alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-8430 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-093-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 and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

SB

accomplishment 0.5 $ 85.00 0 $ 85.00 8 $ 680.00

$ 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:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 680

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 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? Explain 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:
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 46 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 46 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 2 of 10
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 46 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 3 of 10
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 46 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 4 of 10
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 46 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 5 of 10
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 46 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 6 of 10
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 46 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 7 of 10
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 46 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 8 of 10
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 46 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 9 of 10
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 46 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 10 of 10
Filed 4/26/21 P. v. Reed CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DARRELL ANDRE REED,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B308660

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. MA079066)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Kathleen Blanchard, Judge. Affirmed. 

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. 

___________
2

Darrell Andre Reed pleaded no contest to willful infliction 

of corporal injury on an intimate partner and admitted he had 

suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of 

the three strikes law. The trial court sentenced Reed to 

four years in state prison. No arguable issues have been 

identified following review of the record by Reed’s appointed 

appellate counsel or our own independent review. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Reed was charged by information with one count of willful 

infliction of corporal injury on a current or former intimate 

partner (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)). On June 24, 2020 Reed 

pleaded no contest to the charge and admitted he had previously 

been convicted of participating in a criminal street gang (Pen. 

Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)), a serious felony within the meaning of 

the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (b)-(j), 1170.12). 

On August 19, 2020 the trial court sentenced Reed as a second

strike offender to the low term of two years, doubled to four 

years. Reed filed a timely notice of appeal, noting that his appeal 

concerned only sentencing or other matters occurring after the 

plea that did not affect the validity of the plea. (Cal. Rules of 

Court, rule 8.304(b).)

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Reed on appeal. After 

reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues. 

Appointed counsel advised Reed on March 9, 2021 that he could

personally submit any contentions or issue he wishes the court to 

consider. We have received no response.

We have examined the record and are satisfied appellate 

counsel for Reed has complied with counsel’s responsibilities and 
3

there are no arguable issues. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 

259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 

118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 17 , 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00507

- CV

JOAN HUDSON, INDIVID UALLY, A/N/F OF CORN ENIUS HAWKINS , Appellant

V.
ORION REAL ESTATE SE RVICES, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 55th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 29465

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed February 20 , 201 3 . The notice of appeal was filed June 5, 2013 . To date, our records show that appellant has not paid the $175.00 appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civil cases unless indigent); Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence); see also ; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. ' 51.207.2

On August 8, 2013, this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate filing
fee on or before August 23, 2013 , or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has not paid the appellate filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is ord ered dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply with notice from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Bo yce, and Jamison.
(Reap. Dec. 8609)

Entry No. 702611, etc.

#### D. N. & E. Walter & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided June 27, 1956)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule appeared on the calendar of this court on May 24, 1956. At that time, request was made on behalf of counsel for the plaintiff for further postponement of the cases, pending the arrival from San Francisco of a motion to transfer the cases to the next calendar of this court to be held in that city.

The present appeals all relate to New York entries and the issue involved has been litigated in other cases. From the time of the filing of the appeals until shortly before the call of the May 24 calendar, plaintiffs had been continuously represented by counsel located in New York City and who had secured four successive continuances when the cases appeared on as many calendars of this court. Shortly before the May 24 calendar was due to be called, applications were made by the plaintiff for the substitution of San Francisco counsel as attorneys of record. The motion to transfer referred to above had not been received at the time of the calendar call.

*466The court is of the opinion that sufficient diligence in the prosecution of these cases has not been shown, and judgment will, therefore, issue dismissing the same for want of prosecution.
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**THE DAUPHIN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL**

**DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY**

**v.**

**PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY**

**COMMISSION**

**Intervenor**

**FIRST ENERGY SOLUTIONS,**

**Intervenor**

**PETITION OF: PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC**

**UTILITY COMMISSION :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 904 MAL 2015** 

**P etition for Allowance of Appeal from** 

**the Order of the Commonwealth Court**

**THE DAUPHIN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL**

**DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY**

**v.**

**PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY**

**COMMISSION**

**Intervenor**

**FIRST ENERGY SOLUTIONS,**

**Intervenor :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 905 MAL 2015** 

**P etition for Allowance of Appeal from** 

**the Order of the Commonwealth Court [**  **904 MAL 2015 and 905 MAL 2015] - 2**

**PETITION OF: PPL ELECTRIC**
**UTILITIES, INC., :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

O RDER

P ER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 1st day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is**

DENIED

**.**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24 - 0400 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRENDON EVANS DULL,

Defendant and Appellant.

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until October 7 , 2024 to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court September 3 2024

09/03/2024
Case Number: DA 24-0400
Form 945-A

(Rev. December 2020)

Annual Record of Federal Tax Liability

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service

▶ Go to www.irs.gov/Form945A for instructions and the latest information. 

▶ File with Form 945, 945-X, CT-1, CT-1 X, 944, or 944-X.

OMB No. 1545-1430

Calendar Year

Name (as shown on Form 945, 945-X, CT-1, CT-1 X, 944, or 944-X) Employer identification number (EIN)

You must complete this form if you’re a semiweekly schedule depositor or became one because your accumulated tax liability during any month was 

$100,000 or more. Show tax liability here, not deposits. (The IRS gets deposit data from electronic funds transfers.) Don’t change your current year tax 

liability by adjustments reported on any Form 945-X, CT-1 X, or 944-X.

January Tax Liability

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

A Total for month ▶

February Tax Liability

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

B Total for month ▶

March Tax Liability

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

C Total for month ▶

April Tax Liability

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

D Total for month ▶

May Tax Liability

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

E Total for month ▶

June Tax Liability

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

F Total for month ▶

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the separate instructions. Cat. No. 14733M Form 945-A (Rev. 12-2020)
Form 945-A (Rev. 12-2020) Page 2

July Tax Liability

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

G Total for month ▶

August Tax Liability

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

H Total for month ▶

September Tax Liability

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

I Total for month ▶

October Tax Liability

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

J Total for month ▶

November Tax Liability

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

K Total for month ▶

December Tax Liability

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

L Total for month ▶

M Total tax liability for the year (add lines A through L). This must equal line 3 on Form 945 (line 19 

on Form CT-1, line 9 on Form 944). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ▶

Form 945-A (Rev. 12-2020)
# C_2018123EN.01001702.xml

| 9.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2018 — Repower v EUIPO — repowermap.org (REPOWER)

(Case T-727/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Decision of a Board of Appeal revoking an earlier decision - Article 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - General principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful administrative measure))

(2018/C 123/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. P. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

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: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, 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 Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5 (REV)), relating to invalidity proceedings between repowermap.org and Repower.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Repower AG and repowermap.org. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Repower AG and repowermap.org.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.

1

---
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Statement
      of Chief Executive Officer Furnished**


**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





The
      undersigned, Kim S. Price, is the President and Chief Executive Officer of
      Citizens South Banking Corporation (the “Company”).





This
      statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of
      the
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the
“Report”).





By
      execution of this statement, I certify that to the best of my
      knowledge:





A)
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d))
                and





B)
            the
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company
                as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
                Report.





August
              8, 2007
            
            
            /s/ Kim
              S.
              PriceDated
            
            
            Kim
                  S. Price
                President
                  and Chief Executive Officer




This
      statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that
      this
      statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this statement
      be
      deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to Citizens South Banking Corporation and will be retained
      by Citizens South Banking Corporation and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
TS-CKHI01

Attachment #5

Pt. 2, Sec. A, 2 

Worker/Occupational Exposure Information on the New Chemical Substance at 

Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL J. LIBERATI : CIVIL ACTION

 v. :

BRT, INC., et al. : NO. 05-1661

CIVIL JUDGMENT

Before the Honorable Michael M. Baylson: 

AND NOW, this 15 day of May, 2006, in accordance with the verdict of the th

jury,

IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be and the same is hereby entered in favor of

Defendants and against the Plaintiff.

 BY THE COURT

ATTEST: s/Lynn Meyer 

 Lynn Meyer

 Deputy Clerk

O:\forms\Civil Judgment Form.wpd

Case 2:05-cv-01661-MMB Document 56 Filed 05/16/06 Page 1 of 1
# C_2018436EN.01000201.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona — Spain) — Proceedings brought by Ministerio Fiscal

(Case C-207/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications - Processing of personal data - Directive 2002/58/EC - Articles 1 and 3 - Scope - Confidentiality of electronic communications - Protection - Article 5 and Article 15(1) - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 7 and 8 - Data processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services - Access of national authorities to the data for the purposes of an investigation - Threshold of seriousness of an offence capable of justifying access to the data))

(2018/C 436/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona

Party to the main proceedings

Ministerio Fiscal

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that the access of public authorities to data for the purpose of identifying the owners of SIM cards activated with a stolen mobile telephone, such as the surnames, forenames and, if need be, addresses of the owners, entails interference with their fundamental rights, enshrined in those articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is not sufficiently serious to entail that access being limited, in the area of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, to the objective of fighting serious crime.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

---
1 While Plaintiff’s counsel has certified that he made a

reasonable effort to resolve this discovery dispute prior to the

filing of the within motion, we believe that Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 26.1(f) dictate that such a

reasonable effort must actually be made before such a

certification issues. Given that it appears otherwise to this

Court, we strongly urge Mr. Hirsch to review the preceding rules

before filing another motion. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAURIE SWEIGARD : CIVIL ACTION

:

 vs. :

: NO. 02-CV-2755

CHOICE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL :

INC., ET. AL. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of November, 2002, upon

consideration of Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Compel Production of

Documents and Answers to Interrogatories and it appearing to the

Court that Defendants have responded appropriately to Plaintiff’s

discovery requests, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s

Third Motion to Compel is DENIED.1

BY THE COURT:

 

J. CURTIS JOYNER, J. 

Case 2:02-cv-02755-JCJ Document 18 Filed 11/14/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 49086.

#### Protests 70911-K, etc., of F. N. Giavi, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and cited cases, the-records in which ivere incorporated herein, the following allowances were made by the court to compensate for foreign substances on the outside of certain cheese: (1) 2% percent for cheese similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstract 42146 and (2) 2 percent for cheese similar to the Moliterno cheese the subject of Abstract 41794.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN PEREZ LEON : CIVIL ACTION

(DY-2179) :

:

 v. :

:

L.. BENNING, et al. : NO. 02-4267

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 2002, upon

consideration of Relator's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The District Attorney of Lancaster County,

Pennsylvania is added as a party respondent and the caption is

hereby so amended.

2. The District Attorney shall file specific and

detailed answers within twenty (20) days from the date of this

Order pursuant to Rule 5, 28 U.S.C. fol. § 2254. In addition,

the District Attorney shall provide a detailed, chronological

discussion identifying all appeals, writs of mandamus and PCRA

petitions filed by Petitioner and their disposition and/or

current status, as well as the Commonwealth's position concerning

exhaustion. The District Attorney shall include a Memorandum of

Law addressing the relevant legal issues raised by the Petition

in the event that the Petitioner's claim(s) are exhausted.

Case 2:02-cv-04267-JK Document 4 Filed 07/17/2002 Page 1 of 2
3. The Clerk of the Quarter Sessions Court of

Lancaster County shall file with the Clerk of the this Court

copies of ALL RECORDS, INCLUDING transcripts of Notes of

Testimony at Arraignment, Trial, Sentencing, Suppression

Hearings, Post Conviction Hearings, Petitions, Pleadings,

Opinions and Briefs of State Court proceedings in the matter of

Commonwealth v. John Perez Leon, Court of Common Pleas of

Lancaster County, No. 3277-1999 within twenty (20) days of the

date of this order.

BY THE COURT:

 

M. FAITH ANGELL 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-04267-JK Document 4 Filed 07/17/2002 Page 2 of 2
# C_2018152EN.01005903.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/59

---

Order of the General Court of 6 March 2018 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Ernst and Häcker (CERTIFIED FINANCIAL MODELER CFM)

(Case T-156/16) (1)

1

(2018/C 152/71)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

1

---