alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016048EN.01009602.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/96 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/96

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — De Loecker v EEAS

(Case F-34/15) (1)

1

((Civil service - EEAS staff - Temporary staff - Psychological harassment - Articles 12a and 24b of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Rejection - Request to open an administrative investigation - Right to be heard - Infringement))

(2016/C 048/110)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Stéphane De Loecker (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul the decision to reject the complaint of psychological harassment lodged by the applicant against the Chief Operating Officer of the EEAS.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 14 April 2014 by which the European External Action Service rejected the request for assistance under Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union made by Mr De Loecker; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 14 April 2014 by which the European External Action Service rejected the request for assistance under Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union made by Mr De Loecker;

| 2. | Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Loecker. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Loecker.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 1/6/2015, p. 25.

1

---
NO. 07-05-0403-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	SEPTEMBER 26, 2006

	______________________________

	YOLANDA NELSON AND JAMES L. JOHNSON, APPELLANTS

	V.

	ALBERTSON’S, INC., APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY;

	NO. 04-23919-1; HONORABLE R. BRENT KEIS, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and HANCOCK, JJ.

	ON SECOND AMENDED JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS

	By opinion and judgment dated July 13, 2006, this Court affirmed the trial court’s order granting monetary sanctions in favor of appellee Albertson’s, Inc. and against appellants Yolanda Nelson and James L. Johnson.  On August 2, 2006, Nelson and Johnson filed a motion for rehearing, and on August 28, 2006, the parties filed a first amended joint motion to dismiss the appeal relying on Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  The parties indicated they had reached a settlement.  The joint motion to dismiss, however, was not accompanied by a signed agreement to be filed with the Clerk of the Court, and resultantly was denied.  The motion for rehearing was overruled on September 8, 2006.

	While our plenary power continues, the parties have now filed a second amended motion to dismiss the appeal with an executed copy of the Compromise Settlement Agreement.  We now withdraw our opinion and judgment of July 13, 2006, and in lieu thereof, grant the joint motion to dismiss the appeal.  The trial court’s order granting monetary sanctions is set aside without regard to the merits and the cause is remanded to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the Compromise Settlement Agreement.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).  

	It is so ordered.

						Don H. Reavis

						     Justice
August 28, 1939

No. 42012.

Suit 4201.

#### Protests 849116-G, etc., of Globe Textile Co.

Abstract 38931. Appeal dismissed.
Case No. 14,659.

#### UNITED STATES v. BROWN.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 333.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1833.

Commitment — Offence—Indictment fob Break- . ixo Jail.

A commitment not stating on its face any of-fence, is not evidence of a commitment for felony, although written on the back of a warrant •ol arrest charging a felony, but not referring -to it..

[Cited in Érwin v. U. S.. 37 Fed. 486.]

Indictment for breaking gaol, when committed for felony in stealing a saddle. The commitment did not state any offence, but was written on the back of the warrant of arrest, which charged a felony; The commitment did not refer to the warrant of arrest.

THE COURT

(nem. con.) said, that it was no evidence of a commitment for felony.

Verdict, not guilty. '
No. 65731.

#### American Bayard Cycle Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/26972(B), etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the *513subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et at*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 53196.

#### Kachurin Drug Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 144659-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.1

   NUMBER                                                            SHARES
US

                [LOGO]             USA VIDEO
                               INTERACTIVE CORP.
              INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WYOMING

                                                               CUSIP 902924 20 8

THIS CERTIFIES THAT

is the registered holder of

    FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK WITHOUT PAR VALUE

in the Capital of the above named Corporation transferable on the books of the
Corporation by the registered holder in person or by Attorney duly authorized in
writing upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate
and the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the State of
Wyoming, and to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Corporation as
now or hereafter amended.

This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent and
Registrar of the Corporation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed on
its behalf by the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.

/s/ Frank Bowden                   DATED
      President                            COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED
                                           CIBC Mellon Trust Company     CALGARY
                                           TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR

/s/ Tony Drescher                          By _______________________________
      Secretary                                      Authorized Officer

  The Shares represented by this Certificate are transferable at the offices
                of CIBC Mellon Trust Company, Calgary, Alberta
THE OFFICE OF

THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

McLENNAN COUNTY, TEXAS 

219 North 6th Street, Suite 200

Waco, Texas 76701

Phone - (254) 757-5084

Fax - (254) 757-5021

Sterling Harmon Abelino “Abel” Reyna

Assistant Criminal District Attorney Criminal District Attorney

March 30, 2015 

Court of Criminal Appeals

Attention: Mr. Abel Acosta, Clerk 

P.O. Box 12308 

Austin, Texas 78711

VIA EFILING

RE: ALBERT LESLIE LOVE, JR.; CCA NO. AP-77,024 

To the Honorable Court: 

In response to the Court’s letter of March 20, 2015, the State’s Attorney will appear for oral argument in the 

above-referenced case on April 15, 2015. 

The State has not requested oral argument in this cause, and therefore is not designating specific points of 

error for argument. The State will appear to argue those points which may be designated by Appellant and 

approved by the Court. 

Sincerely,

Sterling Harmon, 

Chief Appellate Assistant District Attorney

McLennan County Criminal District Attorney’s Office

Cc: Mr. Ariel Payan

AP-77,024

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 3/30/2015 1:21:48 PM

Accepted 3/30/2015 1:31:04 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-21-00097-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.I.W.

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI20395

Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ, AND JUSTICE 

VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, appellant’s motion to dismiss is 

GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. No costs of appeal are assessed against appellant.

SIGNED June 23, 2021.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
# C_2015398EN.01000901.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/9

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 September 2015 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Criminal proceedings against Cdiscount SA

(Case C-13/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Directive 2005/29/EC - Consumer protection - Unfair commercial practices - Price reduction - Marking or display of reference price))

(2015/C 398/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Criminal proceedings against

Criminal proceedings against

Cdiscount SA

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which lay down a general prohibition of announcements of price reductions which do not show the reference price when the price is marked or displayed, without providing for an assessment case by case allowing it to be determined whether the announcements are unfair, in so far as those provisions pursue objectives relating to consumer protection. It is for the referring court to determine whether that is so in the case in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

1

---
# C_2016410EN.01001702.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — European Food v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (FITNESS)

(Case T-476/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark FITNESS - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c), Article 52(1)(a) and Article 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 37(b)(iv) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal))

(2016/C 410/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Food SA (Drăgănești, Romania) (represented by: I. Speciac, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and S. Cobet-Nüse, lawyers)

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 19 June 2015 (Case R 2542/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between European Food and Société des produits Nestlé.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 June 2015 (Case R 2542/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between European Food SA and Société des produits Nestlé SA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 June 2015 (Case R 2542/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between European Food SA and Société des produits Nestlé SA;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by European Food; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by European Food;

| 3. | Orders Société des produits Nestlé to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Société des produits Nestlé to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

1

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Publications 
-  Treesearch 
-                       Lake Tahoe watershed assessment: volume I                  

              -  Data and Tools 
              -  Publications                  -  Treesearch 
                -  Understory 
                -  National Forest Service Library 
              -  Multimedia 

# Lake Tahoe watershed assessment: volume I

| Authors: | Dennis D. Murphy, Christopher M. Knopp                                                                                           |
|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Year:    | 2000                                                                                                                             |
| Type:    | General Technical Report                                                                                                         |
| Station: | Pacific Southwest Research Station                                                                                               |
| DOI:     | https://doi.org/10.2737/PSW-GTR-175                                                                                              |
| Source:  | Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-175. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture; 753 p |

Download (PDF)

Cite

## Abstract

Volume II. Appendixes (PSW-GTR-176)

## Keywords

environmental historyair qualitywater qualitybiotic integritysocioeconomicsadaptive managementCaliforniaNevada

## Citation

☓
|  |
|--|

|  |  | Hearing: The Status of Religious Liberty in Russia Today**Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe**February 17, 2000**Official Transcript:**    Click here to access  file. **Witness List:****Name****Title****Affiliation**Pastor Igor NikitinN/AUnion of ChristiansProf. Dr. Anatoly KrasikovPresident of the Russian ChapterInternational Religious Liberty AssociationRabbi Pinchas GoldschmidtChief Rabbi of MoscowN/AStatement of Hon. Ben Nighthorse CampbellCo-ChairmanHelsinki CommissionStatement of Hon. Bob ClementMember of CongressHouse of RepresenativesStatement of Hon. Christopher H. SmithChairmanHelsinki CommissionStatement of Hon. Steny H. HoyerRanking MemberHelsinki Commission  **Related Issues:** - Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief Press Release:
Hearing Announced on Religious Liberty in Russia
 (
February 11, 2000
) |
|--|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
October 3, 2016

Mr. Brad Anderson Yamaha Motor Corporation
6555 Katella Avenue Cypress, CA 90630

Re: FAA

– 201 4

– 0397

Dear Mr. Anderson :

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and have determined that we will continue to process your petition.

As referenced in the September 7, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov

, we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently

- issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulatio ns, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request. We have determined that your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments , if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,
/s/ Dan Ngo Program Analyst
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 306 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 306

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR HOLOCAUST DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE CEREMONY.

    The Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on May 1, 2008, 
for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance 
of victims of the

              

 Holocaust. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out 
in accordance with such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may 
prescribe.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 10, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 306

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Permitting the use of the Rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part 
   of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the 
                               Holocaust.
```
combustionsurvey - Comments to EPA's Reconsideration of Boiler MACT and CISWI Rules 

 

Please find attached Alyeska Pipeline Service Company’s (Alyeska’s) comments to EPA’s reconsideration of the 

Boiler MACT and CISWI rules. Please let me know (email, 907-787-8568) if you have any questions or problems 

downloading the attached file. Thank-you...Don M.A. 

From: "Mark Anthony, Don T." <Don.MarkAnthony@alyeska-pipeline.com>

To:

 

"'shrager.brian@epa.gov'" <shrager.brian@epa.gov>, "'eddinger.jim@epa.gov'" 

<eddinger.jim@epa.gov>, "'jones.toni@epa.gov'" <jones.toni@epa.gov>, 

"'faison.george@epa.gov'" <faison.george@epa.gov>, "'combustionsurvey'" 

<combustionsurvey@erg.com>

Date: 7/14/2011 7:24 PM

Subject: Comments to EPA's Reconsideration of Boiler MACT and CISWI Rules 

Attachments: Alyeska's Reconsideration Notice Comments.pdf

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\GGibson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4E1F4280DO... 8/2/2011
# C_2017178EN.01001702.xml

| 6.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/17

---

Order of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SMILE)

(Case T-499/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 178/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Wulff and U. Hildebrandt, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2015 (Joined Cases R 1565/2014-2 and R 1939/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH and LG Electronics, Inc.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | LG Electronics, Inc., is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

LG Electronics, Inc., is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1
 
 
 
 Certification of CEO 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 of U.S. Energy Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Keith G. Larsen Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:
 
 (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/ Keith G. LarsenKeith G. Larsen,Chief Executive OfficerMay 9, 2011
 
 
 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to U.S. Energy Corp. and will be retained by U.S. Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 56676.

protest 178396-K (New York).

#### A. V. Berner & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The protest was dismissed.