion of a product development protocol except as provided in this section. FDA may, in its discretion, disclose a summary of selected portions of the safety and effectiveness data, that is, clinical, animal, or laboratory studies and tests of the device, for public consideration of a specific pending issue.
( 3 ) If the existence of an IDE file has not been publicly disclosed or acknowledged, no data or information in the file are available for public disclosure except as provided in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) of this section.
( 4 ) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section, FDA will make available to the public, upon request, the information in the IDE that was required to be filed in Docket Number FDA-1995-S-0036 in the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, for investigations involving an exception from informed consent under § 50.24 of this chapter. Persons wishing to request this information shall submit a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
( c ) *Reports of adverse effects.* Upon request or on its own initiative, FDA shall disclose to an individual on whom an investigational device has been used a copy of a report of adverse device effects relating to that use.
( d ) *Other rules.* Except as otherwise provided in this section, the availability for public disclosure of data and information in an IDE file shall be handled in accordance with § 814.9.
[45 FR 3751, Jan. 18, 1980, as amended at 53 FR 11253, Apr. 6, 1988; 61 FR 51531, Oct. 2, 1996; 88 FR 16880, Mar. 21, 2023]
# C_2014085EN.01002801.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/28

---

Action brought on 28 January 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-6/14)

2014/C 85/48

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Van der Schueren, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision refusing to grant the applicant a survivor’s pension following the death of her former spouse.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission of 29 October 2013 in response to the claim of the applicant (No R/485/13) refusing to grant her a survivor’s maintenance pension following the death of her former spouse; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission of 29 October 2013 in response to the claim of the applicant (No R/485/13) refusing to grant her a survivor’s maintenance pension following the death of her former spouse;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
# C_2019082EN.01003001.xml

| 4.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Unichem Laboratories v Commission

(Case T-705/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for perindopril, a medicinal product intended for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, in its originator and generic versions - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Patent dispute settlement agreement - Commission’s territorial jurisdiction - Imputation of the unlawful conduct - Administrative procedure - Legal professional privilege protecting communications between lawyers and their clients - Potential competition - Restriction of competition by object - Objective necessity of the restriction - Balance between competition law and patent law - Conditions for exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU - Fines))

(2019/C 82/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unichem Laboratories Ltd (Mumbai, India) (represented by S. Mobley, K. Shaw, K. Cousins, M. Healy, H. Sheraton, and E. Batchelor, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi and B. Mongin, and subsequently by F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by S. Kingston, Barrister-at-law)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 and Article 102 TFEU [Case AT.39612 — Perindopril (Servier)] in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Unichem Laboratories Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Unichem Laboratories Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50889

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRENT HUGHES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-03-CR-52

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brent Hughes appeals the sentence imposed following his

guilty plea conviction of sexual abuse of a minor in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 2243(a). Hughes argues that under the reasoning of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), a fact must be

alleged in the indictment before it may be used to increase the

maximum guideline sentence. Hughes acknowledges that his

contention is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United
No. 03-50889

-2-

States v. Randle, 304 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2002), but he seeks to

preserve his argument for possible further review. 

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.