alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
file:///J|/INITENG/P14%20cases/P140756.en2.TXT[2/3/2015 11:03:20 AM] 

## INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 14-0756file:///J|/INITENG/P14%20cases/P140756.en2.TXT[2/3/2015 11:03:20 AM] 

## INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 14-0756file:///J|/INITENG/P14%20cases/P140756.en2.TXT[2/3/2015 11:03:20 AM]file:///J|/INITENG/P14%20cases/P140756.en2.TXT [2/3/2015 11:03:20 AM]
# C_2015198EN.01004501.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/45

---

Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO)

(Case T-202/15)

(2015/C 198/62)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WORLD OF BINGO’ — Application for registration No 12 669 396

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 in Case R 1899/2014-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

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. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Before the First Division,

November 5, 1952

No. 56924.

#### Fred Frankel & Sons *v.*United States,

protest 150980-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of imitation precious stones and pendants, faceted, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Brier Manufacturing Co.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 68, C. A. D. 465). The claim at 10 percent was therefore sustained.
# C_2015371EN.01004001.xml

| 9.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/40

---

Action brought on 15 September 2015 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID)

(Case T-536/15)

(2015/C 371/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, J. Bärenfänger, lawyers)

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: ÏD Group (Roubaix, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Fashion ID’ — Application for registration No 11 589 082

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2015 in Case R 2472/2014-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision as far as it upheld the decision of the Opposition Division to reject the CTM No 11 589 082 with regard to the opposed goods and services in Classes 16 and 41; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision as far as it upheld the decision of the Opposition Division to reject the CTM No 11 589 082 with regard to the opposed goods and services in Classes 16 and 41;

| — | annul the corresponding decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 28 July 2014 (Case B 2 197 401) as far as the Opposition Division upheld the opposition to reject the CTM No 11 589 082; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the corresponding decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 28 July 2014 (Case B 2 197 401) as far as the Opposition Division upheld the opposition to reject the CTM No 11 589 082;

| — | dismiss the Opposition dated 7 June 2012 against the CTM No 11 589 082 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the Opposition dated 7 June 2012 against the CTM No 11 589 082 in its entirety;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

Plea(s) in law

| — | The Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal failed to regard the long-standing case law of the General Court and of the Court of Justice according to which the overall impression of signs has to be compared, focusing on the contested CTM as a whole, instead of a comparison of single elements. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal failed to regard the long-standing case law of the General Court and of the Court of Justice according to which the overall impression of signs has to be compared, focusing on the contested CTM as a whole, instead of a comparison of single elements.

---
No. 56946.

#### Cresca Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 186442-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of grenadine the same in all material respects as that the subject of *LaManna, Azema & Farnan, Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 44, C. A. D. 461), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

December 27, 1943

No. 49066.

#### Protests 835761-G (C), etc., of Norse Produce Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of Abstract 42146. The protests were therefore sustained to this extent.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

ZUCKER : 02-3875

IVY, et al. : 02-3905

HENRY, et al. : 02-3945

BUSH : 02-4140

SIMMONS, et al. : 02-4164

PARTIE, et al. : 02-4247

TKACS : 02-4294

: :

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.

[ 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

Case 2:02-cv-04164-LP Document 3 Filed 07/25/2002 Page 1 of 2
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:

________________________________________

Louis H. Pollak, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04164-LP Document 3 Filed 07/25/2002 Page 2 of 2
# C_2016038EN.01006601.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/66

---

Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Les Éclaires v OHIM — L’éclaireur International (L’ECLAIREUR)

(Case T-680/15)

(2016/C 038/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Les Éclaires GmbH (Nürnberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Bund, 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: L’éclaireur International (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

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: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘L’ECLAIREUR’ — Community trade mark No 3 494 028

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2015 in Case R 2266/2014-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 15(1) Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 15(1) Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Discordance with the Guidelines for Examination of the OHIM Part C Section 6. |
| --- | --- |

—

Discordance with the Guidelines for Examination of the OHIM Part C Section 6.

---
12976625.1  97419022

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                               THE GSI GROUP, INC.
                             1004 E. Illinois Street
                           Assumption, Illinois  62510



August  9,  2002

Securities  and  Exchange  Commission
450  Fifth  Street,  N.W.
Washington,  D.C.  20549

Re:     Certification  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.   1350,
     as  enacted  by  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:
     In  connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June  28,  2002  of The GSI Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  the  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   1350, as
enacted  by  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.


     /s/  Craig  Sloan
--------------------------
Craig  Sloan
Chief  Executive  Officer



     /s/  Russell  C.  Mello
-------------------------------
Russell  C.  Mello
Chief  Financial  Officer,
  Secretary  and  Treasurer
# C_2015381EN.01004501.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/45

---

Action brought on 15 July 2015 — J & Joy v OHIM — Joy-Sportswear (J AND JOY)

(Case T-387/15)

(2015/C 381/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: J & Joy SA (Waremme, Belgium) (represented by: A. Maqua and C. Pirenne, lawyers)

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: Joy-Sportswear GmbH (Ottensoos, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘J AND JOY’ — Application for registration No 11 409 935

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2015 in Case R 1352/2014-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant requests the Office:

| — | to review the division opposition judgment and declare the opposition inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

to review the division opposition judgment and declare the opposition inadmissible;

| — | to order the opponent to bear the costs and applicant’s fees in the opposition proceedings on the basis of article 81 CTM Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

to order the opponent to bear the costs and applicant’s fees in the opposition proceedings on the basis of article 81 CTM Regulation.

Plea in law

Plea in law

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

—

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

---
Case: 09-3302 Document: 003110451488 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2011 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

09-3302 

United Natl Ins Co, et al v. AON Ltd, et al 

2-04-cv-00539 

ORDER 

In accordance with the agreement ofthe parties in the above-captioned case, the matter is hereby 

dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), without cost to either party. A certified copy ofthis 

order is issued in lieu of a formal mandate. 

For the Court, 

Pc~ 'PI. VJkMarcia M. Waldron, Clerk 

Date: 2/28/2011 

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk 

Certified order issued in lieu of mandate. 

Jerome C. Katz Esq. 

William K. Perry Esq. 

Alan J. Sorkowitz Esq. 

Susan A. Stone Esq. 

Constantine L. Trela Jr. Esq. 

Case 2:04-cv-00539-LP Document 294 Filed 02/28/11 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 4  [LETTERHEAD OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP]   Independent Auditors' Consent  We consent to the
incorporation by reference in this annual report of Enerplus Resources Fund on
Form 40-F of our report dated March 6, 2003 on our audit of the
consolidated balance sheet of Enerplus Resources Fund as at December 31,
2002 and 2001 and the consolidated statements of income, accumulated income,
accumulated cash distributions and cash flows for the years then ended
December 31, 2002 and 2001.   /s/ DELOITTE
  & TOUCHE LLPChartered
  AccountantsCalgary,
  Alberta, CanadaMay 16, 2003
Document

Exhibit 4.2




AGREEMENT TO FURNISH DEBT INSTRUMENTS
Pursuant to Item 601(b)(4)(iii)(A) of Regulation S-K, Criteo S.A. (the “Company”) has not included as an exhibit to its Annual Report on Form 10-K any instrument relating to long-term debt if the total amount of debt authorized by such instrument does not exceed 10% of the total assets of the Company. The Company agrees to furnish a copy of any such instrument to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.


                        
						
		CRITEO S.A.

		
	By:	/s/ Megan Clarken
	Name:	Megan Clarken
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer
	Date:	February 26, 2021
IV 

House Calendar No. 115 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 681 

[Report No. 115–503] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 140) to amend the White Mountain 

Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010 to clarify the 

use of amounts in the WMAT Settlement Fund. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2018 

Mr. COLE, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 140) to amend 

the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010 to clarify the use of amounts 

in the WMAT Settlement Fund. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 140) 

3 to amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights 

4 Quantification Act of 2010 to clarify the use of amounts 

5 in the WMAT Settlement Fund. All points of order 

6 against consideration of the bill are waived. An amendVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:56 Jan 09, 2018 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR681.RH HR681

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 681 RH 

1 ment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text 

2 of Rules Committee Print 115-54 shall be considered as 

3 adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 

4 All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amend5 ed, are waived. The previous question shall be considered 

6 as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further 

7 amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening 

8 motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided 

9 among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 

10 member of the Committee on Education and the Work11 force and the chair and ranking minority member of the 

12 Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to 

13 recommit with or without instructions. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 115 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 681 

[Report No. 115–503] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 140) to 

use of amounts in the WMAT Settlement Fund. Rights Quantification Act of 2010 to clarify the amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water 

JANUARY 9, 2018 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Before the Third Division,

January 10, 1945

No. 49932.

#### Protest 894287-G of Sun Wing Wo Co. (Los Angeles).

*186Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 48704 a portion of the milled rice, 2jKo percent thereof by weight, was held dutiable as broken rice as claimed. The liqueurs were held dutiable at $2.50 per proof gallon under paragraph 802, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by T. D. 48316.
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 Duke Capital LLC (Duke Capital) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Keith G. Butler, Chief Financial Officer and Controller of Duke Capital, 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 results of operations of Duke Capital.



|                        |  |                                       
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: November 15, 2004 |  | /s/ Keith G. Butler                   
|                        |  | Keith G. Butler                       
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer and Controller



67
# C_2015328EN.01001701.xml

| 5.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/17

---

Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Seimora)

(Case T-426/15)

(2015/C 328/17)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before the CPVO

Details of the proceedings before the CPVO

Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue:

Community plant variety right at issue: Community variety EU 8536 ‘SEIMORA’

Community plant variety right at issue:

Procedure before the CPVO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before the CPVO

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 24 February 2015 in Case A002/2014

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order the CPVO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 2100/94; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 2100/94;

| — | Infringement of Article 20(1)(c) of Regulation No 2100/94 read in conjunction with Articles 11(1), 54(2) and 76 of Regulation No 2100/94 and Article 51 of Regulation No 874/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 20(1)(c) of Regulation No 2100/94 read in conjunction with Articles 11(1), 54(2) and 76 of Regulation No 2100/94 and Article 51 of Regulation No 874/2009.

---
Document

						
	
	Exhibit 10.23











Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation
As of January 1, 2021


The following compensation will be provided to non-employee members of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Compass Minerals International, Inc. (the “Company”) pursuant to the Company’s Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy.


A.Cash Compensation


1.    Annual Retainer.  Each non-employee director will receive a $75,000 annual cash retainer for service on the Board.


2.    Committee Service Fee.  In addition, each non-employee director serving as a chair or member of any of the following Board committees will receive an annual cash fee for committee service, as follows:


									
	Committee	Chair	Members
	Audit Committee	$22,500	$10,000
	Compensation Committee	$15,000	$7,500
	Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee	$12,500	$5,000
	Environmental, Health & Safety Committee	$12,500	$5,000




3.    Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. In addition, the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board will receive an annual cash fee of $65,000 for service as Non-Executive Chairman of the Board.
B.Equity Compensation.  


1.Annual Equity Award.  Each non-employee director will receive an equity award with an annual equity award value of $115,000 for service on the Board.


2.Non-Executive Chairman of the Board.  In addition, the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board will receive an equity award with an annual equity award value of $55,000 for service as Non-Executive Chairman of the Board.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6656

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOHN EDWARD BELL, JR., a/k/a Goochie,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District 

Judge. (8:02-cr-00049-DKC-1)

Submitted: February 22, 2011 Decided: March 16, 2011

Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Edward Bell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne 

Skalla, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Edward Bell, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Bell, No. 8:02-cr-00049-DKC-1 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2010). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED