alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,257,654               1,179,729
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,887                 219,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,085,012               7,610,334
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,371,553               9,009,161
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          127,943                 200,934
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,243,610               8,808,227
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,371,553               9,009,161
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,757                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,624                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                458,250                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   435,383                       0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
No. 39060.

#### Protest 793108-G of Genesee Brewing Co., Inc. (Rochester).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The protest was submitted without evidence in support of the claim made. It was therefore overruled.
# C_2015254EN.01000302.xml

| 3.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 254/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 254/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 23 April 2015 — TSI GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen

(Case C-183/15)

(2015/C 254/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TSI GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the combined nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature (1) and on the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that ultraviolet aerodynamic particle sizer spectrometers and handheld particle counters as described in more detail in the order fall under subheading 9027 10 10?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, OJ L 291, p. 1.

2

---
# C_2017129EN.01001801.xml

| 24.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Rafhaelo Gutti v EUIPO — Transformados del Sur (CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA)

(Case T-504/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA - Earlier national figurative mark representing two crossed flags - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 129/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rafhaelo Gutti, SL (Loja, Spain) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: B. Uriarte Valiente and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Transformados del Sur, SA (Seville, Spain) (represented by: M. Salas Martin, 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 Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2015 (Case R 2424/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Transformados del Sur and Rafhaelo Gutti.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rafhaelo Gutti, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rafhaelo Gutti, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

1

---
# C_2015065EN.01005202.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/52

---

Action brought on 2 January 2015 — Ipatau v Council

(Case T-2/15)

(2015/C 065/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vadzim Ipatau (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2014/750/CFSP of 30 October 2014 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2014/750/CFSP of 30 October 2014 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1159/2014 of 30 October 2014 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1159/2014 of 30 October 2014 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-693/13 Mikhalchanka v Council
   (1).

Mikhalchanka

Council

1

---

(1)  OJ 2014 C 93, p. 25.

1

---
#### Thomas P. GATES, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 05-3313.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 19, 2005.

Thomas P. Gates, pro se.

*Official*Caption1

1

. Required for use on petitions, formal briefs and appendices, court opinions, and dispositive court orders. FRAP 12(a); 32(a).

ORDER

The appeal having been docketed in error,

IT IS ORDERED:

That the appeal is DISMISSED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8


                  TERMINATION TO AMENDED ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT
                            DATED APRIL 19, 1999 TO
                  THE OPERATING AND REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT
                         ASANOL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

BETWEEN CYBEROAD GAMING CORPORATION, (the "Assignor") and CYBEROAD.COM (ISLE OF
MAN) LIMITED, (the "Assignee"), evidences that:


As of September 1, 1999, the parties hereby acknowledge and agree to the
termination of the above referenced agreement between the parties hereto, and
all rights and obligations on behalf of the parties thereunder are null and
void.

EXECUTION

This instrument may be executed in counterpart, in as many counterparts as may
be necessary, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and each of which
shall bear the date first written above.

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO ON THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1999

CYBEROAD GAMING CORPORATION             CYBEROAD.COM (ISLE OF MAN)


/s/  LAWRENCE COFIELD                   /s/  DAVID HARRIS
---------------------------             --------------------------
Lawrence Cofield,                       David Harris,
Director                                Director
Case No. 14,633.

#### UNITED STATES v. BOYER.

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

April 25. 1829.

[This was an indictment against Jacob K. Boyer for counterfeiting. The charge of Mr. Justice Washington is nowhere reported: 3 Haz. Reg. Pa. 289. containing a mere newspaper account of the trial.]
# C_2016222EN.01001701.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2016 — Bodegas Williams & Humbert v EUIPO — Central Hisumer (BOTANIC WILLIAMS & HUMBERT LONDON DRY GIN)

(Case T-193/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BOTANIC WILLIAMS & HUMBERT LONDON DRY GIN - Earlier EU word mark THE BOTANICALS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 222/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Williams & Humbert, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Central Hisumer, SL (Orihuela, Spain) (represented by: D. Garrido Jiménez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2015 (Case R 594/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Central Hisumer and Bodegas Williams & Humbert.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bodegas Williams & Humbert, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bodegas Williams & Humbert, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.

---
# C_2016048EN.01002601.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 7 December 2015 — Länsförsäkringar AB v A/S Matek

(Case C-654/15)

(2016/C 048/31)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Länsförsäkringar AB

Applicant:

Defendant: A/S Matek

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

The questions concern the interpretation and application of Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark where third parties use, without consent, in the course of trade, a sign similar to a Community trade mark (1).

1

The questions are:

| 1. | Does it affect the proprietor’s exclusive right that, within a period of five years following registration, he has not made genuine use of the Community trade mark in the European Union for goods or services covered by the registration? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does it affect the proprietor’s exclusive right that, within a period of five years following registration, he has not made genuine use of the Community trade mark in the European Union for goods or services covered by the registration?

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, in what circumstances and in what way does that situation affect the exclusive right? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, in what circumstances and in what way does that situation affect the exclusive right?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, filed pursuant to
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, of
UNIFAB International, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Peter J. Roman, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     3)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     4)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.


     /s/ Peter J. Roman
     ------------------------------
     Name: Peter J. Roman
     Title: Chief Financial Officer
     Date: August 11, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to UNIFAB International, Inc. and will be retained by UNIFAB
International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          88,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  297,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,700
<INVENTORY>                                    184,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               650,000
<PP&E>                                         732,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 268,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,440,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          268,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        900
<COMMON>                                         7,100
<OTHER-SE>                                     996,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,440,600
<SALES>                                        829,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               829,600
<CGS>                                          345,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  345,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               370,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                100,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             77,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    77,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05
        

</TABLE>
No. 44245.

#### Protest 917497-G of American Straw Goods Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protest was therefore sustained.
No. 46331.

#### Protest 787954-G of H. Grabenheimer & Sons, Inc.

Abstract 46185. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 269 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 1585, 

3 the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the 

4 following corrections: 

5 (1) In the table in section 2201(a)— 

6 (A) strike ‘‘Alaska’’ in the State column 

7 and insert ‘‘Alabama’’; and 
2 

•HCON 269 EH 

1 (B) in the item relating to Naval Station, 

2 Bremerton, Washington, strike ‘‘$119,760,000’’ 

3 in the amount column and insert 

4 ‘‘$190,960,000’’. 

5 (2) In section 2204(b)— 

6 (A) in paragraph (2), strike ‘‘Hawaii’’ and 

7 insert ‘‘Hawaii)’’; 

8 (B) in paragraph (3), strike ‘‘Guam’’ and 

9 insert ‘‘Guam)’’; and 

10 (C) add at the end the following new para11 graph: 

12 ‘‘(4) $71,200,000 (the balance of the amount 

13 authorized under section 2201(a) for a nuclear air14 craft carrier maintenance pier at Naval Station 

15 Bremerton, Washington).’’. 

16 (3) In section 2703— 

17 (A) insert ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION OF AP18 PROPRIATIONS.—’’ before ‘‘Funds’’; 

19 (B) in paragraph (4), strike 

20 ‘‘$2,107,148,000’’ and insert 

21 ‘‘$2,241,062,000’’; and 

22 (C) add at the end the following new sub23 section: 
3 

•HCON 269 EH 

1 ‘‘(b) GENERAL REDUCTION.—The amount otherwise 

2 authorized to be appropriated by subsection (a) is reduced 

3 by $133,914,000.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 12, 

2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 269 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives 

to correct the enrollment of the bill H.R. 1585.
PUBLIC LAW 110–151—DEC. 21, 2007 121 STAT. 1821 

Public Law 110–151 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To amend section 1091 of title 18, United States Code, to allow the prosecution 

of genocide in appropriate circumstances. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Genocide Accountability Act 

of 2007’’. 

SEC. 2. GENOCIDE. 

Section 1091 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 

striking subsection (d) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(d) REQUIRED CIRCUMSTANCE FOR OFFENSES.—The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and (c) is that— 

‘‘(1) the offense is committed in whole or in part within 

the United States; 

‘‘(2) the alleged offender is a national of the United States 

(as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)); 

‘‘(3) the alleged offender is an alien lawfully admitted for 

permanent residence in the United States (as that term is 

defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

(8 U.S.C. 1101)); 

‘‘(4) the alleged offender is a stateless person whose 

habitual residence is in the United States; or 

18 USC 1 note. 

Genocide 

Accountability 

Act of 2007. 

Dec. 21, 2007 

[S. 888] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
121 STAT. 1822 PUBLIC LAW 110–151—DEC. 21, 2007 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 888 (H.R. 2489): 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110–468 accompanying H.R. 2489 (Comm. on the Judiciary). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

Mar. 29, considered and passed Senate. 

Dec. 5, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

‘‘(5) after the conduct required for the offense occurs, the 

alleged offender is brought into, or found in, the United States, 

even if that conduct occurred outside the United States.’’. 

Approved December 21, 2007. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
# C_2017144EN.01006201.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/62

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf (ZARA)

(Case T-432/15) (1)

1

(2017/C 144/91)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1
                                                                    ------------

                       Summary of Incentive Bonus Plan of
                            Park National Corporation
                       ----------------------------------

         The Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of Park National
("Park National") administers Park National's incentive bonus plan which enables
the officers of The Park National Bank, The Richland Trust Company, Century
National Bank, The First-Knox National Bank of Mount Vernon and Guardian
Financial Services Company to share in any above-average return on equity (net
income divided by average equity) which Park National may generate during a
fiscal year.

         Above-average return on equity is defined as the amount by which the
net income to average equity ratio of Park National exceeds the median net
income to average equity ratio of all U.S. bank holding companies of similar
asset size ($1 billion to $3 billion). A formula determines the amount, if any,
by which Park National's return on equity ratio exceeds the median return on
equity ratio of these peer bank holding companies. Twenty percent (20%) of that
amount on a before-tax equivalent basis is available for incentive compensation.
If Park National's return on equity ratio is equal to or less than that of the
peer group, no incentive compensation will be available with respect to that
year. The President and Chief Executive Officer of Park National receives a
fixed percent-age of the amount available for incentive compensation as
determined by the Board of Directors of Park National. After deducting that
amount, the remaining amount is distributed to the officers of Park National
Bank, Richland Trust Company, Century National Bank, First-Knox National Bank
and Guardian Financial on the basis of their respective contributions to Park
National's meeting its short-term and long-term financial goals during the
fiscal year, which contributions are subjectively determined by the Chairman of
the Board and the President of Park National and approved by the Executive
Committee of the Board of Directors of Park National. Recommendations of the
Presidents of Park National's subsidiaries are considered when determining
incentive bonus amounts for officers of those subsidiaries. The determination of
the amounts of incentive bonus to be paid for a fiscal year and the payment of
those amounts are made during the first two quarters of the next fiscal year.