alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013055EN.01001002.xml

| 23.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2013 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Lactimilk (BELLRAM)

(Case T-237/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BELLRAM - Earlier national word and figurative marks RAM and Ram - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Articles 63(2), 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Opposition period)

2013/C 55/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: T. Träger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel and D. Walicka, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lactimilk, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Casamitjana Lleonart, lawyer)

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 Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2011 (Case R 1154/2009-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Lactimilk, SA and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.182 Contiguous hull structure: Production weld test. If a portion of the contiguous hull structure is designed for a temperature colder than −34 °C (−30 °F) and is not part of the secondary barrier, each 100m (328 ft.) of full penetration butt welded joints in that portion of the contiguous hull structure must pass the following production weld tests in the position that the joint is welded: ( a ) Bend tests under § 57.06-4 of this chapter.
( b ) A Charpy V-notch toughness test under § 57.06-5 of this chapter on one set of 3 specimens alternating the notch location on successive tests between the center of the weld and the most critical location in the heat affected zone.[2]
( c ) If the contiguous hull structure does not pass the test under paragraph (b) of this section, the retest procedures under § 54.05-5(c) must be met.
Footnotes -
154.182
[2] The most critical location in the heat affected zone of the weld is based on procedure qualification results, except austenitic stainless steel need have notches only in the center of the weld.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PR ECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court
Kevin Shane Epting, Petitioner,

v. State of South Carolina, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2017-000696

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal from Laurens County D. Garrison Hill, Trial Court Judge Brooks P. Goldsmith, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2019-MO-043 Heard November 21, 2019 – Filed December 4, 2019

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED

Appellate Defender Kathri ne Haggard Hudgins, of Columbia, for Petitioner.Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Janell Gregory, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We issued a writ of certiorari to review the post-conviction relief (PCR) court's denial of Kevin Shane Epting' s application for PCR. We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.
DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. KITTREDGE, Acting Chief Justice, HE ARN, FEW, JAMES, JJ., and Acting Justice Stephanie Pendarvis McDonald, concur.
# C_2015007EN.01002102.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2014 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-481/11) (1)

1

((Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Fruit and vegetables sector - Citrus fruits - Action for annulment - Confirmatory measure - New and substantial facts - Admissibility - Conditions for marketing - Provisions concerning marking - Indications of preserving agents or other chemical substances used in post-harvest processing - Standard recommendations adopted by the United Nations-Economic Commission for Europe))

(2015/C 007/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, abogado del Estado)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martin, B. Schima and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the fifth indent of section VI D, Part B 2 of Annex I to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011.

1

---
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO DISMISS 

CHARGES (ECF #80) AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED 

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE 

 On February 29, 2016, Defendant Curtis Scott (“Scott”) filed a pro se

motion to dismiss the charges the Government has brought against him in this case 

(the “Motion to Dismiss”). (See ECF #80.) On March 2, 2016, Scott’s counsel 

orally renewed his previous written motion to suppress certain evidence the 

Government sought to introduce against Scott (the “Renewed Suppression 

Motion”). (See Dkt.) The Court heard oral argument on both motions on March 2, 

2016. 

 For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 

Motion to Dismiss and the Renewed Suppression Motion are DENIED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: March 3, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2:14-cr-20780-MFL-DRG Doc # 81 Filed 03/03/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 689
2 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on March 3, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cr-20780-MFL-DRG Doc # 81 Filed 03/03/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 690
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 72 (Monday, April 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19006-19007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1844]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting of the Sickle Cell Disease Advisory Committee.
    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to 
space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in 
advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: Sickle Cell Disease Advisory Committee.
    Date: June 4, 2007.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: Discussion of Programs and Issues.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700A 
Rockledge Drive, Room 354, Bethesda, MD 20817.
    Contact Person: Robert B. Moore, PhD, Health Scientist 
Administrator, Blood Diseases Program, Division of Blood Disease and 
Resources, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 10162, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/435-0050.

    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the

[[Page 19007]]

name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or 
professional affiliation of the interested person.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/meetings/index.htm, where an agenda 
and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when 
available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 5, 2007.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-1844 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### § 159.001-3 Definitions.

As used in this part:

*Classification society* means an organization involved in the inspection of ships and ship equipment, and which, as determined by the Commandant, meets the standards in IMO Resolution A.739(18).

*Independent laboratory* means an organization which meets the standards for acceptance in § 159.010-3 of this part, and which is accepted by the Coast Guard for performing certain tests and inspections. In addition to commercial testing laboratories, the Commandant may also accept classification societies and agencies of governments that are involved in the inspection and testing of marine safety equipment that meet the requirements of § 159.010-3.

*Marine Equipment Directive (MarED)* means the European Community Council Directive 96/98/EC of December 20, 1996 on marine equipment, as amended.

*Memorandum of Understanding* (MOU) is an agreement between the Coast Guard and a laboratory that specifies the approval functions a recognized independent laboratory performs for the Coast Guard and the recognized independent laboratory's working arrangements with the Coast Guard.

*Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA)* means an agreement between the United States and other Maritime Administrations or organized associations, such as the European Community and the European Free Trade Association that specifies equipment approval and monitoring processes through which parties of the MRA agree to approve equipment on behalf of all parties. An MRA allows reciprocal approval and acceptance of equipment between all parties.

*Recognized independent laboratory* means an independent laboratory which meets the standards of § 159.010-3, and is accepted by the Coast Guard to perform certain equipment approval functions on behalf of the Coast Guard, as described in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the laboratory and the Coast Guard in accordance with § 159.010-7(b).

[CGD 93-055, 61 FR 13927, Mar. 28, 1996, as amended by USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48273, July 22, 2016]
### Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? Organization Person Contacted **Date** Response **National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti**  6 / 3 /15 **Regional Airline Association** 6/3/15 **Aircraft Owners & Pilots As sociation**  **Robert Hackman** 6/3/15 **Airlines for America Robert Ireland**  6/3/15
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT entered into as of the 25th day of June, 1998, by and between
North Pointe Financial Services, Inc., a corporation incorporated under the laws
of Michigan ("NPFS"), James G. Petcoff ("Executive") and Queensway Financial
Holdings Limited, a corporation incorporated under the laws of Ontario
("Queensway").

W I T N E S S E T H :

WHEREAS, NPFS and the Executive entered into an employment agreement made as of
the 1st day of October, 1993 (the "Agreement"):

AND WHEREAS the parties hereto wish to amend the Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1.    Section 2 of the Agreement shall be amended to provide that the term of
      employment shall be for a term of five (5) years from June 25, 1998.

2.    Queensway hereby guarantees to the Executive all of the obligations of
      NPFS under the Agreement including without limitation payment of all
      amounts payable thereunder when due

3.    The Executive waives his rights with respect to his ability to terminate
      the Agreement pursuant to Section 8 as a result of the change of control
      of NPFS that has occurred in connection with its entry into an Agreement
      and Plan of Merger with North Pointe Acquisition Corp.

4.    Section 1C of the Agreement shall be deleted.

5.    Section 4.2 of the Agreement and Plan of Merger shall be deemed to be
      added to the Agreement.

6.    It is acknowledged that the salary of the Executive during the term of his
      employment shall not be less than $400,000 per annum.

7.    Section 6(f) is amended to add the words, "bonus or other amounts referred
      to in the Agreement" after the words "payment of base salary" in the
      second line thereof.

8.    In all other respects, the parties hereto confirm the terms and conditions
      of the Agreement.

<PAGE>
9.    This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws
      of the State of Michigan.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of
June 25, 1998.

                                       NORTH POINTE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

                                       By:_________________________________

                                       By:_________________________________

__________________________             ____________________________________
         Witness                       JAMES G. PETCOFF

                                       QUEENSWAY FINANCIAL HOLDINGS LIMITED

                                       By: /s/ Lisa Enright
                                           --------------------------------
                                           Its Director of Finance

                                       By:_________________________________

                                       2
MANDATE

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00048-CV

Jamie Genender and Critter Stuff, LLC, 

Appellants

v.

USA Store Fixtures, LLC, Appellee

Appealed from the County Civil Court

at Law No. 1 of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. 

No. 1016718). Opinion delivered by 

Justice McCally. Justices Brown and 

Wise also participating.

TO THE COUNTY CIVIL COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HARRIS COUNTY, 

GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals on December 23, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or 

reverse your judgment was determined. Our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, USA Store Fixtures, LLC, 

signed October 16, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record 

and find error in the judgment. We therefore REFORM the judgment of the court below to delete 

the following paragraph from the judgment:

It is hereby ORDERED that Jamie Michele Genender and Critter Stuff, L.L.C., 

jointly and severally, pay to USA Store Fixtures the amount of $38,000, 

representing the reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees in this case and a 

contingent award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $20,000 if this case is appealed 

to the Court of Appeals, and $20,000 if this case is appealed to the Supreme Court 

of Texas.

We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED except as modified in this 

judgment.

We order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Kem Thompson Frost, Chief Justice of our Fourteenth Court of 

Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Houston, March 6, 2015.
§ 173.055 Watertight subdivision and damage stability standards for existing sailing school vessels. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, an existing sailing school vessel which carries more than 49 persons must be fitted with a collision bulkhead and any additional bulkheads necessary to provide one compartment subdivision.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, an existing sailing school vessel which has a mean length greater than 65 feet (19.8 meters), must be fitted with additional transverse watertight bulkheads necessary to provide one compartment subdivision, when the following Subdivision Numerals are exceeded: ( 1 ) For vessels to be operated on Exposed Waters: L × N >4000
( 2 ) For vessels to be operated on Partially Protected Waters: L × N >4500
( 3 ) For vessels to be operated on Protected Waters: L × N >5000 where L is the mean length and N is the number of persons on board
( c ) An existing sailing school vessel which is required to meet a one compartment subdivision standard and has a mean length of 90 feet (27.4 meters) or less may, instead of one compartment subdivision, be fitted with a collision bulkhead and sufficient air tankage or other internal buoyancy to maintain the fully-loaded vessel afloat with positive stability in the flooded condition.
( d ) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, an existing sailing school vessel which has a mean length greater than 65 feet (19.8 meters) must be fitted with a collision bulkhead.
( e ) On an existing sailing school vessel, operating on protected waters, which has a mean length of 90 feet (27.4 meters) or less with no other requirement for subdivision, the collision bulkhead may be omitted.
( f ) An existing sailing school vessel, operating on exposed waters, which has a mean length of 65 feet (19.8 meters) or less and is carrying more than 15 persons, must be fitted with a collision bulkhead.
[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 924, Jan. 9, 1986]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

PHILLIP CHARLES GIBBS, #810512, 

Petitioner, Case No. 14-cv-14028 

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

JEFFREY WOODS, 

Respondent. 

__________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER=S MOTION FOR BOND

Michigan prisoner Phillip Charles Gibbs (APetitioner@) has filed a pro se 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 asserting that he is 

incarcerated in violation of his constitutional rights. Respondent has recently filed 

an answer to the amended habeas petition in this reopened case. The matter is 

before the Court on Petitioner=s motion for bond. 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has stated that to 

receive bond pending a decision in a federal habeas case, 

[P]risoners must be able to show not only a substantial claim of law 

based on the facts surrounding the petition but also the existence of 

>some circumstance making [the motion for bail] exceptional and 

deserving of special treatment in the interests of justice.= Aronson v. 

May, 85 S. Ct. 3, 5; 13 L. Ed. 2d 6, 9 (1964) [additional citations 

omitted]. There will be few occasions where a prisoner will meet this 

standard. 

Lee v. Jabe, 989 F.2d 869, 871 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 
2 

77, 79 (6th Cir. 1990)). Having considered Petitioner=s motion and conducted a 

preliminary review of his case, the Court is not persuaded that the interests of justice 

require Petitioner=s release on bond pending the resolution of this case. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner=s motion for bond. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: December 14, 2017 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on December 14, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.11
AMENDMENT TO EQUITY PURCHASE AGREEMENT
This Amendment (this “Amendment”), dated as of June 18, 2020, to that certain Equity Purchase Agreement (“Purchase Agreement”), between Sphere 3D Corp. (the “Company”) and Oasis Capital, LLC (the “Investor”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Purchase Agreement.
RECITALS: 
A.Whereas, the Purchase Agreement contemplated the Company selling the Investor up to $11,000,000 of Company Common Stock pursuant to the terms set forth therein;
B.    Whereas, as consideration for Investor’s commitment to purchase such securities pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, the Company agreed to issue certain Commitment Shares to the Investor;
C.    Whereas, the Company and Investor now desire to amend the Purchase Agreement to eliminate the issuance of Commitment Shares.
D.    Whereas, the Purchase Agreement may be amended in a written instrument signed by the Company and the Investor; and
AGREEMENTS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and mutual promises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as follows:
1.    All references in the Purchase Agreement to “Commitment Shares” shall hereby be deleted.
2.    Section 6.5 of the Purchase Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:
“[Reserved.]”
3.    Except as modified herein, the Purchase Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
4.    This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and shall be binding upon all parties, their successors and assigns, and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same Amendment. A signature delivered by facsimile shall constitute an original.
5.    This Amendment shall be governed pursuant to Section 10.1 of the Agreement.
[Signature Page Follows]









[SIGNATURE PAGE TO AMENDMENT TO EQUITY PURCHASE AGREEMENT]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date set forth above.
	
		
	COMPANY:

	Sphere 3D Corp.

	By:
	/s/ Peter Tassiopoulos

	Name:
Title:
	Peter Tassiopoulos
CEO

	 

	INVESTOR:

	Oasis Capital, LLC

	By:
	/s/ Adam Long

	Name:
Title:
	Adam Long
Managing Partner