alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014380EN.01001601.xml

| 27.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/16

---

Action brought on 22 August 2014 — Roland v OHIM (Nuance of the colour red for shoe soles)

(Case T-631/14)

2014/C 380/21

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Roland SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken and O. Rauscher)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Christian Louboutin (Paris, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 May 2014 in Case R 1591/2013-1 to the extent that opposition No B 1 9 22  890 is fully upheld and Community trade mark application No 008845539 is rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 May 2014 in Case R 1591/2013-1 to the extent that opposition No B 1 9 22  890 is fully upheld and Community trade mark application No 008845539 is rejected;

| — | in the alternative: annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative: annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Christian Louboutin

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Other marks, which consist of a nuance of the colour red, which is applied to the sole of a shoe, for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 8845539

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Roland SE

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘my SHOES’, for goods in Class 25

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75(2) 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.

---
|                                                                                                          |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (logo)ncb

National    Cooperative Bank

 

2011    Crystal Drive

Suite,    800

Arlington,    VA 22202 |
|                                                                                                          |

#  

# February6, 2018

 

 

Wells Fargo CommercialMortgage Securities, Inc. as Depositor

Attn: AJ Sfarra

375 Park Avenue, 2ndFloor

J0127-023

New York, NY 10152

 

RE:     Annual Statement as to Compliance

           WFCM 2015 LC22

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

Inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement entered into in connectionwith the issuance of the Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-LC22,as an authorized officer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., formerly NCB, FSB(the “NCB Special Servicer”), I hereby certify pursuant to Section 11.12thereof that:

 

a.       A review of theactivities of the NCB Special Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the“Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement has been made under my supervision.

 

b.      To the best of myknowledge, based on these reviews, the NCB Special Servicer has fulfilled allobligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

Please note that the annualfinancial statement will be sent under separate cover on or before March 31,2018.

 

 

Best regards,

/s/ Karyn Mann

Karyn Mann

Senior Vice President,Investor Compliance

National Cooperative Bank,N.A.
# C_2014071EN.01002501.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/25

---

Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Mogyi Kft. v OHIM

(Case T-8/14)

(2014/C 71/46)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant(s): Mogyi Kft. (Csávoly, Hungary) (represented by Zs. Klauber, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

| — | Order the publication of the trade mark application except as regards ‘bread, pastries, sugar’ (Class 30), and ‘agricultural products, seeds’ (Class 31). |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the publication of the trade mark application except as regards ‘bread, pastries, sugar’ (Class 30), and ‘agricultural products, seeds’ (Class 31).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned:‘Just crunch it ...’ word mark for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 35 — Community trade mark application 10 713 485.

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal to register.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the contested decision by decision in Case R 1921/2012-1

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

---
#### § 1.1055-4 Basis of redeemable ground rent reserved or created in connection with transfers of real property before April 11, 1963.

(a) *In general.* In the case of a redeemable ground rent created or reserved in connection with a transfer, occurring before April 11, 1963, of the right to hold real property subject to liabilities under such ground rent, the basis of such ground rent on or after April 11, 1963, in the hands of the person who reserved or created the ground rent is the amount which was taken into account in respect of such ground rent in computing the amount realized from the transfer of such real property. Thus, if no such amount was taken into account, such basis shall be determined without regard to section 1055. (See section 1055(b)(3).)

(b) The provisions of this section may be illustrated by the following examples:

# Example 1.

The taxpayer, who was in the business of building houses, purchased an undeveloped lot of land for $500 and built a house thereon at a cost of $10,000. Subsequently, he transferred the right to hold the lot improved by the house for a consideration of $12,000, and an annual ground rent for such property of $120 which was redeemable for a redemption price of $2,000. The taxpayer reported a $2,000 gain on the transfer, treating the amount realized as $12,000 and his cost allocable to the interest transferred as $10,000. Since the builder did not take the redeemable ground rent into account in computing gain on the transfer, his basis for such ground rent is $500 (the cost of the land not offset against the consideration received for the transfer). Thus, if he subsequently sells the redeemable ground rent (or if it is redeemed from him) for $2,000, he has no gain of $1,500 in the year of sale (or redemption).

# Example 2.

Assume the same facts as in Example 1 except that the builder reported a gain of $3,500 on the transfer, treating the amount realized as $14,000 ($12,000 cash plus $2,000 for the redeemable ground rent) and his costs as $10,500 ($10,000 for the house and $500 for the lot). Since the taxpayer took the entire amount of the redeemable ground rent into account in computing his gain, his basis for such ground rent is $2,000. Thus, if he subsequently sells the redeemable ground rent (or if it is redeemed from him) for $2,000, he has no gain or loss on the transaction.

# Example 3.

Assume the same facts as in Example 1 except that the builder reported a gain of $3,000 on the transfer. He computed this gain by treating the amount realized as $12,000 but treating his cost allocable to the interest transferred as $12,000/$14,000ths of his total $10,500 cost, or $9,000. Since the builder still has remaining $1,500 of unallocated cost, his basis for the redeemable ground rent is $1,500. Thus, if he subsequently sells the redeemable ground rent (or if it is redeemed from him) for $2,000, he has a gain of $500 in the year of sale (or redemption).

[T.D. 6821, 30 FR 6217, May 4, 1965]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-29-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          95,616
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      421
<ALLOWANCES>                                        40
<INVENTORY>                                      3,089
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,149
<PP&E>                                          44,265
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,867
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,717
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           249
<OTHER-SE>                                     113,146
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,880
<SALES>                                          2,140
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,143
<CGS>                                            3,506
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,631<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (26)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  50
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,282)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (29,282)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (29,282)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

<FN>
<F1>OTHER EXPENSES ARE FOR R&D INCURRED IN DEVELOPING PRODUCT FOR MARKET.
</FN>



</TABLE>
§ 1.246-2 Limitation on aggregate amount of deductions. ( a ) *General rule.* The sum of the deductions allowed by sections 243(a)(1) (relating to dividends received by corporations), 244(a) (relating to dividends received on certain preferred stock), and 245 (relating to dividends received from certain foreign corporations), except as provided in section 246(b)(2) and in paragraph (b) of this section, is limited to 85 percent of the taxable income of the corporation. The taxable income of the corporation for this purpose is computed without regard to the net operating loss deduction allowed by section 172, the deduction for dividends paid on certain preferred stock of public utilities allowed by section 247, any capital loss carryback under section 1212(a)(1), and the deductions provided in sections 243(a)(1), 244(a), and 245. For definition of the term *taxable income,* see section 63.
( b ) *Effect of net operating loss.* If the shareholder corporation has a net operating loss (as determined under sec. 172) for a taxable year, the limitation provided in section 246(b)(1) and in paragraph (a) of this section is not applicable for such taxable year. In that event, the deductions provided in sections 243(a)(1), 244(a), and 245 shall be allowable for all tax purposes to the shareholder corporation for such taxable year without regard to such limitation. If the shareholder corporation does not have a net operating loss for the taxable year, however, the limitation will be applicable for all tax purposes for such taxable year. In determining whether the shareholder corporation has a net operating loss for a taxable year under section 172, the deductions allowed by sections 243(a)(1), 244(a), and 245 are to be computed without regard to the limitation provided in section 246(b)(1) and in paragraph (a) of this section.
[T.D. 6992, 34 FR 825, Jan. 18, 1969, as amended by T.D. 7301, 39 FR 963, Jan. 4, 1974]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUZANNA MIRZOYAN; SARJIK

MIRZOYAN; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74326

Agency Nos. A095-591-518

 A095-591-519

 A096-161-220

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Ruzanna Mirzoyan and her son, natives and citizens of Armenia, and

Ruzanna’s husband, Sarjik Mirzoyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia,

petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their

FILED

SEP 30 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74326

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.

2001), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency found Ruzanna not credible, inter alia, because the letters

submitted by Ruzanna’s mother and neighbors, which expressed condolences for

the death of Ruzanna’s brother and son and warned petitioners not to return, predate the death of Ruzanna’s brother as stated in his death certificate and in

Ruzanna’s testimony. The agency also found Ruzanna not credible based upon her

submission of fraudulent documents allegedly from the Armenian Ministry of

Defense and Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on the discrepancy between Ruzanna’s testimony and evidence regarding the

death of her brother. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2000)

(inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence support an adverse

credibility finding). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that

petitioners submitted fraudulent documents where there were significant

discrepancies apparent from the face of the documents, and the government’s

forensic report undermined their reliability. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741,
3 07-74326

745 (9th Cir. 2004) (fraudulent documents going to the heart of the claim may

justify an adverse credibility finding). In the absence of credible testimony,

petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,

348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Petitioners’ CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony

found to be not credible, and they do not point to any other evidence that shows it

is more likely than not they would be tortured if returned to Armenia. See id. at

1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) or RULE 15d-14(b)

AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Williams Controls, Inc (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended

March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick W. Cavanagh, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) |  | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) |  | The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







/s/ PATRICK W. CAVANAGH

Patrick W. Cavanagh

Chief Executive Officer

Williams Controls, Inc.

May10, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1497

JUSTIN E. FAIRFAX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NEW YORK PUBLIC RADIO,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

WNYC,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-00895-AJT-IDD)

Submitted: June 27, 2024 Decided: August 26, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1497 Doc: 37 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Justin E. Fairfax, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew M. Levine, New York, New York, Jonathan 

R. Tuttle, DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1497 Doc: 37 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Justin E. Fairfax appeals the district court’s order granting New York Public Radio’s 

motions to dismiss Fairfax’s state law claims for defamation and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress and for attorneys’ fees and costs under Virginia’s anti-SLAPP statute, 

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223.2. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Fairfax v. N.Y. Pub. Radio, No. 1:22-cv00895-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va. Apr. 4, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1497 Doc: 37 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.1970 Radiographic ECG/respirator synchronizer. ( a ) *Identification.* A radiographic ECG/respirator synchronizer is a device intended to be used to coordinate an x-ray film exposure with the signal from an electrocardiograph (ECG) or respirator at a predetermined phase of the cardiac or respiratory cycle.
( 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 § 892.9.
[55 FR 48444, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 65 FR 2323, Jan. 14, 2000]
##### 



Exhibit 10.1 March 23, 2005 Richard D. Spurr
[Address omitted] Dear Rick: This letter is to confirm Zix Corporations (ZixCorps) offer to employ you as Chief
Executive Officer, President and Chief Operating Officer, upon the terms described below. You will be compensated at the rate of $25,000 per month, payable semimonthly ($300,000 if
annualized). You will be eligible to receive an annual bonus of up to $200,000 per year, based on
a Board approved plan (which we expect to be approved at the next Board meeting). Your employment
with ZixCorp is at-will, subject to the provisions of your employment agreement dated January 20,
2004, which provides for a severance payment to you of nine months base pay, subject to the terms
and conditions stated therein. In addition to the above compensation, you will be granted non-qualified stock options to
purchase 350,000 shares of ZixCorps common stock at an exercise price of the average of todays
opening and closing price of the common stock. These options will vest quarterly and pro-rata
through the third year anniversary of the date of grant, assuming continued employment with the
Company and subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable stock option plan and related
stock option agreement. Please sign in the space provided below and return this letter to me on or before March 24,
2005. Please let me know if you need additional information or if I can answer any questions. Sincerely,/s/ John A. RyanJohn A. Ryan
Chairman of the Board Agreed to: /s/ Richard D. Spurr 
 Date: 3-23-05
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023

- 1365

_____________________________

D EPARTMENT OF R EVENUE and C RYSTAL R OSE J ACKSON ,
Appellant,

v.

T RAVIS A NTWAN H OLLOWAY ,
Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Division of Administrative Hearings. Andrew D. Manko, Administrative Law Judge

February 29, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

.

K ELSEY , W INOKUR , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Ashley Moody , Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein

, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant Department of Revenue

Crystal Rose Jackson, pro se, Appellant.

Travis Antwan Holloway

, pro se, Appellee.