alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017283EN.01003702.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Chanel v EUIPO — Jing Zhou and Golden Rose 999 (Ornamentation)

(Case T-57/16) (1)

1

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing ornamentation - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Product at issue - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2017/C 283/56)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Chanel SAS (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Li Jing Zhou (Fuenlabrada, Spain) and Golden Rose 999 Srl (Rome, Italy)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2015 (Case R 2346/2014-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Chanel and, on the other hand, Mr Li Jing Zhou and Golden Rose 999.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 November 2015 (Case R 2346/2014-3); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 November 2015 (Case R 2346/2014-3);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

1

---
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 0728 Directorate Identifier: 2012

-NM

- 050

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet
Inspection 13.0 $1,105.0 0 $0 $1,105.00 52 $57,460.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: 0 

### Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $57,460 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 0
**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

Splice Repair 93.0 $7,905.00 

### $ 28,126 $36,031.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic **Analysis** ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
* 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. 01-10364

Summary Calendar

 

DENNIS RAY PADEN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BOB GUZIK, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:00-CV-178-Y

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

October 17, 2001

Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dennis Ray Paden, federal prisoner #47044-079, appeals from

the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas

corpus petition. Upon independent review, this court concludes

that the district court was correct in dismissing the petition

for want of jurisdiction.

“A section 2241 petition on behalf of a sentenced prisoner

attacks the manner in which a sentence is carried out or the

prison authorities’ determination of its duration, and must be

filed in the same district where the prisoner is incarcerated.” 
No. 01-10364

-2-

Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). “Section 2255

[of U.S.C. Title 28] provides the primary means of collaterally

attacking a federal conviction and sentence. Relief under this

section is warranted for errors that occurred at [or prior to]

sentencing.” Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.

2001)(citations omitted). 

“Nevertheless, a § 2241 petition which attacks custody

resulting from a federally imposed sentence may be entertained

when the petitioner can satisfy the requirements of the so-called

‘savings clause’ in § 2255.” Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830. That

would be the case if “the remedy by [§ 2255] motion is inadequate

or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. “[T]he burden of coming forward with evidence to show

[this] rests squarely on the petitioner.” Jeffers, 253 F.3d at

830.

To qualify under the savings clause, “the petitioner’s claim

must be based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court

decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been

convicted of a nonexistent offense.” Id. (citation and quotation

marks omitted). “[T]he claim must [also] have been foreclosed by

circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in

the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Id.

Paden has failed to make any such showing. Therefore, the

district court’s dismissal of Paden’s habeas petition is due to

be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

CARVER W. REED CO. : CIVIL ACTION NO.: 

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

NEW DIAMOND CONNECTION CORP :

 Defendant :

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

TO: THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441 et seq., defendant, New Diamond Connection Corp., seeks

removal of this civil action from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County to the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In support of this Notice of

Removal, defendant New Diamond Connection Corp. states as follows:

1. It is a business located in the state of New York and requests removal on the basis

of diversity of citizenship including 28 U.S.C. §1251(b)(3), and that the law upon

which the suit is based, 47 U.S.C. § 227, concerns a federal question, giving this

court jurisdiction. 

2. On or about December 9, 2004 Plaintiff filed a verified complaint in the Court of

Common Pleas, Philadelphia, County in which it is alleged that the Defendant

violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227. A

copy of the complaint is attached as Exhibit “A”.

Case 2:05-cv-00012-SD Document 1 Filed 01/03/05 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

3. The complaint seeks judgment for $500.00 statutory damages, and $1,500.00 for

treble damages, minimally.

4. It appears from the complaint that the controversy between the Plaintiff and

Defendant stems from the alleged violation of a federal statute. 

5. True and correct copies of this Notice of Removal will be filed with the

Prothonotary of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, and served

upon Plaintiff’s counsel of record.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, New Diamond Connection Corp. requests that the

Court remove the action described above to the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Willan Franklyn Joseph

Willan Franklyn Joseph, Esquire

The Professional Building

1831 Chestnut Street, Ste. 700

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 981-0828

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:05-cv-00012-SD Document 1 Filed 01/03/05 Page 2 of 3
I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

CARVER W. REED CO. : CIVIL ACTION NO.: 

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

NEW DIAMOND CONNECTION CORP :

 Defendant :

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, WILLAN FRANKLYN JOSEPH, hereby certify that on this 31st day of 

December 2004, I served by United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, a true and correct

copy of a Notice of Removal upon the following: 

Brian C. Hall, Esquire

EISENBERG, ROTHWEILER, SCHLEIFER, WEINSTEIN & WINKLER, P.C.

1634 Spruce Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

/s/Willan Franklyn Joseph

Willan Franklyn Joseph, Esquire

Case 2:05-cv-00012-SD Document 1 Filed 01/03/05 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Rich Parlontieri 
         Southeast Commerce Holding Company, Inc. 
         770-863-9229

         ATLANTA, GEORGIA (AUGUST 17, 1998) - Southeast Commerce Holding Company
announced that it has formed an affiliate company, Commerce Mortgage Company,
LLC.

         Southeast Commerce Holding Company which recently completed an initial
public offering of $14.7 million dollars, is the parent company of Commerce Bank
which opened August 14 in Atlanta. Commerce Bank, a full service community bank
headquartered in the Vinings area of Atlanta, serves the Cobb and North Fulton
County market area.

         Commerce Mortgage Company will open with its first office in
Gainesville, Georgia. The primary business will be sub prime mortgage lending.
Commerce Mortgage will not be a portfolio lender, but will only originate,
package, service release and sell off all the mortgages.

         Rich Parlontieri, Chairman/CEO of Southeast Commerce Holding Company
said, "We are very enthused and encouraged with this business opportunity. We're
most fortunate to have joined with a strong management team, led by Jerry
Pearson, who has over 25 years experience in the mortgage banking business. This
includes several years with one of the largest sub-prime lending companies in
the market where he was Senior Underwriter and Vice President of Wholesale
Lending." "This business aligns itself very well with the Company's long term
strategic growth opportunities," Parlontieri added.

         The sub-prime lending market focuses on those home owners that are
looking to use the equity in their home for debt consolidation. Another area of
business is that potential home buyer who may be less than the A1 credit that is
required for the traditional conforming loans.

         For more information concerning Commerce Mortgage Company, contact Rich
Parlontieri, Southeast Commerce Holding Company, at 770-863-9229, 2410 Paces
Ferry Road, Atlanta, Georgia 30339.
# C_2016118EN.01001102.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v SC Hidroelectrica SA

(Case C-22/16)

(2016/C 118/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fondul Proprietatea SA

Applicant:

Defendant: SC Hidroelectrica SA

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | For the purposes of Article 107 TFEU, is the holding by a Romanian publicly-funded company of shares in a joint (Romanian-Turkish) company equivalent to State aid subject to the obligation to notify set out in Article 108(3) TFEU?
  Does it constitute public funding selective in nature, and could it have an effect on trade between Member States of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

For the purposes of Article 107 TFEU, is the holding by a Romanian publicly-funded company of shares in a joint (Romanian-Turkish) company equivalent to State aid subject to the obligation to notify set out in Article 108(3) TFEU?

Does it constitute public funding selective in nature, and could it have an effect on trade between Member States of the European Union?

| 2. | Can it be held that such a shareholding by a publicly-owned electricity-producing company infringes the principle of separating transmission systems from transmission system operators established by Article 9 of Directive 2009/72/EC (1) concerning rules adopted for the internal market in electricity? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can it be held that such a shareholding by a publicly-owned electricity-producing company infringes the principle of separating transmission systems from transmission system operators established by Article 9 of Directive 2009/72/EC (1) concerning rules adopted for the internal market in electricity?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

1

---
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 00-2028

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY;

METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on July 16, 2001, is

amended as follows:

Page 2, first and second lines: Reverse the order of the

words "Water" and "Drinking."
IPAC Operational Metrics for May 2021

‘Volume by Transaction Type

Dollar Amount| % of Total Dollar Amount| Number of Transactions| _% of Total Number of Transactions|

[Fiduciary (investment & Borrowing) 16,660,298,426,955 '99.74%| 16,164) 13.23%

Buy/sell '36,407,403,493 0.22% 104,768] 35.75%

IBenefits (RITS) 6,739,941,250| 0.08% 390| 0.32%

[Check Aftermath (TRACS) 226,534,347] 0.00% 855) 0.70% |
|Zero Dollar ol 0.00% |
|Grand Total - May 2021 16,703,672, 306,045) 100.00%| 122,177)
[Grand Total - April 2021 18,474,860,932,067 10.00% 129,389)
[April to May Change =1,771, 188,626,022 222]
[Percentage change 2.6%] po
[Grand Total - May 2020 16,289,719,556,074| 107,609]
[May 2020 to May 2023 Change 413,952,749,971| jo 8 58
[Percentage change 2.5%] [33.58]
Dollar Amount % of Total Dollar Amount Number of Transactions % of Total Number of Transactions

Fiduciary (Investment & Borrowing) 13,449,819,307,552 99.12% 11,571 7.79%

Buy/Sell 113,607,614,713 0.84% 135,496 91.27%

Benefits (RITS) 5,420,272,688 0.04% 410 0.28%

Check Aftermath (TRACS) 82,672,774 0.00% 985 0.66%

Zero Dollar 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Grand Total - August 2017 13,568,929,867,728 100.00% 148,462 100.00%

Grand Total - July 2017 9,339,367,617,633 100.00% 129,356 100.00%

July to August Change 4,229,562,250,095 19,106

Percentage Change 45.287% 14.770%

Grand Total - August 2016 15,680,164,960,188 150,800

August 2016 to August 2017 Change -2,111,235,092,461 -2,338

Percentage Change -13.5% -1.6%

Volume by Transaction Type

IPAC Operational Metrics for September 2017
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 21, 2013

NO. 03-12-00849-CR

Albert Joseph Lizotte, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON AND ROSE

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the written motion of the appellant to dismiss the appeal 

and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the same should be 

granted: it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that the appellant be 

allowed to withdraw his notice of appeal and that the appeal be dismissed; and it appearing that 

the appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs be made; and 

that this decision be certified below for observance.
**Exhibit 12.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Helmut Perlet, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Allianz Aktiengesellschaft; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) [Omitted in accordance with the guidance of SEC release No. 33-8238] 

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by theannual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 

 

Date: April 19, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re CONSTAR INT’L INC. SECURITIES : Master File No. 03-5020

LITIGATION :

: Class Action

This Document Relates To: :

ALL ACTIONS :

ORDER APPOINTING LEAD PLAINTIFFS

AND APPROVING PLAINTIFFS’ CHOICE OF LEAD COUNSEL

AND NOW, this 11th day of May, 2004, the “Motion to Appoint Ameesh Bhandari and

RandolphRedstoneasLeadPlaintiffsPursuant to § 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange

Act of 1934 and to Approve Lead Plaintiffs’ Choice of Lead and Liaison Counsel” and the

“Motion of Pilot Advisors for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and for Approval of its

Selection of Lead Counsel” are granted. Ameesh Bhandari, Randolph Redstone and Pilot

Advisors, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, are appointed co-lead plaintiffs. The law

firms of Bernstein Leibhard & Lifshitz, LLP and Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia & Robbins LLP are

approved as co-lead counsel.

As to the two movants, Bhandari and Redstone have a relatively small stock interest

in Constar - 4,200 shares, representing a claimed loss of $ 8,316.60; Pilot Advisors, a

brokerage firm, has implicit, but not explicit authority to institute suit under its customer

agreement, by which it asks to represent a much larger stock interest - 326,900 shares,

representing a claimed loss of $ 328,954.41. Lead counsel are experienced and have worked

Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 54 Filed 05/13/04 Page 1 of 2
together in similar litigation. Granting both motions appears to be in the best economic

interest of plaintiff class and also provides a good resolution of the issues presented by

respondents’ respective objections.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________

Edmund V. Ludwig, J.

Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 54 Filed 05/13/04 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP     Document 69      Filed 06/12/2003     Page 1 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP     Document 69      Filed 06/12/2003     Page 2 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP     Document 69      Filed 06/12/2003     Page 3 of 3
Before the First Division,

August 1, 1950

No. 54576.

#### Goldfarb Novelty Co. *v.*United States,

protests 124543-K, etc. (New York).

*249Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of miniature leather novelties similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*(37 C. C. P. A. 32, C. A. D. 415), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.