alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016475EN.01000901.xml

| 19.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 475/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 475/9

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Dresden — Germany) — Ute Wunderlich v Bulgarian Air Charter Limited

(Case C-32/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Absence of reasonable doubt - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 2(l) - Definition of ‘cancellation’ - Flight making an unscheduled stopover))

(2016/C 475/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Dresden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ute Wunderlich

Applicant:

Defendant: Bulgarian Air Charter Limited

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 2(l) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that a flight in respect of which the places of departure and arrival accorded with the planned schedule but during which an unscheduled stopover took place cannot be regarded as cancelled.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.

1

---
No. 57209.

protest 191233-K (New York).

#### Bluefries-New York, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
# C_2015381EN.01004802.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/48

---

Action brought on 8 September 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Globo (Bimbo)

(Case T-528/15)

(2015/C 381/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, 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: Globo SpA Servizi Commerciali (Illasi, Italy)

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: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Bimbo’ — Application for registration No 10 028 405

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2015 in Joined Cases R 2512/2013-4 and R 2549/2013-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | modify the contested decision in accordance with Article 65.3 CTMR, rejecting the CTM Application no 10 028 405 in class 28; |
| --- | --- |

—

modify the contested decision in accordance with Article 65.3 CTMR, rejecting the CTM Application no 10 028 405 in class 28;

o

| — | subsidiarity and only in the case the above claim would be rejected, annul the contested decision |
| --- | --- |

—

subsidiarity and only in the case the above claim would be rejected, annul the contested decision

| — | order the defendants to pay the costs, as stated in article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (former 87.2). |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay the costs, as stated in article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (former 87.2).

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Rule 19(1) (2) (3) and Rule 20(1) of the Regulation No 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rule 19(1) (2) (3) and Rule 20(1) of the Regulation No 2868/95;

| — | Infringement of Article 64(1) of the Regulation No 207/2009 and related case-law; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 64(1) of the Regulation No 207/2009 and related case-law;

| — | Infringement of Article 43(2) and (3) of the Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 43(2) and (3) of the Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of the Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of the Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 20, 2018

Order 

Clerk

June 20, 2018

156180(66)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 156180

v COA: 330710

Wayne CC: 15-004825-FC

DORIAN LAMARR PRICE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time 

for filing his supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted 

for filing if submitted on or before July 13, 2018.
# C_2016383EN.01000501.xml

| 17.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen and Others v Vlaams Gewest

(Case C-426/16)

(2016/C 383/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen, VZW, Unie van Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van Limburg, VZW, Unie van Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen Oost-Vlaanderen, VZW, Unie der Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van West-Vlaanderen, VZW, Unie der Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van Vlaams-Brabant, VZW, Association Internationale Diyanet de Belgique, IVZW, Islamitische Federatie van België, VZW, Rassemblement des Musulmans de Belgique, VZW, Erkan Konak, Chaibi El Hassan

Applicants:

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Defendant:

Intervening party: Global Action in the Interest of Animals, VZW

Intervening party:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 4(4), read in conjunction with Article 2(k), of Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 (1) of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing invalid due to the infringement of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or Article 13 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, in that they provide that animals may be slaughtered in accordance with special methods required by religious rites without being stunned only if such slaughter takes place in a slaughterhouse falling within the scope of Regulation No 853/2004, (2) whereas there is insufficient capacity in the Vlaams Gewest (Flemish Region) to meet the annual demand for the ritual slaughter of unstunned animals on the occasion of the Islamic Festival of Sacrifice, and the costs of converting temporary slaughter establishments, approved and monitored by the authorities, for the purpose of the Islamic Festival of Sacrifice, into slaughterhouses falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, do not appear relevant to achieving the objectives pursued of animal welfare and public health and do not appear proportionate thereto?

1

2

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 1).

1

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 55).

2

---
# C_2022266EN.01001901.xml

| 11.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2022 — Fininvest and Berlusconi v ECB

(Case T-913/16) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB - Assessment of acquisitions of qualifying holdings - Opposition to the acquisition of a qualifying holding - Non-retroactivity - Res judicata - Application of national transposing measures - Rights of the defence - Right of access to the file - Right to be heard - New plea - Primacy of EU law - Right to effective judicial protection)

(2022/C 266/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest) (Rome, Italy), Silvio Berlusconi (Rome) (represented by: R. Vaccarella, A. Di Porto, M. Carpinelli, A. Saccucci, B. Nascimbene, N. Ghedini and A. Baldaccini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta and G. Buono, acting as Agents, and by M. Lamandini, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the ECB’s decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 7LVZJ6XRIE7VNZ4UBX81/4 of 25 October 2016, by which the latter refused to authorise the acquisition of a holding by Fininvest and by Mr Silvio Berlusconi in the credit institution Banca Mediolanum SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest) and Mr Silvio Berlusconi to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest) and Mr Silvio Berlusconi to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB);

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of Shoe Pavilion, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 3, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dmitry Beinus, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, John
D. Hellmann, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Dmitry Beinus                      
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer   
|May 17, 2004                           
|                                       
|/s/ John D. Hellmann                   
|Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
|May 17, 2004                           



This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
(V. D. 43)

Entry Nos. 7111, 7763.

#### James G. Wiley a/c, Glenn A. Smith & Associates *v.*United States

(Decided December 11, 1956)

*Philip Stein*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This matter comes before me at this time pursuant to a remand from classification proceedings *(E. S. Zerwekh**461*Co. a/c D. P. Bushnell & Co. et al.*v. *United States,*34 Cust. Ct. 249, Abstract 58647), wherein judgment was entered, ordering that the matter be “remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d).”

Counsel for the respective parties have submitted the matter for decision on a written stipulation reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, as to merchandise covered by the Remand of Protest enumerated in the annexed Schedule, which is incorporated herein:

> 1. That the merchandise consists of binoculars and leather carrying cases which in *E. S. Zerwekh Co. a/c D. P. Bushnell & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*Abstract 58647, following the decision of this Court in the case of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*C. D. 1519, this Court held to be subject to appraisement separately, according to the value of each class of article.

> 2. That at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, is the unit price as shown in the attached Schedule “A”, in U. S. currency, net packed.

> 3. That the above Remand of Protest is abandoned as to all entries and merchandise not listed in the attached Schedule *“A”,*and said Remand of Protest may be deemed submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I bold that the proper basis for appraisement of the binoculars and leather cases in question is foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory values for each of these articles are those set forth in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
There are two options for purchasing scanners or additional scanner equipment: 

1. Interagency Agreement (IAA): Complete an IAA form to transfer funding for hardware from your agency to 

Treasury/Fiscal Service, and have the OTC Deployment Team purchase the hardware on your behalf. To purchase using an 

IAA or to find out more about it, contact the OTCnet Deployment Team. Once the IAA is approved by Fiscal Service, the 

hardware will be shipped at no cost to the agency for all domestic and APO/FPO locations. 

2. Agency Purchase Card: To place an order for immediate shipment, use your agency purchase card to purchase the 

hardware directly from the vendor. Upon request, the OTCnet Deployment Team can provide your organization with order 

forms for the vendors, RDM and Cennox (Panini Scanners).

RDM POC: Stacy Carson

+1-519-514-1291

stacy.carson@deluxe.com

Cennox (Panini) POC: Derek Slimmon

+1-404-605-0100 Ext: 1319 

derek.e.slimmon@cennox.com 

RDM EC9611f1RDM EC9703 Panini Vision X2

Functionality Single Feed Multi Feed Multi Feed

USB Port   

Franker3

Sold Separately N/A N/A

Warranty 2 years 2 years 1 year

Documents 

per Minute (DPM) N/A

AF50: 50

AF100: 100

AF150: 150

X50: 50

X75: 75

X100: 100

Price4$428

AF50: $667 

AF100: $854 

AF150: $1,042

X50: $722 

X75: $763 

X100: $875

OTCnet Hardware Overview 

OTCnet offers several check scanner options to suit your organization’s needs. 

Below are the details of all OTCnet-supported check scanners and information 

about how to purchase. For additional scanner equipment and pricing, please 

reach out to the OTCnet Deployment Team (contact information below). Check Scanners

How to Purchase

1Note: The EC9611f is sometimes referred to as the EC9600i, which refers to the name of the scanner series. RDM has retired all EC7000i-series check 

scanners, although current OTCnet firmware versions will continue to support them. RDM has ended production of the EC9111f (EC9100i-series) check 

scanner: warranty and post-warranty support available through 6/30/25, as applicable.

2

Production of the Panini I:Deal check scanner has ended. Warranty and post-warranty support available through 12/31/25.

3

The franker is an internal ink stamp that marks the check as “Electronically Presented” (RDM devices) or “Electronically Deposited” (Panini devices).

4

The new prices for RDM scanners took effect 10/1/22, and the new prices for Panini scanners took effect 1/1/23.

Questions? 

Contact the OTCnet Deployment Team: 703-377-5586 

or at FiscalService.OTCDeployment@citi.com
Part 1

SUPPLEMENT

DRAFT 

ID

Simple or

Special Name Type Description Error Message 

33 SPECIAL

Federal Non-Federal Code and Trading Partner Agency Identifier Validation Compound

If Federal Non-Federal Code is F (Federal), then Trading Partner Agency Identifier is required. If Federal Non-Federal Code is G (General Fund of the U.S. Government), then Trading Partner Agency Identifier must be 099. Exceptions may apply.

Trading Partner Agency Identifier does match requirements. Please refer to thattribute table in section IV of the USSGTFM. 

35 SPECIAL

Federal Non-Federal Code G and Trading Partner Main Account 0000 Validation Compound

If Federal Non-Federal Code is G (General Fund of the U.S. Government), then Trading Partner Main Account must be 0000.

If Federal Non-Federal Code is G (GenFund of the U.S. Government), then Trading Partner Main Account must be 0000. 

53 SPECIAL

USSGLs limited to ESF and Sinking Fund TAS Compound TAS

Some USSGL accounts are limited to TAS 020X4444 and 020X0575. Invalid use of restricted USSGL accoun

55 SPECIAL

USSGL 259000 with "G" Federal Non Federal Indicator limited to certain TAS'. Compound

The use of the "G" domain value for USSGL 259000 is limited to certain TAS'.

Invalid use of Federal Non Federal Indicator "G" domain value. 

75 SPECIAL

Prohibited Use of Exchange Activity with the General Fund of the U.S. Government Compound

The General Fund of the U.S. Government does not engage in exchange activity therefore the Fed/NonFed of "G" can not be used with Exch/Nonexch of "E" or "X"

Invalid use of Fed/NonFed "G" with Exch/Nonexch "E" or "X" 

76 SPECIAL USSGLs Limited to IMF Compound

Some USSGL accounts are restricted to IMF TAS only. Invalid use of restricted USSGL accoun

85 SPECIAL

Limited Use of USSGL 292000 on a C-TAS Compound

The use of USSGL account 292000 on a C-TAS is restricted to the Department of Defense.

Invalid use of USSGL account 292000 a C-TAS 

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Validations - Summary

Draft Bulletin No. 2017-06 VII VSR - 1
# C_2019220EN.01003401.xml

| 1.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Stemcor London and Samac Steel Supplies v Commission

(Case T-749/16) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in China and Russia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Registration of imports - Retroactive application of the definitive anti-dumping duty - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329 - Importer’s awareness of the dumping and injury - Further substantial rise in imports likely to seriously undermine the remedial effect of the definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 10(4)(c) and (d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036)

(2019/C 220/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Stemcor London Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and Samac Steel Supplies Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and C. Van Hemelrijck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, N. Kuplewatzky, T. Maxian Rusche and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Prost, A. Coelho Dias and S. Seeuws, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329 of 29 July 2016 levying the definitive anti-dumping duty on the registered imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation (OJ 2016 L 210, p. 27).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Stemcor London Ltd and Samac Steel Supplies Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Stemcor London Ltd and Samac Steel Supplies Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARILYN MCCREA, o/b/o MS : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff : 

:

v. : NO. 04-5913

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, :

:

Defendant. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 2nd day of August, 2005, upon careful and independent

consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and after conducting a thorough

review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart, and

a thorough de novo review of Defendant's objections, and related filings, IT IS ORDERED as

follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART.

Case 2:04-cv-05913-PD Document 13 Filed 08/02/05 Page 1 of 2
4. The matter is remanded for an assessment of MS's functioning in the

domain of "Interacting and Relating with Others" outside of a specialized

classroom setting, and further consideration as to whether MS suffers from

marked limitations in the area of "Caring for Yourself."

The Clerk of Court shall close this matter for statistical purposes.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Paul S. Diamond, J.

Case 2:04-cv-05913-PD Document 13 Filed 08/02/05 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDWARD LEMPA : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, : NO. 05-985

 :

v. :

:

ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY, :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 29 day of December, 2009, it is hereby ORDERED that th

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 34) is GRANTED. Judgment is

entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. The Clerk will close this case for statistical

purposes.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ C. Darnell Jones II

_________________________ 

C. DARNELL JONES, II J.