alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014462EN.01003201.xml

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/32

---

Action brought on 5 November 2014 — Merck v OHIM — Nestlé (HEALTHPRESSO)

(Case T-747/14)

(2014/C 462/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société de Produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘HEALTHPRESSO’ — Application for registration No 1 0 0 03  028

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2014 in Case R 1880/2013-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Partially annul the contested decision insofar as the Board of Appeal upheld the opposition and rejected the CTM application for the goods in Class 30; |
| --- | --- |

—

Partially annul the contested decision insofar as the Board of Appeal upheld the opposition and rejected the CTM application for the goods in Class 30;

| — | Reject opposition No B 1 1 91  607; |
| --- | --- |

—

Reject opposition No B 1 1 91  607;

| — | Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 96(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 96(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

PROFESSIONAL PAPER 49I-A

PLATE 1

ii

2h

EXPLANATION
—
Saltcedar

Saltcedar intermittent
or scattered growth
®

Saltcedar growth observed
at road crossing of stream

TRUE NORTH

wR

[APPROXIMATE MEAK
DECLINATION, 1965

1 1 1

nie ne a

Geological Survey Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Army-Corps of Engineers
Bureau of Reclamation
State of Utah

ne

ne

ro a a

a-

iar 1 iF oor oa co
INTERIOR—GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. WASHINGTON, D. C._—1965—w64207

MAP SHOWING OCCURRENCE OF SALTCEDAR IN THE WESTERN STATES

100
=

SCALE 1:7 500 000

100

200

300 MILES

100

o

100

200

300 KILOMETERS

—-——
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-02-2000
<CASH>                                           9,046
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,152
<ALLOWANCES>                                        18
<INVENTORY>                                      8,846
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,602
<PP&E>                                         444,175
<DEPRECIATION>                                 152,778
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 340,230
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,265
<BONDS>                                         38,695
<COMMON>                                         3,383
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,374
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     231,385
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   340,230
<SALES>                                        140,346
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,347
<CGS>                                           61,550
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  110,721
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 761
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,626
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,882
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,744
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,744
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .68




</TABLE>
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D2022-2725 

LT Case No. 2018-CA-021888

_____________________________ 

SEAN F. BOGLE, ESQUIRE, as

Personal Representative of the 

Estate of Cindy Lynn 

Farrington, 

Appellant, 

v.

MAQUE WILLIAMS, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County. 

Curtis Jacobus, Judge. 

Kansas R. Gooden, of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Miami, and 

Kevin D. Franz, of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Boca Raton, for 

Appellant. 

Brian J. Lee, of Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville, for Appellee. 

May 7, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

EISNAUGLE, BOATWRIGHT, and MACIVER, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Sep-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            Oct-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                          1,251
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,968
<ALLOWANCES>                                      337
<INVENTORY>                                    10,229
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               29,313
<PP&E>                                         27,492
<DEPRECIATION>                                  7,168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 61,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           9,631
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         1
<COMMON>                                          184
<OTHER-SE>                                     25,292
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   61,500
<SALES>                                        14,925
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               14,925
<CGS>                                          10,226
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  12,601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  302
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,674
<INCOME-TAX>                                      643
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,031
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,031
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.05
        



</TABLE>
# C_2016106EN.01000801.xml

| 21.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

(Case C-61/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil aviation - Application for approval of flight conditions presented - Decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency - Rejection of an application - Compulsory preliminary administrative procedure - Possibility of an action before the court of the Union European - Role of the court - Adoption of measures of organisation of procedure - Obligation - Complex technical assessments))

(2016/C 106/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: T. Kittner, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (represented by: T. Masing, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.5760 Cuff spreader. ( a ) *Identification.* A cuff spreader is a device used to install tracheal tube cuffs on tracheal or tracheostomy tubes.
( 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 the limitations in § 868.9. If the device is not labeled or otherwise represented as sterile, it is exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[47 FR 31142, July 16, 1982, as amended at 54 FR 25048, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38795, July 25, 2001]
The HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR., United States District Court 1

Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-3982

___________

Carroll Jackson; Nadine Jackson, *

 *

Appellants, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Jon Sanford, Attorney; Henry * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Wilkerson, Judge; William Bullock, *

Judge, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: March 6, 1998

 Filed: March 18, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Carroll Jackson and his wife, Nadine Jackson, appeal the district court&s

1

dismissal of their complaint which alleged defendants conspired to predetermine the

outcome in two previous cases. After careful review of the record and the parties&

briefs we conclude the district court properly dismissed the claims against the judges

because they are entitled to absolute judicial immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793

F.2d 1072, 1075-78 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc), cited with approval by, Moses v.
-2-

Parwatikar, 813 F.2d 891, 893 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 832 (1987). We also

conclude the district court properly dismissed the Jacksons& civil rights conspiracy

claims because they were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. See Guy v.

Swift & Co., 612 F.2d 383, 385 (8th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (where it appears on face

of complaint that statute of limitations has run, action properly dismissed under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal with prejudice of the federal

claims. As to the Jacksons& state law claims, we modify the dismissal to be without

prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(3), 1367(d); Labickas v. Arkansas State Univ.,

78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 395 (1996).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

113 

KA 12-00022 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILMON VINCENT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT B. HALLBORG,

JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MATTHEW B. POWERS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Sheila A.

DiTullio, J.), rendered March 2, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law

§ 125.20 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, he knowingly,

voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see

generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver of

the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the

bargained-for sentence (see id. at 255; see generally People v Lococo,

92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737). 

Entered: February 7, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### Howard W. Sessions *v.*Arthur S. Sachs et al.

Argued March 7

decided March 7, 1968

*David A. Beiser,*assistant attorney general, with whom was *F. Michael Ahern,*assistant attorney general, for the appellees (defendants).

*Howard W. Sessions,*pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

The motion by the defendants to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.
# C_2014361EN.01001601.xml

| 13.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/16

---

Action brought on 8 August 2014 — Mechadyne International v OHIM (FlexValve)

(Case T-588/14)

2014/C 361/21

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mechadyne International Ltd (Kirtlington, United Kingdom) (represented by S. von Petersdorff-Campen and E. Schaper, 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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 June 2014 in Case R 2435/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 June 2014 in Case R 2435/2013-4;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark containing the word element ‘FlexValve’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 12 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 1 1 2 74  677

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of the right to be heard; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the right to be heard;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
39262.

#### CORNELL v. COASTAL BROADCASTING, INC., *et al.*

*411Decided February 19, 1962.

*412
      *Aaron*Kravitch, for plaintiff in error.

*Hitch, Miller, Beckmann ■& Simpson, Luhr G. C. Beckmann, Jr.,*contra.

Eelton, Chief Judge.

The act of 1941 (Ga. L. 1941, p. 548), and the act of 1945 (Ga. L. 1945, pp. 331, 332), *(Code Ann.*§ 54-642.1) provide: “All letters, reports, communications or any other matters, either oral or written, from the employer or employee to each other or to the Employment Security Agency or any of its agents, representatives or employees which shall have been written, sent, delivered, or made in connection with the requirements of the administration of this Chapter, shall be absolutely privileged and shall not be made the subject matter or basis for any suit or slander or libel in any court of the State of Georgia.” This law gives absolute privilege to employer and employee for communications made “in connection with the requirements of the administration” of the pertinent provisions of law. There are no express allegations in the petition that the communication alleged to be libelous was not made in connection with the administration of the law and the allegations in paragraph 10 of the petition that the communication was made “without cause, solicitation or inquiry” do not necessarily mean that the communication was not made in connection with the administration of the law, especially in view of the allegation in paragraph 11 that the communication by Donald K. Jones to the Georgia Department of Labor did result in delay of payments to petitioner of unemployment security funds due him during his unemployment. In cases of absolute privilege malice and bad faith are immaterial. *Atlanta News Publishing Co. v. Medlock,*123 Ga. 714 (51 SE 756, 3 LRA (NS) 1139). See also *Brantley v. Heller,*101 Ga. App. 16 (112 SE2d 685).

*413The court did not err in sustaining the defendants’ general demurrers to the petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.*
# C_2016098EN.01001502.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 January 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-66/15) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Motor vehicles - Hiring or leasing of a motor vehicle by a resident of a Member State from a supplier established in another Member State - Taxation of that vehicle at the time it is registered in the first Member State - Levy of the full amount of vehicle registration tax))

(2016/C 098/19)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Wasmeier and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits and V. Karrá, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Declares that, by levying the full amount of registration tax provided for under its national legislation at the time of registration of a vehicle hired or leased by a customer resident in its territory from a supplier established in another Member State, without taking into consideration the duration of the hire or lease contract and the duration of use of that vehicle in the national territory of Greece, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 56 to 62 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Declares that, by levying the full amount of registration tax provided for under its national legislation at the time of registration of a vehicle hired or leased by a customer resident in its territory from a supplier established in another Member State, without taking into consideration the duration of the hire or lease contract and the duration of use of that vehicle in the national territory of Greece, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 56 to 62 TFEU;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 78 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 78

  To provide that the final rule of the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
  Protection titled ``Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C)'' shall 
                        have no force or effect.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

  Mr. Biggs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide that the final rule of the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
  Protection titled ``Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C)'' shall 
                        have no force or effect.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Let Lenders Lend Act''.

SEC. 2. HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE RULE.

    The final rule issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
Protection titled ``Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C)'' (October 
28, 2015; 80 Fed. Reg. 66128) shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GUSTAVO REYNA

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 00 237

- C R

Appeal from the

205 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20130D02287 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Ap p ellant ’s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until March 28 , 201 7

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO F ILE THE APPELLANT ’S BR IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime E. Gandara

, Appellant ’ s attorney, prepare the

Appellant ’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before March 28

, 201 7

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27 th day of February , 20 1 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McCl ure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox , JJ.
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John J. Crowley, Chief Financial Officer of Merus N.V. (the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

1. The Annual
Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2016 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                              
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: April 28, 2017 |  | /s/ John J. Crowley          
|                     |  | John J. Crowley              
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                     |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
Magone Project Record of Decision 

(ROD) 

Appendix D – Review of Grant County Clerk’s 

Certification of County Initiative #12-57 

Blue Mountain Ranger District 

Malheur National Forest