alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016279EN.01002201.xml

| 1.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Dublin Circuit & District Civil Courts Office (Ireland) made on 6 June 2016 — Maria Isabel Harmon v Owen Pardue

(Case C-321/16)

(2016/C 279/29)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Dublin Circuit & District Civil Courts Office

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria Isabel Harmon

Applicant:

Defendant: Owen Pardue

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Having regard to the foregoing has the DPP breached the fundamental rights of Mr. Pardue and in particular those rights as provided for in Articles 6, 20, 41, 47 and 48 and supplemented for in the Preamble of CFR? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Having regard to the foregoing has the DPP breached the fundamental rights of Mr. Pardue and in particular those rights as provided for in Articles 6, 20, 41, 47 and 48 and supplemented for in the Preamble of CFR?

| 2. | Having regard to the foregoing has the DPP the right to refuse to comply with legitimate Court Orders and/or if she fails to comply and/or fails to give an explanation or reason for the non compliance, is this compatible with the CFR? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Having regard to the foregoing has the DPP the right to refuse to comply with legitimate Court Orders and/or if she fails to comply and/or fails to give an explanation or reason for the non compliance, is this compatible with the CFR?

| 3. | Having regard to the foregoing and given that the DPP’s decisions are only reviewable by a court if demonstrated that the DPP reached a decision mala fides or influenced by an improper motive or improper policy, as the present state of Irish law permits, is this consistent and compatible with the CFR having regard to the facts of this case? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Having regard to the foregoing and given that the DPP’s decisions are only reviewable by a court if demonstrated that the DPP reached a decision mala fides or influenced by an improper motive or improper policy, as the present state of Irish law permits, is this consistent and compatible with the CFR having regard to the facts of this case?

mala fides

---
# C_2018032EN.01002201.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Coca-Cola v EUIPO — Mitico (Master)

(Case T-61/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Master - Earlier European Union figurative marks Coca-Cola and earlier national figurative mark C - Relative ground for refusal - Unfair advantage taken of the reputation of earlier marks - Evidence relating to the commercial use, outside the European Union, of a sign comprising the mark applied for - Logical inferences - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Article 8(5) and Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) and Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 032/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, S. Baran, barrister, D. Stone and A. Dykes, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) (Damas, Syria) (represented by: A.-E. Malamis, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2015 (Case R 1251/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between The Coca-Cola Company and Mitico.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 December 2015 (Case R 1251/2015-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 December 2015 (Case R 1251/2015-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by The Coca-Cola Company, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by The Coca-Cola Company, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

| 3. | Orders Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

1

---
No. 64042.

protest 59/985 (New York).

#### Musco & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the principles herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon the quantities of merchandise, which were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RICCI : CIVIL ACTION

:

 :

 v. :

:

 : 

AETNA : NO.02-4330

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 4th day of September, 2002, in accordance with the court's

procedure for random reassignment of cases, it is hereby

ORDERED that the above-captioned case is reassigned from the calendar of

the Honorable Lowell A. Reed, Jr. to the calendar of the Honorable Timothy J. Savage.

 FOR THE COURT:

 JAMES T. GILES 

 Chief Judge

 ATTEST:

 ___________________

 MICHAEL E. KUNZ

 Clerk of Court

Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 11 Filed 09/04/2002 Page 1 of 1
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN 01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           288
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                628,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             628,326
<PP&E>                                        58,953
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               688,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         32,011
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                     640,564
<OTHER-SE>                                    15,704
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 656,268
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              25,533
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,227
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               22,306
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           22,306
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  22,306
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .17


</TABLE>
# C_2019093EN.01004401.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — FZ and Others v Commission

(Case T-526/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 - Types of posts - Transitional rules on grading in the types of posts - Article 30 of Annexe XIII to the Staff Regulations - Administrators in transition (AD 13) - Administrators (AD 12) - Promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations only allowed within the career streams corresponding to the type of post occupied - Access to the type of post ‘Head of Unit or equivalent’ or ‘Adviser or equivalent’ exclusively in accordance with the procedure under Article 4 and Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations - Equal treatment - Loss of eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade - Legitimate expectations))

(2019/C 93/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FZ, and the 9 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, subsequently by G. Gattinara and C. Berardis-Kayser and finally by G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by N. Chemaï and M. Dean, subsequently by L. Deneys, J. Steele and J. Van Pottelberge, acting as Agents); and the Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and E Rebasti and subsequently by M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission’s decisions by which the appointing authority of that institution classified the applicants in the ‘administrator in transition’ or ‘administrator’ types of post, with the consequence that, with effect from 1 January 2014, they were no longer eligible for promotion to the next higher grade, as confirmed by the decisions of that authority of 3 July, 17 July and 6 August 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders FZ and the other officials of the European Commission whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FZ and the other officials of the European Commission whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-113/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---
IPAC Operational Metrics for April 2017

Volume by Transaction Type
Dotar Amouny Sof Total Dolar ofa Kotor of Transactions

Fiduciary (investment & Borrowing) 9,081,459 463,198 99.349 10,689] 2.55

Buy/Sei 54,775,067, 106 0.605 107,240] 39.83%

[Benefits (RITS) '5,621,110,708| 0.06%| 387 0.32%

[check Aftermath (TRACS) 139,189,729 0.005 7064] ‘0.895

[zero Detar 5 0.005 7| 0.018

[Grand Total - April 2017 ERITEEIREIEZS 700.008] T3377] 700.008]

[Srand Total- March 2017 76,303,913,682,335| 100.005] 118,774] 100.00%|

[March to April Change. -7,161,919,051,594] |

Percentage Change -43.928%| [sos]

[Grand Total - April 2016 16,151,408,798,774| [____ 110,057]

[April 2016 to April 2017 Change ~7,008 413,966,032] [____—_ 3.329]

[Percentage Change 333.45 ee
Before the Second Division,

February 20, 1946

No. 50897.

#### Protests 526976-G, etc., of M. E. Friedlander, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

At the trial it was shown by the testimony that the merchandise consists of hats known as harvest hats, valued at less than $3 per dozen, and similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Caradine Hat Co.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). Upon the established facts and following the cited authority the items of merchandise imported or withdrawn for consumption prior to the effective date of the Netherlands Trade Agreement (T. D. 48075) were held dutiable at only 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), and those items entered or withdrawn for consumption subsequent to said date were held dutiable at 12)4 percent under the same paragraph.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING – FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585

Tuesday, May 10, 2011; Room 8E-089

Purpose

The Department of Energy (DOE) is holding this public meeting to discuss the energy 

conservation standard notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for fluorescent lamp ballasts. 

DOE will also seek comment on the rulemaking, including methodologies, assumptions, and data 

sources.

Agenda

9:00-9:10 am Welcome; Introductions; Agenda Review; and Opening 

Statements

Tina Kaarsberg, PhD, DOE; Doug Brookman, Public Solutions

9:10-10:00 am Overview, Statute, and Context; Market and Technology 

Assessment; and Screening Analysis

Ali McDonald, Navigant

10:00-10:45 am Engineering Analysis

Matthew Walker, Navigant

10:45-11:00 am Break

11:00-11:30 am Energy Use; Markup Analysis; Life-Cycle Cost and Payback 

Period Analysis 

Bob Lingard, PNNL; Grant Williams, PNNL; Natasha Collins, PNNL

11:30 am-12:00 pm Shipments and National Impact Analysis

Grant Williams, PNNL; Natasha Collins, PNNL

12:00-1:00 pm Lunch

1:00-1:30 pm Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Erin Potocki, Navigant

1:30-2:00 pm Utility Impact Analysis; Employment Impact Analysis;

Environmental Assessment; Regulatory Impact Analysis

Bob Lingard, PNNL; Natasha Collins, PNNL

2:00-2:15 pm Break

2:15-2:45 pm Proposed Standard

Ali McDonald, Navigant

2:45-3:00 pm Closing Remarks

Tina Kaarsberg, PhD, DOE
# C_2016090EN.01001101.xml

| 7.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy) lodged on 5 January 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Paola Tonachella

(Case C-8/16)

(2016/C 090/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Frosinone

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Paola Tonachella

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 49 et seq. and Article 56 et seq. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as supplemented in the light of the principles set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 February 2012 in [Case C-72/10], be interpreted as precluding a provision of national legislation which makes it compulsory to transfer free of charge, at the time of the cessation of business owing to the expiry of the final term of a licence or as a result of measures revoking or terminating that licence, rights to use tangible and intangible property to collect bets and to manage betting and gaming?

---
No. 64797.

#### John H. Faunce, Phila., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/29792, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ceramic rods similar in all material respects to those the subject of *John H. Faunce, Philadelphia, Inc.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 196, C.D. 2085), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. Protest 59/29800 having been abandoned as to entry 4135, to that extent, the protest was dismissed.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1127 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent unjust and irrational 

criminal punishments. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 16, 2017 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. MERKLEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent unjust 

and irrational criminal punishments. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Justice Safety Valve 

5 Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A SENTENCE BELOW A 

7 STATUTORY MINIMUM. 

8 Section 3553 of title 18, United States Code, is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 


rfrederick on DSK30NT082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1127 IS

1 ‘‘(g) AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A SENTENCE BELOW A

2 STATUTORY MINIMUM TO PREVENT AN UNJUST SEN3 TENCE.— 

4 ‘‘(1) GENERAL RULE.—Notwithstanding any 

5 provision of law other than this subsection, the court 

6 may impose a sentence below a statutory minimum 

7 if the court finds that it is necessary to do so in 

8 order to avoid violating the requirements of sub9 section (a). 

10 ‘‘(2) COURT TO GIVE PARTIES NOTICE.—Before 

11 imposing a sentence under paragraph (1), the court 

12 shall give the parties reasonable notice of the court’s 

13 intent to do so and an opportunity to respond. 

14 ‘‘(3) STATEMENT IN WRITING OF FACTORS.— 

15 The court shall state, in the written statement of 

16 reasons, the factors under subsection (a) that re17 quire imposition of a sentence below the statutory 

18 minimum. 

19 ‘‘(4) APPEAL RIGHTS NOT LIMITED.—This sub20 section does not limit any right to appeal that would 

21 otherwise exist in its absence.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK30NT082PROD with BILLS
# MTS Cover

# Table 1

# Table 2

# Figure 1

# Figure 2

# Figure 3

# Figure 4

# Figure 5

# Figure 6

# Figure7

# Figure 8

# Table 3

# Table 4

# Table 5

# Table 6

# Table 6A

# Table 6B

# Table 6C

# Table 6D

# Table 6E

# Table 7

# Table 8

# Table 9

# image1.png

# image2.emf

# image3.png

# image4.png

# image5.png

# image6.png

# image7.png

# image8.png

# image9.png

# image10.png
No. 49966.

#### Protest 34173-K of Men’s Hats, Inc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items of the merchandise consisted of hats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218), which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith the items in question were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) as claimed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOHN DOUGLAS ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 96-6674

HOLMAN C. GOSSETT, JR.; CHARLIE

SANDERS; WILLIAM E. GUNN,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg.

Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-96-783-7-20AK)

Submitted: October 31, 1996

Decided: November 27, 1996

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John Douglas Alexander, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John D. Alexander appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Our review of the

record and the district court's opinion discloses that the district court

correctly determined that exhaustion of state remedies was required.

Although the general rule is that the case should be dismissed

rather than retained on the district court's docket pending exhaustion

of state remedies, Slayton v. Smith, 404 U.S. 53, 54 (1971), a civil

rights claim should be retained on the docket if dismissal would

create a statute of limitations problem. Hamlin v. Warren, 664 F.2d

29, 32 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 911 (1982). We find that

Appellant's claim that Defendant Gunn improperly calculated his

parole eligibility has already accrued, and therefore, exhaustion of

remedies may result in a running of the statute of limitations. Appellant's remaining claims have not yet accrued and, therefore, do not

face a similar fate. See Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178,

183 (4th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, to preserve any timely § 1983 claim Appellant may

have regarding his parole eligibility, we vacate the portion of the district court's order dismissing this claim against Gunn and remand to

the district court with instructions to retain Appellant's case on its

docket in abeyance until Appellant has exhausted his state remedies.

We affirm the dismissal without prejudice of the remainder of Appellant's claims. 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 IN PART, VACATED IN PART,

AND REMANDED

 2
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report of GeneralMaritime Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on orabout the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John C. Georgiopoulos, Vice President,Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)**         **The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

 

(2)**         **The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Date: March 15, 2004           |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
|                           |   |
| /**s**/  John C. Georgiopoulos |   |
| John C. Georgiopoulos          |
|                           |
| Vice President, Secretary and  |
| Chief Financial Officer        |

 

----