alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014351EN.01001601.xml

| 6.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/16

---

Action brought on 22 July 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)

(Case T-553/14)

2014/C 351/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, 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)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 218/2014-5. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 218/2014-5.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal element ‘Extra’ for goods in Classes 3, 21 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 11 737 657

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
Exhibit 10.5




 




Berkshire Income Realty, Inc.




One Beacon Street,

Suite 1500




Boston,

Massachusetts  02108




 




March 5, 2003




 




 




Krupp Government Income Trust




Krupp Government Income Trust

II




One Beacon Street




Boston, Massachusetts  02108




 




Gentlemen:




 




 




Reference is made to the Waiver

and Standstill Agreement, dated as of August 22, 2002, by and among Krupp

Government Income Trust (“GIT”), Krupp Government Income Trust II

(“GIT II” and, collectively with GIT, the “Trusts”),

Berkshire Income Realty, Inc. and Berkshire Income Realty-OP, L.P. (the “Waiver

Agreement”).




 




This is to confirm our

agreement that, notwithstanding the first sentence of Section 2.3 of the

Waiver Agreement, the expiration date of the exemption granted by the Trusts in

Section 2.1 of the Waiver Agreement is hereby extended from March 31,

2003 to June 30, 2003.  Except for

the foregoing, all of the terms and conditions of the Waiver Agreement remain

in full force and effect.




 




Kindly confirm the foregoing by

signing below.




 




 




	

  BERKSHIRE

  INCOME REALTY, INC.


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

  By:


  	

  /s/ David C.

  Quade


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  Name: David C. Quade


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  Title: President


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  BERKSHIRE

  INCOME REALTY-OP, L.P.


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

  by:


  	

  Berkshire

  Income Realty, Inc., its General Partner


  
	

   


  	

  By:


  	

  /s/ David C.

  Quade


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  Name: David C. Quade


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  Title: President


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

  Acknowledged

  and agreed as of the date first above written:


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  KRUPP

  GOVERNMENT INCOME TRUST


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

  By:


  	

  /s/ Douglas

  Krupp


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  Name: Douglas Krupp


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  Title: Chairman


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  KRUPP

  GOVERNMENT INCOME TRUST II


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

  By:


  	

  /s/ Douglas

  Krupp


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  Name: Douglas Krupp


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

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

§ 862.2700 Nephelometer for clinical use. ( a ) *Identification.* A nephelometer for clinical use is a device intended to estimate the concentration of particles in a suspension by measuring their light scattering properties (the deflection of light rays by opaque particles in their path). The device is used in conjunction with certain materials to measure the concentration of a variety of analytes.
( 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 2309, Jan. 14, 2000]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MICHAEL VANN,

Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 2 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of May, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<PAGE>
                                           
                 CONSENT OF GOLDENBERG ROSENTHAL FRIEDLANDER, LLP
                                           

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Amended Annual 
Report on Form 10-K/A, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by 
NHP Incorporated (NHP) of our reports with respect to the audits of 
Partnerships listed below for the year ended December 31, 1994, and the 
incorporation by reference of such reports into NHP's Registration Statement 
on Form S-8, (No. 333-11933), NHP's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 
333-11863), NHP's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (333-11917), NHP's 
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (333-11857) and NHP's Registration 
Statement on Form S-8 (333-08137).

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                       <C>
Name of Partnership -- 1994                               Date of Report
---------------------------                               --------------

Baisley Park Associates (A Limited Partnership)           Februay 3, 1995
Brunswick Village Limited Partnership                     January 23, 1995
Churchview Gardens Limited Partnership                    January 23, 1995
Harris Gardens Limited Partnership                        January 23, 1995
Hawksworth Limited Partnership                            January 21, 1995
Hollows Associates (A Limited Partnership)                February 3, 1995
Kimberton Apartments Associates (A Limited Partnership)   January 18, 1995
Washington Northgate Limited Partnership                  February 3, 1995
Washington Westgate Limited Partnership                   January 28, 1995
Windsor Apartments Associates (A Limited Partnership)     January 18, 1995

</TABLE>


                                  /s/ Goldenberg Rosenthal Friedlander, LLP





Jenkintown, PA
October 3, 1997
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed March 17, 2021

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20

- 1638 Lower Tribunal No. F 20

- 7172

________________ 

### Pradel Lucas , Appellant,

vs. 

### The State of Florida , Appellee.

An a ppeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, William Altfield , Judge. Pradel Lucas, in proper person

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine, Assistant Attorney General , for appellee.

Before SCALES, MILLER, and LOBREE , JJ.
MILLER , J.2 Appellant, Pradel Lucas, a prisoner incarcerated i n Miami

- Dade County, appeals the summary denial of his petition for habeas corpus . The lower tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims alleged in the petition

. Because Lucas was convicted and sentenced in Broward County and the p etition challenges the legality of his conviction, rather than the conditions of his confinement, we affirm without prejudice to the refiling of the petition in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit. See Johnson v. State , 947 So. 2d 1192 , 1192

- 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007 ) (“ While a defendant is required to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit where the defendant is incarcerated when the petition involves an issue regarding the prisoner's incarceration, the converse is true when the pe tition is based upon the legality of the conviction imposed in another circuit

. ”) (citations om itted); Calloway v. State , 699 So. 2d 849, 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“ [ A ] circuit court has no jurisdiction to review the legality of a conviction in another circu it .”) (alteration in original) (citation omitted)

. Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7058

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM BERNARD CREWS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,

District Judge. (CR-89-284)

Submitted: September 6, 2001 Decided: September 14, 2001

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Bernard Crews, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow,

Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

William B. Crews appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his motion styled “pro se motion based on the district

court’s lack of jurisdiction to convict and/or sentence ‘defendant

William Bernard Crews’ and in alternative a pro se motion for jail

credit time for the federal sentence that was spent in a state

prison.” We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Crews, No.

CR-89-284 (N.D.W. Va. May 23, 2001). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 18 - 0554

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ROCKY ROLLIN BETTIN,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursu ant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable Gregory R. Todd , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 5 2020

08/05/2020
Case Number: DA 18-0554
# C_2022095EN.01003402.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/34

---

Order of the General Court of 17 December 2021 — Theodorakis and Theodoraki v Council

(Case T-495/14) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - Stability support programme for the Republic of Cyprus - Statements of the Euro Group of 16 and 25 March 2013 concerning Cyprus - Statement of the President of the Euro Group of 21 March 2013 concerning Cyprus - Incorrect identification of the defendant - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 95/47)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: Georgios Theodorakis (Chania, Greece), Maria Theodoraki (Chania) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Chatziioakeimidou and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, J.-P. Keppenne, M. Konstantinidis and S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the statements of the Euro Group of 16 and 25 March 2013 and the statement of the President of the Euro Group of 21 March 2013.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Georgios Theodorakis and Ms Maria Theodoraki shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Georgios Theodorakis and Ms Maria Theodoraki shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.

---
§ 876.1735 Electrogastrography system. ( a ) *Identification.* An electrogastrography system (EGG) is a device used to measure gastric myoelectrical activity as an aid in the diagnosis of gastric motility disorders. The device system includes the external recorder, amplifier, skin electrodes, strip chart, cables, analytical software, and other accessories.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (Special Controls). The special controls are as follows: ( 1 ) The sale, distribution and use of this device are restricted to prescription use in accordance with § 801.109 of this chapter.
( 2 ) The labeling must include specific instructions: ( i ) To describe proper patient set-up prior to the start of the test, including the proper placement of electrodes;
( ii ) To describe how background data should be gathered and used to eliminate artifact in the data signal;
( iii ) To describe the test protocol (including the measurement of baseline data) that may be followed to obtain the EGG signal; and
( iv ) To explain how data results may be interpreted.
( 3 ) The device design should ensure that the EGG signal is distinguishable from background noise that may interfere with the true gastric myoelectric signal.
( 4 ) Data should be collected to demonstrate that the device has adequate precision and the EGG signal is reproducible and is interpretable.
[64 FR 51444, Sept. 23, 1999]
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.2050 Dental sonography device. ( a ) *Dental sonography device for monitoring* — ( 1 ) *Identification.* A dental sonography device for monitoring is an electrically powered device, intended to be used to monitor temporomandibular joint sounds. The device detects and records sounds made by the temporomandibular joint.
( 2 ) *Classification.* Class I. The device is exempt from the premarket notification provisions of subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 872.9.
( b ) *Dental sonography device for interpretation and diagnosis* — ( 1 ) *Identification.* A dental sonography device for interpretation and diagnosis is an electrically powered device, intended to interpret temporomandibular joint sounds for the diagnosis of temporomandibular joint disorders and associated orofacial pain. The device detects, records, displays, and stores sounds made by the temporomandibular joint during jaw movement. The device interprets these sounds to generate meaningful output, either directly or by connection to a personal computer. The device may be part of a system of devices, contributing joint sound information to be considered with data from other diagnostic components.
( 2 ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for this device is FDA's guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Dental Sonography and Jaw Tracking Devices.”
[68 FR 67367, Dec. 2, 2003]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPRENENSURE INCOME
AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                          33,164
<SECURITIES>                                     9,565
<RECEIVABLES>                                   89,908
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,399
<INVENTORY>                                    141,145
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               284,356
<PP&E>                                          17,271
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,203
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 300,967
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          214,184
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,773
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   300,967
<SALES>                                        276,020
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               276,020
<CGS>                                          243,761
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  243,761
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,885
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   233
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  61
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,071
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,583
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,488
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,488
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62


</TABLE>
§ 582.1069 Malic acid. ( a ) *Product.* Malic acid.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         This Amendment to Employment  Agreement  (this  "Amendment") is entered
into as of  September,  18,  2002,  by and between MIM  Corporation,  a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), and Barry A. Posner ("Executive").


         WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement
dated as of March 1, 1999 (the "Employment Agreement"); and


         WHEREAS,  the Company and Executive desire to clarify that the Company,
in its discretion, may grant stock options to Executive in addition to the grant
specified in Section 3.4 of the Employment Agreement;


         NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the mutual  covenants set forth
herein and other  valuable  consideration,  the  sufficiency  of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as
follows:


1.   Section  3.4 of the  Employment  Agreement  is  hereby  amended  to add the
     following  sentence to the end thereof:  "After such grant,  the  Executive
     shall be eligible for additional grants of options,  if any, as recommended
     by the Company's Compensation Committee."


2.   Section 7.4(i) of the Employment  Agreement is hereby amended to delete the
     address  block for Rogers & Wells under the heading "with a copy to" and to
     replace it with the following:

                                King & Spalding
                                1185 Avenue of the Americas
                                New York, New York 10036-4003
                                Attention: Richard A. Cirillo

3.   Except as modified hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain unmodified
     and in full force and effect.


4.   This   Amendment   shall  be  construed  in   accordance   with,   and  its
     interpretation shall otherwise be governed by, the laws of the State of New
     York, without giving effect to otherwise applicable principles of conflicts
     of law.


         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties  hereto have executed this  Amendment
effective as of the date set forth above.


MIM CORPORATION


By: /s/ Richard H. Friedman
   -------------------------------------
   Richard H. Friedman, Chairman and CEO


/s/ Barry A. Posner
-------------------------------------
Barry A. Posner
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(b)

                            SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                           DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
                     FOR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
                               OF AMAX GOLD INC.

     This Second Amendment to the Deferred Compensation Plan for Members of the
Board of Directors of Amax Gold Inc. ("Plan") is effective the 1st day of
December, 1996.

                                    Recitals

A.   The Plan has been in effect since the first day of July, 1988, and it has
been amended on one prior occasion.

B.   In 1996, the Securities and Exchange Commission amended the provisions of
Rule 16b-3 of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Amax
Gold Inc. ("Company") desires to amend the Plan to conform to certain changes
made in Rule 16b-3 and otherwise modify the Plan for administrative convenience.

C.   The amendment made herein has been approved by the Company's Board of
Directors on the 12th day of February, 1997.

                                   Amendment

1.   Section 2.02 of the Plan is amended by adding the following sentences to
     the end of the section:

          A Board Member's application shall be approved in advance of the first
          deferral period to which it pertains by either the Board of Directors
          or by the standing Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.
          Notwithstanding the foregoing, each election by a Board Member to
          participate in the Plan or to change his or her level of participation
          in the Plan must be approved in advance by the entire Board of
          Directors of the Company or by a committee of the Board of Directors
          satisfying the requirements of Rule 16b-3 of Section 16(b) of the
          Exchange Act. For purposes hereof, the Compensation Committee shall be
          the Compensation Committee which exists from time to time under the
          terms of the Amax Gold Inc. Key Executive Long-Term Incentive Plan.

Executed at Arapahoe County, Colorado this 31st day of March, 1997.

                                         AMAX GOLD INC.
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                         By:   /s/ S. SCOTT SHELLHAAS
                                            -----------------------------------
                                               S. Scott Shellhaas
                                               President and Chief
                                               Operating Officer