alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GOLDEN SKY SYSTEMS, INC. AT MARCH
31, 1999 AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001070669
<NAME> GOLDEN SKY SYSTEMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          39,276
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (252)
<INVENTORY>                                      8,683
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,252
<PP&E>                                           9,897
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,983)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 354,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,074
<BONDS>                                        202,353
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,701
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   354,416
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,699
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,186
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,247
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,349
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,260)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (24,260)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,935)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,195)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2011194EN.01001602.xml

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/16

---

Action brought on 18 April 2011 — TeamBank v OHIM — Fercredit Servizi Finanziari (f@ir Credit)

(Case T-220/11)

2011/C 194/26

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: T. Kiphuth, H. Lindner and D. Terheggen, 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: Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA (Rome, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 February 2011 in Appeal R 719/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 February 2011 in Appeal R 719/2010-1;

| — | 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: The applicant.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘f@ir Credit’ for services in Class 36 (Registration No 6 947 766).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘FERCREDIT’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44 (Community trade mark Nr 3 749 801), the opposition being brought against the registration of services in Class 36.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version), (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, 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 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.438 Cargo pressure or temperature alarms required. ( a ) Each refrigerated tank must have: ( 1 ) An alarm that operates when the cargo's pressure exceeds the vapor pressure described in § 153.371(b); or
( 2 ) An alarm that operates when the cargo's temperature exceeds the steady state temperature described in § 153.371(b).
( b ) The alarm must give an audible and visual signal on the bridge and at the cargo control station.
( c ) The cargo pressure or temperature alarm must be independent of other cargo pressure or temperature sensing arrangements.
# C_2013038EN.01001001.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Maatschap L.A. en D.A.B. Langestraat en P. Langestraat-Troost v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

(Case C-11/12) (1)

1

(Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system - Reduction of or exclusion from payments in the event of non-compliance with cross-compliance rules - Vicarious liability)

2013/C 38/11

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maatschap L.A. en D.A.B. Langestraat en P. Langestraat-Troost

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16) — Integrated management and control system — Reductions and exclusions in the event of non compliance with the cross-compliance rules — Farmer who leased, from a third party, agricultural land and accepted, on a temporary basis, the spreading of manure on that land by that third party — Non-compliance, on the part of that third party, with the statutory management requirements

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, is to be interpreted as meaning that non-compliance with cross-compliance rules by the person to whom or from whom the agricultural land was transferred, involving reduction of the total amount of direct payments or exclusion from direct support, must be attributed in full to the farmer submitting the aid application.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2011.

1

---
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

J.R. DAVIS COMPANY, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

-vs- Case No. 15-10066 

JACOBSON MFG., HON. AVERN COHN 

 Defendant. 

______________________________________/ 

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM 

 This is a post-termination sales commission dispute case. On September 22, 

2015, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 27). Prior to 

entering this Order, the parties stipulated to the entering of a Second Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 23) and only recently withdrew the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 26). Therefore, the Second Amended Complaint is the 

governing complaint and the Order regarding Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint is moot. 

However, as the Court noted in its Order, declaratory judgment is not a 

freestanding claim, but rather a form of relief. See Stroh Props. v. City of Detroit, 2013 

WL 626478, *3 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 20, 2013)(citing Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace 

Workers v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 108 F.3d 658, 668 (6th Cir. 1997)). “Equitable relief is, 

by its nature, a remedy, rather than a cause of action.” Id. Accordingly, Count III for 

2:15-cv-10066-AC-RSW Doc # 28 Filed 09/24/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 291
2 

declaratory judgment in the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED but declaratory 

judgment remains a form of available relief moving forward. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/Avern Cohn 

 

 AVERN COHN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: September 24, 2015 

Detroit, Michigan 

2:15-cv-10066-AC-RSW Doc # 28 Filed 09/24/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 292
# C_2012025EN.01006402.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/64

---

Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Henkel and Henkel France v Commission

(Case T-607/11)

(2012/C 25/123)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany), Henkel France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: R. Polley, T. Kuhn, F. Brunet and E. Paroche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 30 September 2011 not to transfer fifteen documents produced in the Case COMP/39.579 (consumer detergents) to the French Competition Authority; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 30 September 2011 not to transfer fifteen documents produced in the Case COMP/39.579 (consumer detergents) to the French Competition Authority;

| — | order that the Commission allows the applicants to rely on the requested documents in the ongoing proceedings before the Authority; |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Commission allows the applicants to rely on the requested documents in the ongoing proceedings before the Authority;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses incurred in relation to the present application; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses incurred in relation to the present application; and

| — | take any other measures that the General Court considers appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

take any other measures that the General Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action contains one plea. According to this single plea, the Commission unlawfully dismissed the French Competition Authority’s request to transfer the requested fifteen documents and thereby infringed its duties under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union and the applicants’ fundamental rights of defense and the principle of equality of arms.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS INCLUDED IN
THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIIFED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         117,763
<SECURITIES>                                   383,689
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,679,001
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,630,156
<PP&E>                                         641,704
<DEPRECIATION>                                 431,982
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,273,488
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,926,788
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     15,000
<COMMON>                                     3,987,039
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,273,488
<SALES>                                      3,207,232
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,041,422
<CGS>                                        6,834,190
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,834,190
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,672,222
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             113,196
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                103,028
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   103,028
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                        ICY SPLASH FOOD & BEVERAGE, INC.
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 amended Quarterly Report of Icy Splash Food & Beverage,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Joseph Aslan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Icy Splash Food & Beverage, Inc. and will be retained by Icy Splash
Food & Beverage, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

Date:  April 14, 2004


 /s/ Joseph Aslan
Joseph Aslan
Chief Executive Officer
408 P.2d 158

#### COUNTY OF BONNEVILLE, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. UNITED BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 9621.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Nov. 22, 1965.

A. A. Merrill Idaho Falls, for appellant.

Ferebauer & Barnard, Idaho Falls, Allan G. Shepard, Atty. Gen., Boise, Jack G. Voshéll, Pros. Atty., Idaho Falls, for respondent.

*40McQUADE, Chief Justice.

This action was instituted by the County of Bonneville pursuant to I.C. § 19-2928.1 The facts are set out in a companion case, State v. Overby, 90 Idaho 41, 408 P.2d. 155 (1965). The bonding company posted two .bail bonds of $1,000 each to assure the appearance of Marion B. Overby at certain judicial proceedings. Overby failed to ap*41pear at the required time and the bonds were ordered forfeited on June 2, 1964. The formal order was entered on June 4, 1964. On July 14, 1964, Overby, by and through his bondsman, moved to cancel the forfeiture orders. This motion was denied and we affirmed the judgment of the district court. State v. Overby, supra.

In the present action to enforce the order of forfeiture, the bonding company sei up numerous allegations in support of affirmative defenses. On the motion of the plaintiff, the trial court struck certain of these allegations from the defendant’s answer. The bonding company asserts error in this ruling.

Under Rule 12(f) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure, “the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any * * * immaterial * * * matter.” The trial court found these allegations immaterial to the issues presented and we agree. These allegations went to the same matter the bonding company asserted in its prior motion to cancel the forfeiture orders and its appeal from the ruling denying such motion. The issues created by such allegations have been determined in State v. Overby, supra.

There was no error in the trial court’s ruling to strike the defenses or in entering judgment for the County.

The judgment in favor of the County of Bonneville against United Bonding Insurance Company for $2,000 plus $400 at-torney fees is affirmed.

Costs to respondent.

McFADDEN, TAYLOR, SMITH and KNUDSON, JJ., concur.

1

. “19-2928. Enforcement of forfeiture. —If the forfeiture' is not discharged, as provided in the^lest section, the prosecut-. ing attorney may, at any timé after'twenty days from the entry upon the minutes, as provided in the last section, proceed by action in the name of the county, against their bail upon their undertaking.”
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26115-26116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2304]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION


Notice of Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Date and Time: Wednesday, May 16, 2007, 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.

Place: Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr. Conference Room on the Ninth Floor of 
the EEOC Office Building, 1801 ``L'' Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507.

Status: The meeting will be open to the public.

Matters to be Considered: 

Open Session

    1. Announcement of Notation Votes,
    2. Employment Testing and Screening--Invited Panelists, and
    3. Full-Service Publication Storage and Distribution Center 
Contract.

    Note: In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be 
open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and 
voting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission 
meetings in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides a 
recorded announcement a full week in advance on future Commission 
sessions.)

    Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at 
any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides sign 
language interpretation at Commission meetings for the hearing 
impaired. Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made by 
using the voice and TTY numbers listed above:

Contact Person for More Information: Stephen Llewellyn, Acting 
Executive Officer on (202) 663-4070.


[[Page 26116]]


    This Notice Issued May 4, 2007.
Stephen Llewellyn,
Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 07-2304 Filed 5-4-07; 3:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-M
#### § 196.13-1 Muster lists, emergency signals, and manning.

The requirements for muster lists, emergency signals, and manning must be in accordance with subchapter W (Lifesaving Appliances and Arrangements) of this chapter.

[CGD 84-069, 61 FR 25313, May 20, 1996]
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 28, 2022

NO. 03-21-00067-CV

The City of Austin, Appellant

v.

Irene Quinlan, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, TRIANA, KELLY

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART—

OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on January 20, 2021. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

portion of the order as to Quinlan’s claims relating to the City’s alleged negligent 

implementation of its policy regarding the maintenance of the premises. Therefore, the Court 

affirms the portion of the trial court’s order with respect to those claims. The Court further holds 

that there was reversible error in the portion of the order as to Quinlan’s claims relating to the 

design of the premises and her claims relating to the alleged “joint enterprise” between the City 

and Guero’s. Therefore, the court reverses the portion of the trial court’s order with respect to 

those claims and renders judgment dismissing those claims against the City. Each party shall 

pay the costs of appeal incurred by that party, both in this Court and in the court below.