alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019305EN.01003902.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DRAMA)

(Case T-183/16 RENV) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER DRAMA - Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - 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)

(2019/C 305/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Guinot (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2500/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FORREST G. KRAMER : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

: 02-CV-4355

WEBCRAFT TECHNOLOGIES :

INC. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of September 2002, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. An Initial Pretrial Scheduling Conference via telephone conference call 

will be held on November 7, 2002, at 11:30 A.M. All trial counsel and all unrepresented

parties shall participate. The conference call will be initiated by the Court. Counsel

participating in the conference must be authorized and empowered to discuss and make

binding decisions with regard to all aspects of this case.

2. No later than five (5) days prior to the date of the Initial Pretrial Scheduling

Conference, the parties shall file with the Court a written Joint Case Report which shall

include the following information:

A. A brief statement describing the facts of the case and the basis for

the Court’s jurisdiction over the parties and the action (not to exceed three (3) pages);

Case 2:02-cv-04355-RBS Document 6 Filed 09/18/2002 Page 1 of 2
B. A brief statement of all causes of action, the essential elements of

each cause of action, and the relief sought;

C. A brief statement of the defenses asserted and the essential elements

of each affirmative defense;

D. Whether the Parties have complied with the disclosure requirements

of Fed.R.Civ. P.26(a)(1) and, if not the date on which such disclosures will be completed;

E. The date by which the Parties anticipate all discovery (including

expert discovery) will be completed;

F. Whether all necessary parties have been properly joined, and if not,

the name of any such party and each Party’s respective position of why such party is or is

not necessary to the action.

G. Whether settlement negotiations have taken place and each Party’s

respective position on settlement.

H. A list of all counsel who will be attending the Scheduling

Conference, identifying the party whom each attorney represents.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

 

R. Barclay Surrick, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04355-RBS Document 6 Filed 09/18/2002 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 31.2**I, Brian T. Marley, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Belk, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: June 14, 2007 /s/ Brian T. Marley
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

JODI K. HUPE, mother and *

next friend of B.A.H., a minor, *

* No. 14

- 448V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: January 8, 2016

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorney’s fees and costs; award in

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * the amount to which respondent does

* not object.

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Theodore G. Pashos , Esq.

, Niedner, Bodeux, Carmichael, Huff, Lenox and Pashos

, L.L.P.

, St. Charles

, MO

, for Petitioner;

Amy Kokot

, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS 1

On January 6, 2016

, petitioner filed a stipulation of fact concerning final

attorneys’ fees and costs in the above

- captioned matter. Previously, petitioner

informally submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent

for review. Upon review of peti tioner’s application, respondent raised objections

to certain items. Based on subsequent dis cussions, petitioner amended her

application to request $ 25,000 .00 for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by

petitioner’s counsel, an amount s to which respondent d oes n ot object. The Court

awards this amount.

On May 27 , 2014

, Jodi K. Hupe, mother and next friend of B.A.H., filed a

petition for compensation

, alleging that the Gardasil vaccination , which sh e

received on June 1 , 201 1 , caused B.A.H. t o lose conscious ness and fall, suffering

1 T he E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17,

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b),

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical inf ormation or other

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special

master will appear in the document posted on the website.2

injuries to her jaw and face. P etitioner received compensation based upon the

parties’ proffer

. Decision

, issued Ju ly 9 , 2015. Because petitioner received

compensation, s he is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. §

300aa

- 15(e).

Petitioner seeks a total of $ 25 ,000.00 in attorney s’ fees and costs.

Respondent has no objection to the amount requeste d for attorneys’ fees and costs.

After reviewing th e request, the Court awards the following:

A lump sum of $ 25 ,000.00, in the form of a check made payable to

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Theodore G. Pashos , for attorneys’

fees and other litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions may be direct ed to my law clerk, Dan Hoffman, at (202) 357

-

6360

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Chr istian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master
No. 52208.

protests 97377-K, etc. (New York).

#### Braun Bros. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese: (1) 2)4 percent for the cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstract 48269; and (2) 1 percent for the cheese similar to the Reggiano cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States,*supra. The protests were sustained to this extent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSA BUENROSTRO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73181

Agency No. A095-451-051

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 13, 2014** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Rosa Buenrostro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We

dismiss the petition for review. 

 We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua

FILED

AUG 15 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See

Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

2 11-73181
Before the Third Division,

April 3, 1958

No. 61769.

#### Carson M. Simon & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 279902-K and 291170-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of articles which were the manufacture of the United States, returned after having been imported, without having been advanced in value or improved in condition; that all of the applicable customs regulations have been complied with; and that the collector would now classify the merchandise free of duty under said paragraph 1615, if he could do so. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following Abstract 47521, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2021062EN.01003002.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/30

---

Order of the General Court of 18 December 2020 — Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and Others v Commission

(Case T-146/16) (1)

(State aid - Annulment of the contested measure - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 62/37)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland (‘s-Graveland, Netherlands) and the 12 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: P. Kuypers and M. de Wit, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, J. Langer and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 5929 final of 2 September 2015 on State aid SA.27301 (2015/NN) — Netherlands, relating to the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land, a summary of which has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2016 C 9, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application to intervene lodged by Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and the other applicants for leave to intervene whose names are set out in Annex II. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application to intervene lodged by Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and the other applicants for leave to intervene whose names are set out in Annex II.

| 3. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

| 4. | Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and the other applicants for leave to intervene whose names are set out in Annex II shall bear the costs relating to their application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and the other applicants for leave to intervene whose names are set out in Annex II shall bear the costs relating to their application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

---
# C_2019213EN.01002601.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 May 2019 — QH v Parliament

(Case T-748/16) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Decision rejecting the request for assistance - Principles of objectivity and impartiality - Right to good administration - Right to be heard)

(2019/C 213/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: QH (represented initially by N. Lhoëst and S. Michiels, and subsequently by N. Lhoëst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 26 January 2016 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution rejected the request for assistance made by the applicant on 11 December 2014 and the decision of 12 July 2016 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment rejected the applicant’s claim and, secondly, compensation for the loss he allegedly suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of that authority when processing that request for assistance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the European Parliament’s decision of 26 January 2016 rejecting his request for assistance, as confirmed by the decision of 12 July 2016 rejecting his claim; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the European Parliament’s decision of 26 January 2016 rejecting his request for assistance, as confirmed by the decision of 12 July 2016 rejecting his claim;

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

2.

Dismisses the claim as to the remainder;

| 3. | Declares that the parties are to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the parties are to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001051818
<NAME> FLAGSTAR CAPITAL CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1,000
<CASH>                                          19,081
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        105,994
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 129,908
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                581
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     57,500
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,827
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 129,908
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,890
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 1,890
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,890
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,778
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,778
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,778
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   6.815
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 78800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25263]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 16, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 8, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
101 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-47, CP2024-47.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-25263 Filed 11-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB     Document 16      Filed 07/30/2002     Page 1 of 11

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB     Document 16      Filed 07/30/2002     Page 2 of 11

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB     Document 16      Filed 07/30/2002     Page 3 of 11

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB     Document 16      Filed 07/30/2002     Page 4 of 11

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB     Document 16      Filed 07/30/2002     Page 5 of 11

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB     Document 16      Filed 07/30/2002     Page 6 of 11

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB     Document 16      Filed 07/30/2002     Page 7 of 11

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB     Document 16      Filed 07/30/2002     Page 8 of 11

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB     Document 16      Filed 07/30/2002     Page 9 of 11

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB     Document 16      Filed 07/30/2002     Page 10 of 11

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB     Document 16      Filed 07/30/2002     Page 11 of 11
# C_2017357EN.01003202.xml

| 23.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/32

---

Order of the General Court of 6 September 2017 — Papathanasiou v EUIPO

(Case T-549/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 357/42)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-64/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

1

---