alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018364EN.01001101.xml

| 8.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2018 — Simpson v Council

(Case T-646/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Upgrade - Classification in grade - Decision not to award the applicant grade AD 9 after he had passed a grade AD 9 open competition - Dismissal of the action at first instance after referral back by the General Court - Composition of the panel of judges which adopted the order at first instance - Procedure for appointment of a judge to the Civil Service Tribunal - Tribunal established by law - Principle of the right to a judge assigned by law))

(2018/C 364/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2016, Simpson v Council, (F-142/11 RENV, EU:F:2016:136), and seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2016, Simpson v Council (F-142/11 RENV); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2016, Simpson v Council (F-142/11 RENV);

| 2. | Refers the case to a chamber of the General Court other than that which ruled on the present appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case to a chamber of the General Court other than that which ruled on the present appeal;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.

---
**Exhibit 15.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-162217) of América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V.,the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-162217) of Radiomóvil Dipsa, S.A. de C.V. and in the related prospectus’ of our reports dated April 1, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of AméricaMóvil, S.A.B. de C.V. and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V., included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2009.

Mancera, S.C. 

A member practice of 

Ernst & Young Global 

/s/ Omero Campos Segura 

C.P.C. Omero Campos Segura 

Mexico City, Mexico 

May 25, 2010
Before the Second Division,

May 21, 1968

No. P68/241.

protests 63/13389, etc. (New York).

#### Platon Fabrics Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Bao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of waterproof cloth similar in all material respects, including waterproofing, to the velveteen cloth the subject of *Amity*Fabrics, *Inc.*v. *United States*(51 Cust Ct. 97, C.D. 2416), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(d)

                                 AMENDMENT EIGHT
                    TO THE FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                     SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN
                               (1996 RESTATEMENT)

         WHEREAS, the Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors of
FleetBoston Financial Corporation has determined that it is desirable to amend
the FleetBoston Financial Corporation Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan
(1996 Restatement), as amended (the "Plan"), as permitted by Article 7 of the
Plan.

         NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective immediately as
follows:

1.       Appendix A is hereby amended to add the following new Sub-section 3 at
         the end of Section A:

         3.       Consistent with the actions taken by the Human Resources
         Committee at their meeting held on October 15, 2002, Anne Finucane
         shall become a participant in the Plan on January 1, 2003. For purposes
         of calculating her retirement benefit under the Plan, if Ms. Finucane
         remains continuously employed through January 1, 2008, or if her
         employment is terminated by the Company without "cause" or if she
         terminates her employment for "good reason" following a "change in
         control" of the Company, Ms. Finucane will receive 2 years of Credited
         Service for each year of actual service since January 1, 2003, such
         practice to continue until she is credited with a maximum of thirty
         (30) years of Credited Service. The terms "cause" and "good reason"
         shall be defined as such terms are defined in her change of control
         agreement with the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment Eight has been adopted by the Human Resources
Committee on the 15th day of October, 2002 and is executed by a duly authorized
officer of FleetBoston Financial Corporation.

                                    FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                                    By:  /s/ M. ANNE SZOSTAK
                                         -----------------------------
                                         M. Anne Szostak
                                         Executive Vice President and
                                          Director of Human Resources
Before the First Division,

June 18, 1941

No. 46072.

#### Protests 900054-G, etc., of Harshaw Chemical Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2017161EN.01002702.xml

| 22.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO (ViSAGE)

(Case T-219/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark ViSAGE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 161/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2016 (Case R 507/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ViSAGE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.

1

---
# sec5_balsh_2023

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin 2023-04	&"Arial,Bold"&10V BS - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10March 2023
Before the Second Division,

August 15, 1950

No. 54608.

#### Wittnauer Watch Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 151250-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of altimeters similar in all material respects to those the subject of *L. Oppleman, Inc.*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 167, C. D. 225) and *Wagner-Watrous, Inc.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 39, C. D. 419), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 63584.

protests 58/8910, etc. (New York).

#### Wear Ever Baby Carriage Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of ribbon similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Beer Stern Import Corp.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 294, C.D. 1944), except that the merchandise herein is velvet pile ribbon, wholly or in chief value of cotton, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### Isaac LEE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. COAHOMA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants.

No. 90-1122.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 4, 1993.

Charles E. Webster, A. Jane Heidelberg, Clarksdale, MS, for appellants.

William M. Chaffin, Clarksdale, MS, Susan D. Fahey, Armin J. Moeller, Jr., Jackson, MS, for appellees.

Before DUHÉ, Circuit Judge, and RONEY *, Senior Circuit Judge.1

*

 Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

1

. Due to his retirement on January 15, 1992, Chief Judge Charles Clark did not participate in this Order. This Order is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(b).

ORDER:

The motion of defendants to recall the mandate heretofore issued in this case for the purpose of correcting a typographical error in the opinion reported at *Lee v. Coahoma County, Miss.,*937 F.2d 220 (5th Cir.1991), is GRANTED.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the mandate previously issued in this case is recalled, that the citation in footnote 2 of the Court’s opinion be changed from 29 C.F.R. § 553.230 to 29 C.F.R. § 553.233, so that the footnote will read as follows:

> In determining each deputy’s hourly wage in a given work period, the district court should multiply the deputy’s monthly salary by twelve to get a yearly salary, including a two week paid vacation to which each deputy is entitled. The district court should then divide the yearly salary by the number of work periods in a year. The court should then divide the sum by the number of regular hours which may be worked in that work period according to the ratio set out in 29 C.F.R. § 553.233. This will result in a determination of each deputy’s appropriate hourly wage in the work period determined by the district court,

and that the mandate be reissued immediately as herein amended.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and for assessment of fees and costs be DENIED, and that this Order be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROGER EDWARD JEROME BIEROS, : CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner :

:

VS. :

:

SUPERINTENDENT KENNETH KYLER :

(SCI at Huntingdon), :

AND :

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF :

THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, :

AND :

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF :

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, :

Respondents : NO. 02-4453

ORDER

AND NOW, this 17th day of September, 2002, it is hereby

ORDERED that the respondent(s) shall file a specific and detailed

answer to petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, with the Clerk of this Court, within twenty

(20) days from the date of this Order.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________________

 CHARLES B. SMITH

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-04453-JCJ Document 6 Filed 09/17/2002 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY :

:

vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4435

:

DAVID FORREST, et al. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28TH day of July, 2005, the court having been

previously advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and

disposition because of the following reason:

[] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a

related action.

[] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[] - Interlocutory appeal filed 

[X] - Other: pending settlement

it is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical

purposes and place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the

case be restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it

may proceed to final disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of

the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

 S/Juan R. Sanchez

______________________________

 JUAN R. SANCHEZ, J.

 FOR ANITA B. BRODY, J. 

Civ. 13 (8/80)

 COPIES VIA ECF ON TO: COPIES VIA U.S. MAIL ON TO:

Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 152 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 1 of 1
**GENERAL FUND RECEIPT (GFR) ACCOUNT GUIDE**

**Effective Fiscal 2020**

## **Scenario 4: Non-Custodial Statement Collections: Collection of Receivables From Canceled Authority**

**Canceled Appropriation**

Agencies must close appropriation accounts available for obligation during a definite period on September 30th of the fifth fiscal year after the account’s obligational availability ends.  Cancel any remaining balances (whether obligated or unobligated) in the account.  

**Beginning Trial Balance – Expired Account which is Canceling**

**Year 6 (September 30 of 5th expired year)**

Also Post:

**Year 6 – Preclosing Adjusted Trial Balance**

**Financial Statements:**

**Reclassified Financial Statements:**

**Closing Entries:**

**Year 6 (September 30 of 5th expired year) – Post-Closing Trial Balance**

**Year 7 – 1st Quarter**

Also Post:

**Year 7 - Preclosing Trial Balance**

**Financial Statements:**

**Year 7 – 4th Quarter**

Also Post:

**Year 7 – Preclosing Trial Balance**

**Year 7 – Preclosing Adjusting Entry**

**Year 7 – Preclosing Adjusted Trial Balance**

**Closing Entries:**

**Post-Closing Trial Balance:**

                                                                                                                     Page 1 of 24                                               IRC Handout April 23, 2020
Before the Second Division,

February 1, 1951

No. 55201.

#### Morganite, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 151028-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MLEA, INC. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 02-4393 

:

ATLANTIC RECYCLED RUBBER INC. :

 et al. :

ORDER

And now this 24th day of May, 2005, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Casella Waste

System’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 18) is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in

favor of Defendant Casella Waste Systems, Inc.

 BY THE COURT:

 

 Juan R. Sánchez, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 46 Filed 05/24/2005 Page 1 of 1
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1532 

To disqualify from operating a commercial motor vehicle for life an individual 

who uses a commercial motor vehicle in committing a felony involving 

human trafficking. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 12, 2017 

Mr. THUNE (for himself, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, and Mr. NELSON) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To disqualify from operating a commercial motor vehicle 

for life an individual who uses a commercial motor vehicle in committing a felony involving human trafficking. 

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 ‘‘No Human Trafficking 

5 on Our Roads Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIFETIME DISQUALIFICATION WITHOUT REIN7 STATEMENT. 

8 Section 31310(d) of title 49, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1532 IS

1 (1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘CONTROLLED

2 SUBSTANCE VIOLATIONS’’ and inserting ‘‘LIFETIME

3 DISQUALIFICATION WITHOUT REINSTATEMENT’’; 

4 (2) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘(1) CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE VIOLATIONS.—The 

6 Secretary’’; and 

7 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(2) HUMAN TRAFFICKING VIOLATIONS.—The 

9 Secretary shall disqualify from operating a commer10 cial motor vehicle for life an individual who uses a 

11 commercial motor vehicle in committing a felony in12 volving an act or practice described in paragraph (9) 

13 of section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection 

14 Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(9)).’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
# sec5_sbr_2023

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2023-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SBR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout November 30, 2022
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-31315

Conference Calendar

 

JAMES RICHARD WEEMS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-996

- - - - - - - - - -

August 18, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Richard Weems (#120628) pleaded guilty to the charge

of first-degree murder and is serving a life sentence without

benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence at the

Louisiana State Penitentiary. Weems has appealed the dismissal

of his federal application for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Weems contends that his right to due process was violated

because the indictment was not signed by the foreman of the grand

jury, contrary to state law. The sufficiency of a state

indictment is not a matter for federal habeas relief unless it 
No. 97-31315

-2-

can be shown that the indictment is so defective that it deprived

the state court of jurisdiction. Branch v. Estelle, 631 F.2d

1229, 1233 (5th Cir. 1980). If the state courts have held that

an indictment is sufficient under state law, a federal court need

not address that issue. McKay v. Collins, 12 F.3d 66, 68 (5th

Cir. 1994). The state habeas court found that the grand jury

foreman had, in fact, signed the original indictment. This

finding was affirmed by the court of appeal. The rejection of

the defective-indictment issue by the state courts was not based

upon an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the

evidence presented in the state-court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(d)(2). 

Weems contends that his attorneys erred in failing to

challenge the indictment. Weems cannot show that he was

prejudiced by his attorneys’ failure to challenge the indictment. 

See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 

Weems also contends that his attorneys rendered ineffective

assistance in advising him to plead guilty. Because a

certificate of appealability was not granted as to this issue, it

is not considered. See Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151-52

(5th Cir. 1997). 

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.2** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT ENGINEERS**     We refer to our report auditing estimates of the natural gas,    natural gas liquids and conventional oil reserves attributable    to Husky Energy Inc. (the “Company”) as of    December 31, 2007 (the “Report”).     We hereby consent to references to our name in the    Company’s Annual Report on    Form 40-F    to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange    Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as    amended, and the Company’s registration statement on    Form F-9    (File    No. 333-89714).    We also confirm that we have read the Company’s Annual    Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2007,    dated March 10, 2008, and that we have no reason to believe    that there are any misrepresentations in the information    contained in it that was derived from the Report or that is    within our knowledge as a result of the services we performed in    connection with such Report.     Sincerely, **McDaniel & Associates Consultants Ltd.**     /s/ P.A. Welch    P.A. Welch    President & Managing Director    Calgary, Alberta, Canada    March 10, 2008
# Budget Bal Sheet

DRAFT	

DRAFT&"Calibri,Bold Italic"This schedule is for Credit Reform activity only. 	&P of &N	IRC Handout July 12,2018

# Footnotes

DRAFT	

DRAFT&"Calibri,Bold Italic"This schedule is for Credit Reform activity only. 	&P of &N	IRC Handout July 12, 2018
# C_2017283EN.01003902.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (ECOLAB)

(Case T-150/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark ECOLAB - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 283/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ecolab USA, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: V. Töbelmann and C. Menebröcker, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill and K. Doherty, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 (Case R 644/2015-4) relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ECOLAB.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ecolab USA, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ecolab USA, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

1

---
Croplands
Ign Cropland Cropland SmallGrainy) Row Smal
b

ad 4 Grasland Woodland “Row Grope Crops Grains
(es Lao]

Eastern Forests

Northern Northem
Mixed Forest Deciduous Forest

(aa

Western Forests

Westem Western Western . ¢ F Bi Z ' 3 i Southeast Southeast
Woodlands Mixed Fore ¥ é 3 r q M

Alpine : Kj - eS ne ae Conateros Forest

Tundra auinie ee os le eet:

Bsc
Grasslands é ee . tee Coastal Wetlands
ey Rey ae ihe Seasonal Land Cover Regions c Het Forested

[as] Produced by the EROS Data Center, National Mapping Division,
ies] 7 A USS. Geological Survey, and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area Projection
SCALE 1:11,000,000
Statute Miles
200
----

----

I Comunicazioni

Commissione

----

Tassi di cambio dell'euro (1)

25 settembre 2006

(2006/C 231/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Fonte: tassi di cambio di riferimento pubblicati dalla Banca centrale europea.

----

----

Notifica preventiva di una concentrazione

(Caso n. COMP/M.4319 — Mondi/Schleipen & Erkens)

(2006/C 231/02)

(Testo rilevante ai fini del SEE)

----

(1)GU L 24 del 29.1.2004, pag. 1.

----

----

Notifica preventiva di una concentrazione

(Caso n. COMP/M.4396 — Apollo Group/TNT Logistics)

Caso ammissibile alla procedura semplificata

(2006/C 231/03)

(Testo rilevante ai fini del SEE)

----

(1)GU L 24 del 29.1.2004, pag. 1.

(2)GU C 56 del 5.3.2005, pag. 32.

----