alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017239EN.01001601.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland — Netherlands) — Bas Jacob Adriaan Krijgsman v Surinaamse Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

(Case C-302/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(1)(c) - Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Contract for carriage concluded through an online travel agent - Air carrier having informed the travel agent in good time of a change to the scheduled time for the flight - Travel agent having communicated that information to a passenger by email 10 days before the flight))

(2017/C 239/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bas Jacob Adriaan Krijgsman

Applicant:

Defendant: Surinaamse Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the operating air carrier is required to pay the compensation specified in those provisions in the case where a flight was cancelled and that information was not communicated to the passenger at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure, including in the case where the air carrier, at least two weeks before that time, communicated that information to the travel agent via whom the contract for carriage had been entered into with the passenger concerned and the passenger had not been informed of that cancellation by that agent within that period.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.

1

---
Before the First Division,

May 31, 1956

No. 59955.

#### Seaboard Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 269789-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of celluloid flowers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59302, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2015279EN.01004701.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/47

---

Action brought on 27 June 2015 — Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen v OHIM (Shape of a service station)

(Case T-341/15)

(2015/C 279/59)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA (Płock, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of a service station) — Application No 12 411 138

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2015 in Case R 2248/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs, including those of the applicant in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs, including those of the applicant in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and before the Court.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), Article 7(2) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), Article 7(2) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2015205EN.01004002.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/40

---

Action brought on 30 April 2015 — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts v OHIM — Residencial Palladium (PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA)

(Case T-217/15)

(2015/C 205/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Residencial Palladium, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA’ — Community trade mark No 10 524 213

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 in Case R 2391/2013-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul and declare ineffective the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul and declare ineffective the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 95-60488 Summary Calendar

_____________________ RONALD JOSEPH RODGERS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RICK GASTON, Capt.; JOE PRICE, Sheriff; BRUCE CARVER, Lt.; R. N. ELEUTERIUS, Member of Harrison County Board of Supervisors; DAVID WHITE, Member of Harrison County Board of Supervisors; FRANK LAROSA, Member of Harrison County Board of Supervisors; PHILLIP ALLEN, Member of Harrison County Board of Supervisors; C. T. SWITZER, JR., Member of Harrison County Board of Supervisors,
Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

(1:93CV348BrR)

_________________________________________________________________ January 21, 1997 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ron ald Joseph Rodgers, Jr., Mississippi prisoner #84888, appeals the judgment for the defendants following a bench trial on his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Rodgers contended in district court that,- 2 -

while a pretrial detainee in the Harrison County Detention Center, he slipped and fell on a floor that was wet because the air conditioning unit either malfunctioned or was turned off, and that he received inadequate m edical treatment. He contends on appeal that he was
denied due process at his trial and that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to appoint counsel to represent him.

We have reviewed Rodgers’ brief and the record, including the
memorandum opinion of the magistrate ju dge who tried the case
pursuant to the parties’ consent, and we find no reversible error by the magistrate judge and no abuse of discretion in the refusal to appoint counsel to represent Rodgers. See Rodgers v. Gaston , No.
1:93cv348BrR (S.D. Miss. July 7, 1995) (unpublished); U lmer v.
Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the judgment is

AFFIRMED

.
---

EXHIBIT 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jens Christensen, Chief Financial Officer of Stream
Communications Network & Media Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the
      fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the Annual Report) fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                 



| | By:    | /s/
      Jens Christensen
| | ------ | --------------------------
| | Name:  | Jens Christensen          
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer   
| |        |                           
| |        |                           
| |        |                           
| | Date:  | August 11, 2008           

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 485 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 485 Filed 04/18/12 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 485 Filed 04/18/12 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 485 Filed 04/18/12 Page 4 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

WALKER : 02-3868

SIMON : 02-3887

GOTO : 02-3922

JOHNSON, et al. : 02-3932

HOSOKAWA : 02-3959

KILCY : 02-3964

BYRON : 02-4108

ROCHA, et al. : 02-4121

CAVITT : 02-4139

HIBMA-CANARIO, et al. : 02-4152

BAILEY, et al. : 02-4188

BOSSI, et al. : 02-4234

STEINHAUER, et al. : 02-4257

SKEELS, et al. : 02-4274

WALKER, et al. : 02-4279

FRIEDEN, et al. : 02-4310

DIMANLANTA : 02-4313

:

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

Case 2:02-cv-04313-RBS Document 2 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 1 of 2
[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

R. Barclay Surrick

Case 2:02-cv-04313-RBS Document 2 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  each of the  undersigned  officers  of  EcoSystem
Corporation (the "Company"), certifies that:

1.   The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December
     31, 2007 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
     13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m or
     78o(d)); 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/      KEVIN KREISLER
                            ----------------------------------
Dated: April 15, 2008                KEVIN KREISLER
                                     Chief Executive Officer,
                                      Chief Financial Officer

This  certification  is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,
subject  to the  knowledge  standard  contained  therein,  and not for any other
purpose.
Exhibit 32.1

















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 Annual Report of Shoshone Silver/Gold Mining Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A-2 for the year ended September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, Howard Crosby, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 20th day of September, 2013.








HOWARD CROSBYHoward CrosbyChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TenFold
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert P. Hughes, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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.



|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert P. Hughes                                                                   
|Robert P. Hughes                                                                       
|Chief Financial Officer and Chief of Staff (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|May 3, 2007
EXHIBIT 13.2 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 Annual Report of China Linen Textile Industry, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Huang Xiaofang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Huang XiaofangHuang Xiaofang, Chief Financial Officer July 14, 2009
No. 53950.

#### Quon Quon Company *v.*United States,

protests 129646-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags and mats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C, P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IPAC Operational Metrics for October 2018

Volume by Transaction Type

Dollar Amount | % of Total Dollar Amount] Number of Transactions; % of Total Number of Transactions|
Fiduciary (investment & Borrowing) 17,071,553,075,778| 99.76% 14,327 13.48%
Buy/Sell 34,958,983,403) 0.20%| 90,708) 85.32%|
Benefits (RITS) 5,435,404,592 0.03% 406] 0.38%
Check Aftermath (TRACS) 87,035,934 0.00%| 865] 0.81%)
Zero Dollar Q 0.00% 3| 0.00%]
(Grand Total - October 2018 17,112,034,499,707 | 100.00% | 106,307 100.00%|

(Grand Total - September 2018 14,560,753,242,136|
September to October Change 2,551,281,257,571
Percentage Change 17.5%
(Grand Total -October 2017 15,889,416,398,896|
(Oct 2037 to Oct 2018 Change 1,222,618,100,811

Percentage Change

7.7%|

100.00% |

100.00% |
No. 56317.

protest 172900-K (Los Angeles).

#### Los Angeles Textile Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

At the trial counsel for the defendant conceded that the merchandise consisted of nylon lace made on a 10-point Levers machine, and, in effect, conceded that the collector’s classification was erroneous and that the plaintiff’s claim was correct. The protest was therefore sustained.
# August
January 18, 1951

No. 55148.

Suit 4643.

#### C. S. Allen Corp. *v.*United States.

C. A. D. 438.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GENERAL REFRACTORIES : CIVIL ACTION

COMPANY :

:

v. :

:

FIRST STATE INSURANCE CO., et al. : NO. 04-3509

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6 day of September, 2013, following a conference with counsel, and upon th

consideration of the parties’submissions, for reasons provided in the accompanying Memorandum, 1

it is hereby ORDERED that the “Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice The Defendants Who Have

Settled” filed by plaintiff General Refractories Company and the defendant “Settled Carriers” (doc. 2

no. 492) is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Settled Carriers are DISMISSED from this action

as parties, and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), all claims asserted by any party to this

action against a Settled Carrier areDISMISSED with prejudice. Defendants may assert a claim for 3

Plaintiff’s and the Settled Carriers’ Mot. to Dismiss (doc. no. 492), Mem. of Law (doc. no. 492-1), 1

and proposed Order (doc. no. 492-2); and Certain Defendants’ Resp. (doc. no. 500). See also the parties’

previous letter bfs. (doc. nos. 305-310). 

The Settled Carriers are: American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company; Hartford Accident

2

& Indemnity Company; First State Insurance Company; Westport Insurance Corporation, formerly known

as Puritan Insurance Company; Sentry Insurance, a Mutual Company, as assumptive reinsurer of Great

Southwest Fire Insurance Company, sued here as Vanliner Insurance Company. 

The litigating defendants are: AIU Insurance Company; Continental Insurance Company, as 3

successor-in-interest to certain policies of insurance issued by Harbor Insurance Company; Government

Employees Insurance Company; Lexington Insurance Company; Republic Insurance Company; Travelers

Casualty and Surety Company, formerly known as The Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., and incorrectly

designated in the Complaint as “St. Paul Travelers”; and Westchester Fire Insurance Company. 

1

Case 2:04-cv-03509-LFR Document 521 Filed 09/06/13 Page 1 of 2
an apportioned share set-off under Koppers v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 98 F.3d 1440 (3d Cir. 1996). 

BY THE COURT: 

 s/ L. Felipe Restrepo 

L. FELIPE RESTREPO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2

Case 2:04-cv-03509-LFR Document 521 Filed 09/06/13 Page 2 of 2
#### FLEISCHHAUER v. HAZEN et al.

Civil Action No. 8823.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

March 11, 1941.

H. P. Long, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

The Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia, for defendants.

O’DONO GHUE, Justice.

Findings of Fact.

(1) The plaintiff, May B. Fleischhauer, and her husband, the late Julius A. Fleischhauer, were on July 27, 1932, and on March 22, 1935, actual bona fide residents of the District of Columbia;

(2) That the said Julius A. Fleischhauer died July 15, 1940, while a member of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and of the Metropolitan Police Relief Association of the District of Columbia.

*75Conclusions of Law.

(1) That the marriage of plaintiff and said decedent was terminated by his death on July 15, 1940, prior to the decree in Equity 54473 of this court becoming absolute and taking effect;

(2) That the purported absolute divorce obtained by the late Julius A. Fleischhauer, on July 27, 1932, in the Circuit Court of Westmoreland County, Va., was secured by the fraud practiced on said court by the decedent and is null and void for want of jurisdiction.

(3) That the purported marriage of the said decedent with the defendant Lillian M. Carey, otherwise known as Lillian M. Fleischhauer, on May 27, 1933, was void ab initio.

(4) That the plaintiff is entitled to the pension relief and death benefit payable to the widow of Julius A. Fleischhauer, deceased.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

130347 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. CHARLES L. WILLEMS, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff/Counter- Justices Defendant-Appellant,

v SC: 130347 COA: 262161 Ingham CC: 04-001037-CZ CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN, INGHAM COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION, and CHRISTOPHER A. DROBNEY Defendants-Appellees,

and

EMANUEL BLOSSER, BRIAN BISHOP, and NICOLE BISHOP,Defendants/CounterPlaintiffs-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

l0821 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 29, 2006

Clerk