alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015089EN.01004901.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/49

---

Action brought on 26 January 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-11/15)

(2015/C 089/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions determining the applicant’s rights to reimbursement of annual travel expenses under Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013, amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the CEOS.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare illegal and inapplicable Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare illegal and inapplicable Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | annul the decisions cancelling all reimbursement of the applicant’s annual travel expenses as of 2014 onwards; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions cancelling all reimbursement of the applicant’s annual travel expenses as of 2014 onwards;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6245

KAREN OVELY TEJEDA REYES,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THOMAS HOMAN, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00734-CMH-JFA)

Submitted: October 26, 2017 Decided: November 9, 2017

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivan Yacub, YACUB LAW OFFICES, LLC, Woodbridge, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana 

J. Boente, United States Attorney, Kimere J. Kimball, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Karen Ovely Tejeda Reyes, a native and citizen of Honduras who is not detained 

and whose 2005 expedited removal order has not been reinstated since she returned to the 

United States, appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) 

petition for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Reyes v. 

Homan, No. 1:16-cv-00734-CMH-JFA (E.D. Va., Jan. 10, 2017). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Ebenezer G. Patten *versus*John Ellingwood.

©f new promises by bankrupts, respecting debts discharged by the bankruptcy.

Exceptions from the District Court, Allen, J. presiding. Assumpsit. Under an appropriate brief statement, defendant proved his discharge in bankruptcy. Plaintiff proved that during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings, the defendant told him, *“ as you have used me well, you shall not*
      *164
      *lose a cent by nvy going into bankruptcy. I expect to get through this season, and will pay a part of it next fall, and the rest as fast as I can.”*In a subsequent conversation, defendant told, plaintiff, *“ I have got through*— *cannot pay now*— *will pay as soon as I can.”*

There was evidence on both sides as to the defendant’s ability to pay. The Judge ruled the foregoing promises to be conditional, and that plaintiff, in order to recover, must show the defendant’s ability to pay.

*Kelley,*for plaintiff.

*Mudgett, for*defendant.

Howard, J.,

orally.—The rulings were right.

*Exceptions overruled.*
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 16, 2014

No. 04-14-00206-CV

PMSALS 1, LLC,

Appellant

v.

ROSENTHAL PAUERSTEIN SANDOLOSKI AGATHER L.L.P. and Jonathan Starr,

Appellees

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-17620

Honorable Olin B. Strauss, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was originally due to be filed in this appeal on April 28, 2014. On 

May 2, 2014, this court notified the court reporter, Mr. Luis Duran, Jr., that the reporter’s record 

was late. Mr. Duran was instructed to file a notification of late record by May 12, 2014, if the 

record had not been filed because appellant had failed to pay the fee for preparing the record. 

Otherwise, Mr. Duran was instructed to file the reporter’s record by June 2, 2014. Because Mr. 

Duran failed to file the reporter’s record by the extended deadline, a clerk of this court contacted 

Mr. Duran on June 9, 2014, and left a detailed message regarding the missed deadline and the 

unfiled record. As of this date, the reporter’s record still has not been filed, and Mr. Duran failed 

to respond to our clerk’s message. 

It is therefore ORDERED that Mr. Duran file the reporter’s record in this court no later 

than June 30, 2014. If the record is not received by such date, an order may be issued directing 

Mr. Duran to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to file the 

record. The clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on Mr. Duran by 

certified mail, return receipt requested, or give other personal notice of this order with proof of 

delivery. Because “[t]he trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the 

appellate record is timely filed,” TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c), the clerk of the court is directed to serve 

a copy of this order on the Honorable Gloria Saldana, Judge of the 438th Judicial District Court.
_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of June, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

November 1 7, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00435

- CR

Eric WILLRICH

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR11728A Honorable Frank J. Castro , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant ’ s brief wa s due on November 15 , 2022

. This deadline reflects the Court’s granting of Appellant’s first motion for extension of time, which allowed for a seventy

- six

- day extension

. Appellant now files a second motion for extension of time and seeks a fifteen

- day extension. After consideration, we GRANT IN PART the motion and ORDER appellant to file his brief by November 28 , 2022

. Further requests for extension of time will be disfavored abs ent extenuating circumstances

.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 17th day of November, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz Clerk of Court
Exhibit
13.2   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 Annual Report of Integrated Media Technology Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20 for the period
ended December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Alson Shun Wai LAU,
Chief Financial Controller of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter
63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:  1.
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
    operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.  This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.    Date:
March 31, 2018   /S/
Alson Shun Wai LAU Alson
Shun Wai LAU Chief
Financial Controller
#### William H. LEE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent.

No. 05-3287.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 23, 2005.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
# C_2015302EN.01001701.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/17

---

Appeal brought on 12 June 2015 by Matratzen Concord GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 April 2015 in Case T-258/13 Matratzen Concord v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Matratzen Concord

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-295/15 P)

(2015/C 302/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (represented by: I. Selting, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commerciale sociétá in accomandita

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the decision of the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of 16 April 2015 in Case T-258/13 concerning the cancellation of the Community trade mark 281 86 80 ‘Arktis’ due to lack of genuine use; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the decision of the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of 16 April 2015 in Case T-258/13 concerning the cancellation of the Community trade mark 281 86 80 ‘Arktis’ due to lack of genuine use;

| — | order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant alleges the following errors of law in the decision of the General Court:

The General Court wrongly took into account the sales figures of the company Breiding in favour of the contested mark. The number of items sold by the company Breiding during the period at issue from 2006 to 2009 should not have been taken into account.

When examining the genuine use, the General Court wrongly took into account not the goods marked ‘Arktis’ but the goods marked ‘Arktis Line’ and took the view that the addition ‘Line’ is exclusively descriptive.

In addition, the General Court exercised its discretion wrongly in finding that there was genuine use of the contested mark although the trade mark proprietor’s goods turnovers were extremely small.

Lastly, the General Court did not have regard to the fact that the genuine use at issue concerns ‘bedding’ and ‘bed blankets’. However, the trade mark proprietor submitted evidence only of use of the mark for ‘bed blankets’ and not for other bedding such as pillows and mattresses. For this reason at least ‘bedding’ must be cancelled from the mark.

---
# C_2016027EN.01000501.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Prekršajni Sud u Bjelovaru (Croatia) lodged on 25 September 2015 — Renata Horžić v Privredna banka Zagreb, Božo Prka

(Case C-511/15)

(2016/C 027/06)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Referring court

Prekršajni Sud u Bjelovaru

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Renata Horžić

Applicant:

Defendants: Privredna banka Zagreb, Božo Prka

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | May the retrospective application of the law [on consumer credit] be interpreted and determined exclusively in accordance with the provisions of that law, and is such an application of the law [on consumer credit] consistent with EU law, in particular Article 30 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2008, (1) the first paragraph of which expressly states that that directive does not apply to credit agreements concluded before the entry into force of national legislation that transposed the directive into national law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May the retrospective application of the law [on consumer credit] be interpreted and determined exclusively in accordance with the provisions of that law, and is such an application of the law [on consumer credit] consistent with EU law, in particular Article 30 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2008, (1) the first paragraph of which expressly states that that directive does not apply to credit agreements concluded before the entry into force of national legislation that transposed the directive into national law?

1

| 2. | May the criminal provision of Article 26(1)(28) of the Croatian law on consumer credit, in the context described above, be interpreted consistently with Article 23 of the directive and in the light of the transitory provisions in Article 30 thereof, as meaning that the penalties laid down for breach of a national provision adopted on the basis of the directive in question may not be applied to breaches that may be found in respect of credit agreements ongoing at the date of the implementation of the national implementing measures? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May the criminal provision of Article 26(1)(28) of the Croatian law on consumer credit, in the context described above, be interpreted consistently with Article 23 of the directive and in the light of the transitory provisions in Article 30 thereof, as meaning that the penalties laid down for breach of a national provision adopted on the basis of the directive in question may not be applied to breaches that may be found in respect of credit agreements ongoing at the date of the implementation of the national implementing measures?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

1

---
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Information                contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                  |                                                                      |                                                |
|---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |                                                                      |
|                             |                                                                 |                                           |
| Date:              September 12, 2007 | By:                                                             | /s/ Arthur              F.              Trudel |
|                                  | Arthur              F. Trudel                                             |
|                                  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and              Secretary |

----
Before the Third Division,

May 25, 1961

No. 65700.

#### Air Express International Agency, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/33392 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, . J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that had the complete file been before the collector during his 90-day period for review, the collector would have allowed free entry of the merchandise and following Abstracts 57104 and 64361, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Docket Number FAA-2013-0698
# C_2015171EN.01001601.xml

| 26.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Colena AG v Deiters GmbH

(Case C-78/15)

(2015/C 171/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Colena AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Deiters GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are coloured non-corrective themed contact lenses consisting of copolymers and water (hydrogel) a ‘cosmetic product’ (‘substance’ and/or ‘mixture’) within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 (1), which is intended, within the meaning of that provision, to be placed in contact with external parts of the human body? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are coloured non-corrective themed contact lenses consisting of copolymers and water (hydrogel) a ‘cosmetic product’ (‘substance’ and/or ‘mixture’) within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 (1), which is intended, within the meaning of that provision, to be placed in contact with external parts of the human body?

1

| 2. | Can the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 be extended to a situation where a product which does not fulfil the conditions of Article 2(1)(a) of the regulation appears to be a cosmetic product according to the predominant purpose for a reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect average consumer, for example owing to the fact that wording such as ‘Cosmetic eye accessories are governed by the EU Cosmetics Directive’ or ‘Colour eye accessories are governed by the EU Cosmetics Directive’ is used on the packaging? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 be extended to a situation where a product which does not fulfil the conditions of Article 2(1)(a) of the regulation appears to be a cosmetic product according to the predominant purpose for a reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect average consumer, for example owing to the fact that wording such as ‘Cosmetic eye accessories are governed by the EU Cosmetics Directive’ or ‘Colour eye accessories are governed by the EU Cosmetics Directive’ is used on the packaging?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products, OJ 2009 L 342, p. 59.

1

---
# Official Journal L 150/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.150.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 150 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 549 June 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.150.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 150

English edition

Legislation

Volume 549 June 2011

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 554/2011 of 30 May 2011 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China | 1 |
| | * | Council Regulation (EU) No 555/2011 of 6 June 2011 amending Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff | 3 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 556/2011 of 8 June 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 4 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2011/335/EU |
| | * | Council Implementing Decision of 30 May 2011 authorising the Republic of Lithuania to apply a measure derogating from Article 287 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax | 6 |
| | | RECOMMENDATIONS |
| | | 2011/336/EU |
| | * | Council Recommendation of 17 May 2011 on the appointment of the President of the European Central Bank | 8 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 554/2011 of 30 May 2011 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China

1

*

Council Regulation (EU) No 555/2011 of 6 June 2011 amending Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff

3

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 556/2011 of 8 June 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

4

DECISIONS

2011/335/EU

*

Council Implementing Decision of 30 May 2011 authorising the Republic of Lithuania to apply a measure derogating from Article 287 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax

6

RECOMMENDATIONS

2011/336/EU

*

Council Recommendation of 17 May 2011 on the appointment of the President of the European Central Bank

8

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
No. 50262.

#### Protest 111818-K/12661 of F. J. Cazalas (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Keepe, J.

There being nothing in the record sufficient to disturb the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.