alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014052EN.01002201.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/22

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — TeamBank AG Nürnberg v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA

(Case C-524/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative mark f@ir Credit - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark FERCREDIT - Refusal of registration)

2014/C 52/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (represented by: D. Terheggen, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA (represented by: G Petrocchi, A. Masetti Zannini de Concina and R. Cartella, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2012 in Case T-220/11 TeamBank v OHMI — Fercredit Servizi Finanziari, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2011 (Case R 719/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA and TeamBank AG Nürnberg — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Likelihood of confusion between a figurative sign including the word element ‘f@ir Credit’ and an earlier international figurative mark including the word element ‘FERCREDIT’.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Team Bank AG Nürnberg is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Team Bank AG Nürnberg is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.

1

---
Exhibit
        32.2
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**
 **OF
        THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc.
        (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”), as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
        Rick
        Berry, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
        §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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, 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.
 
 /s/
                  RICK BERRYRick
                  BerryChief
                  Financial Officer
  August
        11, 2008
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. and will be retained by Sanders Morris Harris
        Group Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
        staff
        upon request.
# C_2011340EN.01004002.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/40

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — M v EMA

(Case F-6/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Action for damages - Action manifestly inadmissible)

2011/C 340/82

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: M (Broxbourne, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Thomann, Barrister, and I. Khawaja, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: V. Salvatore and N. Rampal Olmedo, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

An action for damages seeking to obtain compensation for the loss allegedly sustained by the applicant following an accident in the workplace which was the result of the breach by the EMA of its obligations concerning the health and safety of workers arising from the European and UK rules.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | M shall bear all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

M shall bear all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010, p. 37.

1

---
§ 185.210 Alcohol or drug use by individuals directly involved in casualties. ( a ) For each marine casualty required to be reported by § 185.202, the owner, agent, master, or person in charge of the vessel shall determine whether there is any evidence of alcohol or drug use by individuals directly involved in the casualty.
( b ) The owner, agent, master, or person in charge of the vessel shall include in the written report, Form CG 2692, submitted for the casualty information that: ( 1 ) Identifies those individuals for whom evidence of drug or alcohol use, or evidence of intoxication, has been obtained; and
( 2 ) Specifies the method used to obtain such evidence, such as personal observation of the individual, or by chemical testing of the individual.
( c ) An entry must be made in the Official Logbook if carried, pertaining to those individuals for whom evidence of intoxication is obtained. The individual shall be informed of this entry and the entry shall be witnessed by a second person.
( d ) If an individual directly involved in a casualty refuses to submit to, or cooperate in, the administration of a timely chemical test, when directed by a Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, or any other law enforcement officer authorized to obtain a chemical test under Federal, state, or local law, or by the owner, agent, master, or person in change, this fact must be noted in the Official Logbook, if carried, and in the written report (Form CG 2692), and will be admissible as evidence in any administrative proceeding.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 1005, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51050, Sept. 30, 1997]
#### § 131.210 Hulls.

The hull of each vessel must be marked as required by parts 67 and 69 of this chapter.
#### NAHM TARZY, PLAINTIFF, v. UNITED PIECE DYE WORKS, DEFENDANT.

Submitted January term, 1929

Decided May 7, 1929.

Before Justices Black, Campbell and Case.

For the rule, *John W. Ochford.*

*Contra, Kellogg & Chance.*

Pee Curiam.

In an action for negligence the defendant has a verdict, and under this rule the plaintiff seeks to set it aside for the reasons:

1. It is against the weight of the evidence.

2. It is contrary to the charge of the court.

3. It indicates prejudice and partiality.

There was a fair dispute of facts presented by the proofs and our examination thereof does not bring us to the conclusion that the verdict was the result of mistake, prejudice or passion, and therefore the rule to show cause is discharged, with costs.
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                 SELECTED RATIOS AND STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF
                               PER SHARE EARNINGS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                     01/1/00 to
Return on Equity and Assets                   Annualized              03/31/00
                                              ------------        -------------
<S>                                           <C>                 <C>
Return on average total assets                      (1.24) %              (0.31) %
Return on average equity                           (13.88)                (3.47)
Dividend payout ratio                                                       N/A
Average equity to average assets                                           8.80

Statement of Per Share Earnings

Net Loss                                                          $    (254,781)
                                                                  ==============

Average shares outstanding                                            1,170,000

Basic and diluted loss per share                                  $       (0.22)
                                                                  ==============
</TABLE>
# C_2014093EN.01001401.xml

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn — Germany) — Mömax Logistik GmbH v Bundesamt für Justiz

(Case C-528/12) (1)

1

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Directive 78/660/EEC - Publication of consolidated annual accounts of certain types of company - Application of the rules on the publication of accounts to companies governed by the law of one Member State and forming part of a group whose parent company is governed by the law of another Member State)

2014/C 93/21

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Bonn

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mömax Logistik GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesamt für Justiz

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Bonn — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU and Article 57(1) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11) — Right of the Member States not to apply to the dependent companies of any group governed by their national laws the provisions of Directive 78/660/EEC concerning the content, auditing and publication of the annual accounts where the dominant company of the group is subject to the laws of a Member State — Legislation of a Member State providing for that possibility where the dominant company is subject to the laws of that Member State and precluding it where it is subject to the laws of another Member State.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 57 of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, as amended by Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006, must be interpreted as precluding the national legislation of a Member State which exempts a subsidiary undertaking governed by the law of that State from the provisions of that directive concerning the content, auditing and publication of annual accounts only if the parent company is also governed by the law of that State.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50620

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFONSO MARTINEZ-PERALES,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-00-CR-77-OG

- - - - - - - - - -

April 12, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Alfonso Martinez-Perales appeals his sentence following his

guilty plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Martinez argues that his sentence

should not have exceeded the two-year maximum sentence under 8

U.S.C. § 1326(a). Martinez acknowledges that his argument is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224

(1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court

review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348

(2000). 
No. 00-50620

- 2 -

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

120 S. Ct. at 2362; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). 

Martinez’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S.

at 235. 

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
§ 188.10-35 International voyage. ( a ) This section describes those voyages which are considered to be “international voyages” for the purposes of this subchapter.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the term “international voyage” as used in this subchapter shall have the same meaning as that contained in Regulation 2(d), Chapter I of the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, *i.e.*, *International voyage* means a voyage from a country to which the present convention applies to a port outside such country, or conversely.”
( c ) The International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, does not apply to vessels “solely navigating the Great Lakes of North America and the River St. Lawrence as far east as a straight line drawn from Cap de Rosiers to West Point, Anticosti Island and, on the north side of Anticosti Island, the 63d Meridian.” Accordingly, such vessels shall not be considered as being on an “international voyage” for the purpose of this subchapter.
( d ) In addition, although voyages between the continental United States and Hawaii or Alaska, and voyages between Hawaii and Alaska are not “international voyages” under the provisions of the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, such voyages are similar in nature and shall be considered as “international voyages” for the purposes of this subchapter.
[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1113, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by CGD 80-123, 45 FR 64586, Sept. 30, 1980; CGD 90-008, 55 FR 30664, July 26, 1990]
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.060-3 Materials—standard vests. ( a ) *General.* All components used in the construction of buoyant vests must meet the applicable requirements of subpart 164.019 of this chapter. The requirements for materials specified in this section are minimum requirements, and consideration will be given to the use of alternate materials in lieu of those specified. Detailed technical data and samples of all proposed alternate materials must be submitted for approval before those materials are incorporated in the finished product.
( b ) *Unicellular polyethylene foam.* The unicellular polyethylene foam shall be all new material complying with specification subpart 164.013 of this subchapter.
( c ) *Envelope.* The buoyant vest envelope, or cover, shall be made from 39′′, 2.85 cotton jeans cloth, with a thread count of approximately 96 × 64. The finished goods shall weigh not less than 4.2 ounces per square yard, shall have thread count of not less than 94 × 60, and shall have a breaking strength of not less than 85 pounds in the warp and 50 pounds in the filling. Other cotton fabrics having a weight and breaking strength not less than the above will be acceptable. There are no restrictions as to color, but the fastness of the color to laundering, water, crocking, and light shall be rated “good” when tested in accordance with Federal Test Method Standard No. 191, Methods 5610, 5630, 5650, and 5660.
( d ) *Tie tapes and body strap loops.* The tie tapes and body strap loops for both adult and child sizes must be 3 ⁄ 4-inch cotton webbing meeting the requirements of military specification MIL-T-43566 (Class I) for Type I webbing. (d-1) *Body straps.* The complete body strap assembly including hardware, must have a minimum breaking strength of 150 pounds for an adult size and 115 pounds for a child size. The specifications for the webbing are as follows: ( 1 ) For an adult size vest, the webbing must be 1 inch.
( 2 ) For a child size vest, the webbing must be three-quarter inch and meet military specification MIL-W-530 for Type IIa webbing.
( e ) [Reserved]
( f ) *Thread.* Each thread must meet the requirements of subpart 164.023 of this chapter. Only one kind of thread may be used in each seam.
[CGFR 65-37, 30 FR 11590, Sept. 10, 1965, as amended by CGD 72-90R, 37 FR 10839, May 31, 1972; CGD 72-163R, 38 FR 8122, Mar. 28, 1973; CGD 73-130R, 39 FR 20684, June 13, 1974; CGD 78-012, 43 FR 27154, June 22, 1978; CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4782, Feb. 3, 1983; CGD 88-070, 53 FR 34536, Sept. 7, 1988; CGD 84-068, 58 FR 29494, May 20, 1993]
#### § 188.10-73 Ships' stores and supplies.

This term means any article or substance which is used on board a vessel subject to the appropriate portions of part 147 of Subchapter N (Dangerous Cargoes) of this chapter for the upkeep and maintenance of the vessel; or for the safety or comfort of the vessel, its passengers or crew; or for the operation or navigation of the vessel (except fuel for its own machinery).

[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1113, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by CGD 86-033, 53 FR 36026, Sept. 16, 1988]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996             APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                          37,951                  40,959
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,179                   2,075
<ALLOWANCES>                                        50                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,424                  43,268
<PP&E>                                           1,339                     761
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,045                     511
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,796                  44,073
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,864                   3,842
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        44,076                  43,806
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,109)                 (3,692)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,796                  44,073
<SALES>                                         10,439                  10,477
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,439                  10,477
<CGS>                                            2,470                   1,683
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,470                   1,683
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,255                   7,405
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,934)                    (94)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,352)                   1,483
<INCOME-TAX>                                        55                      35
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,407)                   1,448
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,407)                   1,448
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.30)                    0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.30)                    0.24
        

</TABLE>
# C_2014112EN.01001602.xml

| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/16

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság and the Fővárosi Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Dutka József (C-614/12) and Csilla Sajtos (C-10/13) v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal (C-614/12) and Budapest Főváros VI. Ker. Önkormányzata (C-10/13)

(Joined Cases C-614/12 and C-10/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of European Union law - Absence - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

2014/C 112/19

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring courts

Referring courts

Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság and Fővárosi Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dutka József (C-614/12) and Csilla Sajtos (C-10/13)

Applicants:

Defendants: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal (C-614/12) and Budapest Főváros VI. Ker. Önkormányzata (C-10/13)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság and Fővárosi Munkaügyi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 6 TEU and Articles 30 and 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Protection of workers in the event of unjustified dismissal — Dismissal without reasons being given — Official of a public administrative body who has been dismissed on the basis of a provision of national legislation governing the terms and conditions of civil servants.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary), by decision of 6 December 2012, and by the Fővárosi Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary), by decision of 21 September 2012.

---

(1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134996 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

JAMES JACQUES,

Petitioner-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134996 

 COA: 268016 

Oceana CC: 05-005068-AA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1217 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 8, 2008 

Clerk