alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017014EN.01002802.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/28

---

Appeal brought on 16 November 2016 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-386/14: Fih Holding and Fih Erhvervsbank v Commission

(Case C-579/16 P)

(2017/C 014/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, K. Blanck-Putz, A. Bouchagiar, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: FIH Holding A/S, FIH Erhvervsbank A/S

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, notified to the Commission on 16 September 2016, in Case T-386/14 Fih Holding and Fih Erhvervsbank v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, notified to the Commission on 16 September 2016, in Case T-386/14 Fih Holding and Fih Erhvervsbank v Commission;

| — | rule itself on the application at first instance and reject the application as unfounded in law; and |
| --- | --- |

—

rule itself on the application at first instance and reject the application as unfounded in law; and

| — | order the respondents and applicants at first instance to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondents and applicants at first instance to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, the appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, notified to the Commission on 16 September 2016, in Case T-386/14 Fih Holding and Fih Erhvervsbank v Commission; and |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, notified to the Commission on 16 September 2016, in Case T-386/14 Fih Holding and Fih Erhvervsbank v Commission; and

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the second plea at first instance; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the second plea at first instance; and

| — | reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law in finding that to establish the presence of State aid in the 2012 measures the Commission was required to apply the market economy creditor test in light of the cost which would have arisen for Denmark had it not adopted those measures. That finding of the General Court is a legal error because the cost in question is the direct consequence of the previous award of State aid by Denmark in favour of FIH and the consistent case-law of the Court makes clear that the Commission cannot take such a cost into account when it examines if a Member State has acted as a market economy operator would have done.

---
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

SPA RENTAL, LLC, d/b/a/ MSI AVIATION, 

Complainant, 

v. 

SOMERSET- PULASKI COUNTY AIRPORT 

BOARD, 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. 16-13-02 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above-referenced 

complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport 

Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, the date 

by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to 

June 30, 2015. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

#v7 I ~ 2.!JI r 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 12,2015, I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time to 

June 30, 2015 for FAA Docket No. 16-13-02 addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant: 

Konrad Kuczak 

130 West Second Street, Suite 1010 

Dayton, OH 45402 

Counsel for Respondent: 

Rachel Owsley 

Bethany A. Breetz 

Stites & Harbison, PLLC 

400 West Market Street, Suite 1800 

Louisville, KY 40202 

Hand delivered to: 

fAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

fAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

laudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
No. 51626.

#### Protests 403026-G, etc., of Bow Tsee Tong & Co. et al. (San Francisco).

*176Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the invoice item marked “A” in protest 403026-G is the same in all material respects as the bak hop which was held free of duty under paragraph 1567, Tariff Act of 1922, in *Oy Wo Tong*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372), and that the invoice item marked “B” in protest 966568-G is similar to the yoke chok ping held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 34, Tariff Act of 1930, in *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States, supra.*In accordance therewith the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained to the extent indicated.
##### 



Exhibit 13 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Telenor ASA, a
company incorporated under the laws of Norway (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, that: The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: April 15, 2005 /s/ Jon Fredrik BaksaasName:
    Jon Fredrik BaksaasTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer




---



##### 



Exhibit 13 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Telenor ASA, a
company incorporated under the laws of Norway (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, that: The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: April 15, 2005 /s/ Torstein MolandName:
    Torstein MolandTitle:
    Senior Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

March 16, 2010

GMX Resources Inc.

One Benham
Place, Suite 600

9400 North Broadway

Oklahoma City, OK 73114

Re: Consent of Independent Petroleum Engineers

To whom it may concern:

MHA
Petroleum Consultants hereby consents to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-106311, 333-150356 and 333-151916) on Forms S-8 of GMX Resources Inc. and registration statements (333-134911 and 333-149170 and
333-150368) on Forms S-3 of the references to our report relating to the proved oil and natural gas reserves of GMX Resources Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009, and to the reference to our firm as experts in such registration
statements with respect to such report.

Very truly yours,



|                                |  |                                   
|------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------
|MHA PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS, INC.
|                                | 
|By:                             |  | /s/ John Arsenault, Vice President
|                                |  | John Arsenault, Vice President
#### EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 82-1697.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

July 18, 1984.

*168Joseph C. Marshall, III, Detroit, Mich., John Corbett O’Meara, Thomas G. Kienbaum, argued, Henry W. Saad, Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellant.

Dorothy M. Smith, Detroit, Mich., J. Kenneth L. Morse, Detroit, Mich., Mark S. Flynn, argued, Appellate Div., E.E.O.C., Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before LIVELY, Chief Judge, MERRITT, Circuit Judge; JOHNSTONE, District Judge*.

*

The Honorable Edward H. Johnstone, United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

A majority of the Court having not voted in favor of an en bane rehearing, the petition for rehearing has been referred to the hearing panel for disposition.

In its petition for rehearing, Chrysler focused solely on the question whether we erred by affirming the District Court’s conclusion that the EEOC had established the requisite irreparable harm for a preliminary injunction. In addition to those reasons given in our opinion, 733 F.2d 1183 (6th Cir.1984) affirming the judgment of the District Court, we point out that the instant case does not involve, as does *Sampson v. Murray,*415 U.S. 61, 94 S.Ct. 937, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974), the usual order of reinstatement by a preliminary injunction. Rather, the District Court here sought to have Chrysler place the forced retirees on the status which the District Court found Chrysler should have placed them on originally, namely, layoff status. *See E.E.O.C. v. Chrysler Corp.,*546 F.Supp. 54, 72 (E.D.Mich.1982). It is clear that in fashioning its preliminary injunctive relief the District Court took into account the possible injury a delayed order of reinstatement might have had on individuals hired by Chrysler during the pendency of this lawsuit. *See Spagnuolo v. Whirlpool Corp.,*717 F.2d 114 (4th Cir.1983) (where excessive delay in complying with reinstatement order, District Court may bump employee hired to fill comparable job during period after which original order issued). The District Court’s preliminary injunction, therefore, was not an abuse of discretion, even if it ultimately had the incidental effect of reinstatement. Accordingly, we deny Chrysler’s petition for rehearing.
Served: October 20, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

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

ATLANTIC SOUTHEAST AIRLINES, INC.

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

NOTICE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADE NAMES

On October 6, 2010, Atlantic Southeast Airlines Inc. (“ASA”), a U.S. certificated air carrier,1 requested 

that the Department register the trade names “Continental Express” and “Continental Connection” for

use in certain air transportation operations. 

Part 215 (14 CFR Part 215) of the Department’s regulations provides that any air carrier wishing to use 

an alternative trade name must first register that name with the Department. The rule further states that 

the Department may register such name after the air carrier gives notification to similarly named air 

carriers of the proposed use of the name. In this case, ASA states that it currently operates under the 

trade name “United Express,” and in light of the recent merger of United Air Lines Inc. (“United”) and 

Continental Airlines, Inc. (“Continental”), ASA requires flexibility to operate as a Continental Express

and Continental Connection air carrier as well. Additionally, ASA states that Continental consents to 

the registration of these trade names.

We note that ASA states that Continental will make all required disclosures of the identity of the 

operating air carrier and trade name in accordance with the provisions of Part 257 of the Department’s 

regulations (14 CFR Part 257). In addition, ASA states that the aircraft to be used to operate service on 

behalf of Continental will clearly indicate that ASA is the operating carrier. 

Since ASA has complied with the requirements of Part 215, we acknowledge the registration of the trade 

names “Continental Express” and “Continental Connection” for immediate use in its operations.

Dated at Washington, D.C., October 20, 2010.

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at:

http://www.regulations.gov

 

1 ASA’s interstate certificate was last reissued by Order 98-7-6, on July 8, 1998.
Attachment A 

SERVICE LIST FOR ASA AIRLINES, INC.

 MR GERALD MURPHY

 COUNSEL FOR ASA AIRLINES INC 

 CROWELL AND MORING LLP

 1001 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW

 WASHINGTON DC 20004 

MR BERNARD STANKUS RTS-42

OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION

DOT/RSPA/BTS E-36

1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE

WASHINGTON DC 20590

MR BRUCE RABINOVITZ

WILMER HALE

1875 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW 

WASHINGTON DC 20006

MR WILLIAM J WEBER

CERTIFICATION MANAGER

FAA AFS-900

45005 AVIATION DRIVE SUITE 131

DULLES VA 20166

 MR R BRUCE KEINER

 CROWELL AND MORING LLP

 1001 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW

 WASHINGTON DC 20004

 

MR PETER LYNCH 

ASST CHIEF COUNSEL FOR ENFORCEMENT 

FAA/AGC-300

800 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW

WASHINGTON DC 20591

 

 MR CLAY MORITZ

 OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION

 DOT/RSPA/BTS E-36

 1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE

 WASHINGTON DC 20590
# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
August 6 , 2015

ERRATA

______________________

Appeal No. 2014

- 1 492

CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
,

v.

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD., MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
,

Decided: August 4 , 2015
P recedential Opinion

_____________________

P lease make the following change :

On page twenty

- nine

, first paragraph under heading C

, replace the sentence

And it argues that award improperly includes “foreign chips in the royalty base.”

with the following sentence:

And it argues that the award improperly includes “foreign chips in the royalty base.”
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

: CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 05-0038

v. :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-4524

VERNON DOUGLAS :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 9th day of December, 2014, upon consideration of Defendant Vernon 

Douglas’s Motion for Discovery of the Identity and Other Information Pertaining to the 

Confidential Informant (ECF No. 154), and all papers submitted in support thereof and in 

opposition thereto, it is ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________ 

R. BARCLAY SURRICK, J.

Case 2:05-cr-00038-RBS Document 160 Filed 12/10/14 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 42 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
No. 56961.

#### R. Henri Gordon *v.*United States,

protest 187388-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

An examination of the official papers failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
EX-10.6




 Exhibit 10.6 

ZAI LAB LIMITED 

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY 

As of January 15, 2021, each individual who provides services to Zai Lab Limited (the “Company”) as a director, other than a director
who is employed by the Company or an affiliate, (a “Non-Employee Director”) shall be entitled to receive the following amounts of compensation: 

 

			
	 Type of Compensation
	  	 Amount and Form of Payment

	 Annual cash retainer
	  	$50,000 (payable in cash on a quarterly basis)
		
	 Equity retainer
	  	 Commencing in calendar year 2020, Non-Employee Directors are eligible to receive an annual grant of
up to 10,000 restricted shares under our 2017 Equity Incentive Plan, to vest in full on the first anniversary of the date of each such grant, subject to continued service as a member of our board of directors through such date.

 
 Pursuant to the terms of our 2017 Equity Incentive Plan, each Non-Employee Director’s equity compensation in a year is subject to the maximum grant date fair value of US$500,000 per year (subject to certain carve-outs), which in 2021 translated into 3,852 restricted
shares per Non-Employee Director in 2021, each to vest on January 1, 2022, subject to continued service as a member of our board of directors through such date.

		
	 Additional annual cash retainer for

Audit Committee chair
	  	$20,000 (payable in cash on a quarterly basis)
		
	 Additional annual cash retainer for Audit Committee member
	  	$10,000 (payable in cash on a quarterly basis)
		
	 Additional annual cash retainer for

Compensation Committee chair
	  	$15,000 (payable in cash on a quarterly basis)
		
	 Additional annual cash retainer for

Compensation Committee member
	  	$7,500 (payable in cash on a quarterly basis)
		
	 Additional annual cash retainer for

Nominating Committee chair
	  	$10,000 (payable in cash on a quarterly basis)
		
	 Additional annual cash retainer for Nominating Committee member
	  	$5,000 (payable in cash on a quarterly basis)

 In addition, Non-Employee Directors will be reimbursed by the Company for reasonable
and customary expenses incurred in connection with attendance at board of director and committee meetings, in accordance with the Company’s policies as in effect from time to time. 











 Exhibit 10.6 

 
 For the avoidance of doubt, directors who are (i) employees of the Company,
(ii) employees of one of its affiliates or (iii) (a) are affiliated with a shareholder holding more than one percent (1%) of the ordinary shares or ordinary share equivalents of the Company or (b) individually (or through any trust or
estate planning entity) hold more than one percent (1%) of the ordinary shares or ordinary share equivalents) of the Company will not receive compensation for their service as a director, other than reimbursement for reasonable and customary
expenses incurred in connection with attendance at board of director and committee meetings, in accordance with the Company’s policies as in effect from time to time.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:Report to the Congress. Medicare payment policy.**
 
1999
2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
2010 | 2011 | 2012| 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016| 2017 | 2018 | 2019
2020 | 2021
 
SuDoc Number:Y 3.M 46/3:1/
Item Number:1150 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000524089
 
January 2, 2018
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4806 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
p. 1



# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 55 ) ll-E-1 5 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:04

AM Sheet 55 of 264P. 2

CONTAC TREPOR TFOR M PE S PROJEC TNO . N20 4 

## ;rj'/-/ S

Dat e Company

Contac t 10-21-9 3 GIas/Stee l Ind . Laminate s Do nRoile n Description : Phon e 901-853-507 0

I contacte dMr . Rolle nt o chec k ona possibl e proprietar y contro l techniqu e a t Glas/Stee l liste do nthei r surve y

respons e (161) . The y produc e coppe r clad continuou s laminate s fro m polyester , viny l ester , an d epox y resins . Th e proces s fo r th e surve y

i s continuou s laminatio n(06) , an d i s a fla t shee t fo r printe d circui t boards . Fo r Tabl e 2 , "Emissio nReductio nTechniques" , n o proprietar y contro l technique s ar e inoperation . Th e proces s i s covered , hooded , an d route d ou t o f th e building . d c
p.1 

OAR Box 1877 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

36) ll-B-33 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 12/2/200810:36:49 AM Sheet 36 of 46 
r 

P.2 

A-90-19 

ll-B-33 

PENDING CONFIDENTIAL 

The following information is located in the confidential 

files of the Director, Emission Standards Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. This 

information is confidential pending final determination by the 

Administrator and is not available for public inspection. 

W. Floyd, Radian Corporation, to Process Vents Docket 

A-90-19, December 1990, HON NESHAP: Industry 

Characteristics/Chlorodifluoroethane. 23 pages. 

CBI Document Control No. 86/23, PPS-33.
# C_2017030EN.01004802.xml

| 30.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2016 — Grid applications v EUIPO (APlan)

(Case T-154/16) (1)

1

((European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark APlan - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive nature - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 030/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Grid applications GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Meyenburg, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. Kunz, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 (Case R 1819/2015-4) concerning an application for registration of work sign APlan as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Grid applications GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Grid applications GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.

1

---
# C_2018042EN.01002301.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — RRTec v EUIPO — Mobotec (RROFA)

(Case T-912/16) (1)

1

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark RROFA - Prior EU word mark ROFA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 042/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: RRTec sp. z o.o. (Gliwice, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and M.M. Baldares, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Mobotec AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: N. Köster, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 (Case R 2392/2015-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Mobotec and RRTec.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders RRTec sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders RRTec sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

1

---