alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT10.8













August 7, 2007




Mr. Andrew Gordon


COFFEE HOLDING COMPANY,


INC. 4401 1st Avenue


Brooklyn, NY 11232





AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO THE LICENSE AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2007 BETWEEN ENTENMANN’S PRODUCTS, INC. AND COFFEE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.





Dear Mr. Gordon:





The following, when signed by you and counter-executed by Entenmann’s Products, Inc. (hereinafter "Licensor"), shall constitute Amendment No. One to the above-referenced Agreement as follows:








LICENSE AGREEMENT –  Paragraph 11.1 – Termination for Default by Licensee:





Paragraph 11.1 (b) is hereby amended and restated as follows:





(b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this Agreement, Licensee shall maintain Minimum Net Sales Revenue (if applicable) of Licensed Products for each Contract Year as set forth in Exhibit B. If Licensee fails to maintain the required Minimum Net Sales Revenue as provided in Exhibit B, Licensor shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by written notice delivered to Licensee within 30 days after the end of any Contract Year in which Licensee shall fail to maintain such required Minimum Net Sales Revenue. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this subsection, Licensee may have a one-time option to avoid Licensor's right to terminate this Agreement for Licensee's failure to maintain the Minimum Net Sales Revenue as provided in Exhibit B, by paying to Licensor, within 30 days after the date of the notice of termination from Licensor, the difference between the aggregate royalty actually paid by Licensee to Licensor during the said Contract Year and the royalty that would have been paid by Licensee to Licensor during the Contract Year if Licensee maintained the required Minimum Net Sales Revenue for all categories as provided in Exhibit B for the subject Contract Year.




Except as specifically modified herein by this Amendment No. One, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.








860 Broadway, 3FL   New York, NY 10003   Tel (212) 683-5150   Fax (212) 689-3300




Assuming the amendment accurately reflect your understanding, please sign this Amendment No. One below and return it to me. We will then have the Amendment executed and return a fully-executed copy to you for your files. Of course, no binding modification exists until one fully-executed copy of this Amendment No. One has been returned to you.





If you have any questions, feel free to contact James Slifer.





Sincerely yours,





Glory Ekpe





Glory Ekpe


Director, Contracts




Agreed to and Accepted by:ENTENMANN’S PRODUCTS, INC.

COFFEE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.By: /s/

By: /s/ Andrew GordonName:

Name: Andrew GordonTitle:

Title: President & Chief Executive OfficerDate:

Date:
## GPC

Sanitized
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.2 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


         We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-10435) pertaining to the Affinity Technology Group, Inc., 1995
Stock Option Plan, 1996 Stock Option and the Non-Employee Directors' Stock
Option Plan, of our report dated March 30, 2001, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Affinity Technology Group,
Inc., as of December 31, 2000 and for each of the two year in the period ended
December 31, 2000, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2001.




                                             /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Greenville, South Carolina
April 1, 2002

                                       49
# C_2012399EN.01001902.xml

| 22.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2012 — Giordano v Commission

(Case T-114/11) (1)

1

(Non-contractual liability - Fisheries - Conservation of fisheries resources - Recovery of bluefin tuna stocks - Emergency measures prohibiting fishing by purse seiners - Unlawful conduct - Causal link)

2012/C 399/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jean-François Giordano (Sète, France) (represented by: D. Rigeade and J. Jeanjean, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for damages seeking compensation for the losses allegedly suffered following the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jean-François Giordano to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jean-François Giordano to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.

1

---
§ 194.10-25 Ventilation. ( a ) *Integral magazines.* ( 1 ) All integral magazines shall be provided with natural or mechanical ventilation. Design calculations shall be submitted demonstrating that the system has sufficient capacity to maintain the magazine temperature below 100 °F. with 88 °F. weather air. Mechanical cooling may be used where ventilation requirements exceed 1,500 cubic feet per minute.
( 2 ) Ventilation systems shall be of watertight construction and shall serve no other space. Weather cowls shall be provided with a double layer of wire screen of not less than 1 ⁄ 8-inch mesh. Metal watertight closures shall be provided for use when the ventilation system is not in operation. A 2-inch IPS bypass with check valve shall be provided in parallel with at least one of the ventilation closures to prevent pressure buildup.
( b ) *Magazine vans.* ( 1 ) All magazine vans shall be provided with natural ventilation sufficient to maintain the inside air temperature below 130 °F. with an assumed outside temperature of 115 °F.
( 2 ) Ventilation supply weather openings shall be located at least 6 feet above the deck. Exhaust terminals shall be located in the van overhead. Louvers or weather cowls with a double layer of wire screen of not less than 1 ⁄ 8-inch mesh shall be provided for protection of weather openings.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 1, 2007)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 24173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2169]



[[Page 24171]]

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

Part VIII





The President





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



Proclamation 8133--Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, 2007



Proclamation 8134--National Charter Schools Week, 2007


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 24173]]

                Proclamation 8133 of April 26, 2007

                
Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, 2007

                By the President of the United States of America

                A Proclamation

                During Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, we honor 
                the many contributions citizens of Asian and Pacific 
                Island ancestry have made to our great land.

                The millions of Americans who trace their origins to 
                nations in the Asian/Pacific region have enriched 
                America. The entrepreneurship and innovation of Asian/
                Pacific Americans have strengthened our economy. Asian/
                Pacific Americans enrich our Nation with their strong 
                values of love of family and community. Many Asian/
                Pacific Americans are serving the cause of freedom and 
                peace around the world, and our Nation is grateful for 
                their service. These good men and women defend our 
                safety and contribute to the character and greatness of 
                America.

                To honor the achievements and contributions of Asian/
                Pacific Americans, the Congress, by Public Law 102-450, 
                as amended, has designated the month of May each year 
                as ``Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month.''

                NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the 
                United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 2007 
                as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month. I call upon 
                the people of the United States to learn more about the 
                history of Asian/Pacific Americans and their many 
                contributions to our Nation and to observe this month 
                with appropriate programs and activities.

                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
                twenty-sixth day of April, in the year of our Lord two 
                thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United 
                States of America the two hundred and thirty-first. 
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

[FR Doc. 07-2169
Filed 4-30-07; 9:00 am]
BILLING CODE 3195-01-P
# C_2011355EN.01002101.xml

| 3.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/21

---

Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Aldi v OHIM — Dialcos (dialdi)

(Case T-505/11)

2011/C 355/38

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L, Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dialcos SpA (Due Carrare, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 July 2011 in Case R 1097/2010-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 July 2011 in Case R 1097/2010-2;

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dialcos SpA

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘dialdi’ for goods in Classes 29 and 30.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘ALDI’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 4, 7, 9, 16, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 36.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

Pleas in law:

---
#### § 188.10-1 Anniversary date.

The term *anniversary date* means the day and the month of each year, which corresponds to the date of expiration of the Certificate of Inspection.

[USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6509, Feb. 9, 2000]
# C_2012109EN.01001402.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/14

---

Action brought on 30 December 2011 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament

(Case T-668/11)

2012/C 109/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: VIP Car Solutions SARL (Hoenheim, France) (represented by: G. Welzer, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the European Parliament to pay EUR 1 408 000 to SARL VIP CAR SOLUTIONS; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay EUR 1 408 000 to SARL VIP CAR SOLUTIONS;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks compensation for the material and non-material damage which it claims to have suffered as a result of the Parliament’s decision of 24 January 2007 to reject its tender submitted in the context of a tender procedure relating to transport for Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during part-sessions in Strasbourg (PE/2006/06/UTD/1). (1) That decision was annulled by the judgment in Case T-89/07 VIP Car Solutions v Parliament. (2)

1

VIP Car Solutions

Parliament

2

In support of the action, the applicant alleges serious fault on the part of the Parliament as follows, giving rise to loss:

| — | a breach of the obligation to notify the price offered by the successful tenderer; |
| --- | --- |

—

a breach of the obligation to notify the price offered by the successful tenderer;

| — | a breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the Parliament failed to give any information on the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender, and |
| --- | --- |

—

a breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the Parliament failed to give any information on the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender, and

| — | a manifest error of assessment, since the Parliament did not base its refusal decision on selection and award criteria defined in advance in the documents relating to the call for tenders. |
| --- | --- |

—

a manifest error of assessment, since the Parliament did not base its refusal decision on selection and award criteria defined in advance in the documents relating to the call for tenders.

---

(1)  OJ 2006/S 177-187988.

1

(2)  [2009] ECR II-1403.

2

---
# C_2012118EN.01000802.xml

| 21.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/8

---

Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Regione autonoma della Sardegna against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission

(Case C-631/11 P)

2012/C 118/13

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Regione autonoma della Sardegna (represented by: A. Fantozzi, avvocato)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Selene di Alessandra Cannas Sas and Others

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside and/or vary the judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/085; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside and/or vary the judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/085;

| — | Annul the Commission Decision of 3 July 2008 (State aid C1/2004 Italy — SG-Greffe (2008) D/204339) concerning the aid scheme ‘Regional Law No 9 of 1998 — Misapplication of aid N 272/98’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission Decision of 3 July 2008 (State aid C1/2004 Italy — SG-Greffe (2008) D/204339) concerning the aid scheme ‘Regional Law No 9 of 1998 — Misapplication of aid N 272/98’.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two grounds in support of its appeal.

The first ground of appeal concerns breach of Article 107(3) TFEU. In particular, the appellant alleges breach and misapplication of the principle of the necessity of aid and of the principle of the incentive effect, as a result of an excessively formalistic approach, which is contrary to the principle that the substance must take precedence over the form, and failure to take account of specific details relating to issues of transitional law which characterise the case in question.

The second ground of appeal concerns breach of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and breach of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. (1) The bases of this ground of appeal arise from the specific intertemporal circumstances of the case, which were disregarded in the judgment under appeal. The General Court went beyond what is prescribed by the relevant case-law, requiring of the economic operator a degree of diligence that is not possible in practice, given that the requirement that an application for aid be made before work commences is a Community rule which was introduced at exactly the same time as the facts of the case and, therefore, the undertaking could not have been aware of it at the time at which it made its decision.

1

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

1

---
§ 171.073 Treatment of stepped and recessed bulkheads in Type II subdivision. ( a ) A main transverse watertight bulkhead may not be stepped unless additional watertight bulkheads are located as shown in Figure 171.067(a) so that the distances A, B, C, and D illustrated in Figure 171.067(a) comply with the following: ( 1 ) A and B must not exceed the maximum bulkhead spacing that permits compliance with § 171.070; and
( 2 ) C and D must not be less than the minimum spacing specified in § 171.070(e).
( b ) A main transverse watertight bulkhead may not be recessed unless all parts of the recess are inboard from the shell of the vessel as illustrated in Figure 171.067(c).
( c ) If a main transverse watertight bulkhead is recessed or stepped, an equivalent plane bulkhead must be used in the calculations required by § 171.070.
# C_2012039EN.01001303.xml

| 11.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/13

---

Order of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — Ahouma v Council

(Case T-138/11) (1)

(Death of the applicant - No need to adjudicate)

(2012/C 39/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Brouha Nathanaël Ahouma (Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and C. Fekete, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate.

| 2. | The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.

| 3. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the European Commission and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the European Commission and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire.

---

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

---
§ 169.323 Furniture and furnishings. Each sailing school vessel certificated to carry 100 persons or less or having overnight accommodations for less than 50 persons must meet the following requirements: ( a ) Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, all free-standing furniture must be constructed of noncombustible material. Upholstery and padding used in furniture must be of fire resistant materials.
( b ) Existing solid wooden furniture may be retained on existing vessels.
( c ) Draperies must be fabricated of fire resistant fabrics.
( d ) Rugs and carpets must be of wool or other material having equivalent fire resistant qualities.
( e ) Trash receptacles must be constructed of non-combustible materials with solid sides and bottoms and have solid noncombustible covers.
# C_2013108EN.01002201.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Caventa v OHIM — Anson’s Herrenhaus (BERG)

(Case T-224/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BERG - Earlier Community word mark Christian Berg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 108/58

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Caventa AG (Rekingen, Switzerland) (represented initially by: J. Krenzel, then by T. Stein and A. Segler, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: R. Manea, then by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Anson's Herrenhaus KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: O Löffel and P. Lange, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2011 (Case R 1494/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Anson’s Herrenhaus KG and Caventa AG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Caventa AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Caventa AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.

1

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 28, 2017

NO. 03-16-00718-CV

In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation: 

Texas Clean Air Act Enforcement Cases 

APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES FIELD AND BOURLAND 

AFFIRMED—OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the district court on September 30, 2016. 

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no 

reversible error in the district court’s order. Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s 

order. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court 

below.
Registration Number/File Symbol : **[100 -**  **EUP -**  **RRL ]**  . Docket Number : EPA

–HQ

–OPP

– XXXX

– XXXX **[ 2011**  **- 0674**  **]** . Company name and address : **[ Syntenta Crop Protection Inc., P.O. Box**  **18300, Greensboro, NC 27419 -**  **8300 ]**  . Active ingredient : **[ Acibenzolar s**  **- methyl/**  **Benzo (1,2,**  **3) thiadiazole -**  **7 -**  **carb othioic acid**  **- S**  **- methyl ester**  **]** . Proposed Use : **[ Citrus and pome**  **fruit (non**  **- crop destruct)**  **]** . Contact : **[ Rosemary kearns, 703**  **- 305**  **- 5611,**  **kearns.rosemary@epa.gov ]**  **.**
#### § 190.20-45 Lighting.

Each berth must have a light.