alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017151EN.01003001.xml

| 15.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — J & Joy v EUIPO — Joy-Sportswear (J AND JOY)

(Case T-387/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU word mark J AND JOY - Earlier national figurative mark joy SPORTSWEAR - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Assessment criteria - Composite mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 151/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: J & Joy SA (Waremme, Belgium) (represented by: A. Maqua, C. Pirenne and C. Smits, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Joy-Sportswear GmbH (Ottensoos, Germany), (represented by: T. Kiphuth, 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 Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2015 (Case R 1352/2014-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Joy-Sportswear and J & Joy.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders J & Joy SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders J & Joy SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.

1

---
Exhibit 14

                    Code of Ethics for Finance Professionals



This Code of Ethics applies to the President, the Chief Financial Officer, and
other persons performing similar functions for BNP U.S. Funding L.L.C. (the
"Firm"). The purpose of this Code of Ethics is to promote honest and ethical
conduct, particularly in relation to the maintenance of the Firm's financial
books and records and the preparation of financial statements. This Code of
Ethics supplements other codes of conduct of the Firm (or its affiliates) that
may be applicable from time to time.

A finance professional is expected to:

Act with honesty and promote ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of
actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional
relationships;

Disclose to the Board of Directors or the Corporate Secretary any material
transaction or relationship that reasonably could be expected to give rise to a
conflict of interest;

Assist in the providing of full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable
disclosure in reports and documents that the Firm files with, or submits to, the
Securities and Exchange Commission and in other public communications made by
the Firm;

Comply with applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations of federal,
state and local governments and other appropriate regulatory agencies;


Promptly report to the Board of Directors or Corporate Secretary any violation
of this Code of Ethics or other matters that might compromise the integrity of
the Firm's financial statements; and

Consult promptly with the Board of Directors should such professional violate
this Code of Ethics.






The Firm will take all necessary steps to enforce this Code of Ethics, and
violations thereof may result in disciplinary action, including dismissal.
Violations of this Code of Ethics may also constitute violations of law and may
subject the Firm and finance professionals to criminal or civil penalties.
Questions regarding the application of this Code of Ethics should be promptly
addressed to the Corporate Secretary.
Before the First Division,

June 9, 1949

No. 53238.

#### Norellis, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 140589-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The record disclosed that the involved items together with certain glassware were contained in case 91 appearing on the invoice herein. This particular case was not designated for examination and the appraiser advisorily classified all the merchandise therein as illuminating articles in chief value of glass, whereas the case contained certain items of furniture. On the record presented it was held that the items described as cabinets in case 91 are properly dutiable as claimed. The protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 50676.

#### Protests 96772-K, etc., of Bel Paese Sales Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the reliquidation of the entries herein involved is similar in all material respects to that in *Bel Paese Sales Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(15 Cust. Ct. 7, C. D. 932). In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited, judgment was entered directing the collector to reliquidate the entries herein, refunding the duty established to have been taken in excess, in accordance with the decision and judgment in Abstract 45376.
No. 56701.

protest 180529-K (New York).

#### Stalker Manufacturing Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of saddles, which saddles are in part of pigskin and valued at more than $40 each, similar in ail material respects to those the subject of Abstract 54419, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 47628.

#### Protests 868115-G, etc., of International Clearing House of N. Y. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441) the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty.
(Reap. Dec. 8430)

Entry Nos. 753288; 703724.

#### Schroeder & Tremayne *v.*United States

(Decided May 10, 1955)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*495Mollison, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals to reappraisement listed herein are the same in all material respects as the issues in the case of *United. States*v. *Schroeder & Tremayne, Inc., et al.,*Suit 4783 and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that the entered values of the merchandise involved in the cases listed herein are equal to the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise was no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases may be deemed submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the entered values.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 48130.

#### Protests 811219-G, etc., of Davis & Geck, Inc., et.al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 133 

To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay adjustments 

for Members of Congress. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. WEBB, Mr. BENNET, Mrs. 

MURRAY, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. CASEY, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mrs. 

GILLIBRAND, Mr. AKAKA, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, and Mr. 

TESTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay 

adjustments for Members of Congress. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUST4 MENTS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) 

6 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 

7 31) is repealed. 

8 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

9 Section 601(a)(1) of such Act is amended— 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 133 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘(a)(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a)’’; 

2 (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), 

3 and (C) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; 

4 and 

5 (3) by striking ‘‘as adjusted by paragraph (2) 

6 of this subsection’’ and inserting ‘‘adjusted as pro7 vided by law’’. 

8 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect 

9 on February 1, 2013. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from B.B.
Walker's Form 10-Q for the second quarter of fiscal 1998 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000104218
<NAME> B.B. WALKER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-02-1998
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,610
<ALLOWANCES>                                       545
<INVENTORY>                                      9,488
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,941
<PP&E>                                           8,120
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,393
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,390
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         83
<COMMON>                                         1,721
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,810
<SALES>                                         15,511
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,695
<CGS>                                           11,522
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   211
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 541
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (331)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (331)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (331)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Amendment to Approved Tribal-State Compact. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice publishes the approval of the extension of agreement between the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and the State of Montana concerning Class III gaming, with the incorporated amendments. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

April 30, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Pursuant to Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the                     **Federal Register**                     notice of the approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands.                 

This amendment extends the term of the compact for 10 years, increases the number of gaming machines, the maximum jackpot on gaming machines and the prize limit on Class III poker, for the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. 

Dated: April 19, 2007. 

Carl J. Artman, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

 [FR Doc. E7-8134 Filed 4-27-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
No. 49399.

#### Protest 97810-K of Schear & Schrader (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The evidence established that the paperweights in question are chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes and that they are composed of metal, not plated. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained.
No. 49430.

#### Protests 71577-K, etc., of C. J. Tower & Sons (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as that involved in *Richardson*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 6, C. D. 823), the protests wore sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 90 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8923]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 9323]
RIN 1545-BF64


Revisions to Regulations Relating to Repeal of Tax on Interest of 
Nonresident Alien Individuals and Foreign Corporations Received From 
Certain Portfolio Debt Investments; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to final regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 
9323) that were published in the Federal Register on Thursday, April 
12, 2007 (72 FR 18386) relating to the exclusion from gross income of 
portfolio interest paid to a nonresident alien individual or foreign 
corporation.

DATES: The correction is effective May 10, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Holman of the Office of the 
Associate Chief Counsel (International), (202) 622-3840 (not a toll-
free call).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final regulations that are the subject of this correction are 
under sections 871 and 881 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, final regulations (TD 9323) contain errors that may 
prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of the final regulations (TD 9323), 
which were the subject of FR Doc. E7-6766, is corrected as follows:
    1. On page 18386, column 3, in the preamble, under the paragraph 
heading ``1. Time for Applying the 10-Percent Shareholder Test'', ninth 
line of the last paragraph of the column, the language ``under section 
6031(c) is mailed, or the'' is corrected to read ``under section 
6031(b) is mailed, or the''.
    2. On page 18387, column 1, in the preamble, under the paragraph 
heading ``1. Time for Applying the 10-Percent Shareholder Test'', tenth 
line of the first paragraph of the column, the language ``section 
6031(c) is mailed or otherwise'' is corrected to read ``section 6031(b) 
is mailed or otherwise''.

LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, 
Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. E7-8923 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Order entered August 22, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00086
- CR DONALD MAYS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cau se No. F12
- 55902
- J



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant des ires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
trial court shall c onduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective represe ntation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1865 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 157 ) VI-E- 6 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 12/3/20083:22:21 PM

Sheet 157 of 198P. 2 

# RADIA N

TELEPHON

E CAL L RECOR

D QIncomin g Cal l (B6utgoln g Cal l Perso nCallin g jretAjL rZ.i-Uw Perso nCalle d bcMJirk/ 6iHt4*- -fchJattet

Oil Co* Genera l SubJ.c t

^ . J^a ? - ^^ ^ LPGf Prra. E'rojec t No . 

### A34 -ooj-ieif-oz Projec t Hems 

### Ind Bo/let Ubfta.fi' Date Tla t / / Activit y Activit y 

# A- 8 2 VI-E 

# i-27 6

TOPIC S DISCUSSE D AN D ACTIO N TAKE N 

### > Priu -fa*LPfy ~ ^dMSWicdL -US<. EPA

frtfipy, \\f

- tJCSC, Temr, 

### Ws*,ci*,<54, ICY. > ?!, ropruier 

### Ke*h<c>f-m-Y

t&CJc. -pnOL

-^ /gat/on fo& 4k &- rekn-ery fgy tYre.fifi •24-.3D I

aoLllff*roy Gut

it - 

### frej'cUJ- (m^ffuM

^e & *r'(*>*-/^aMo-y^- \^]ituld need -f o fojuc ^ rruckM-fr CoirVi.pt%v--y- (ruAjb •rya^sct -h> qe f \oof-hm line cleii*ertmd price Price i/Qjjes based

tm hcjQuhcTir. d- Cushrttr and mecih^of

4r&hSp(7>4tzH4

il.natut

. C>}W tA - rUtO
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo LONGORIA and Leonel Duran, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 03-1454, 03-2615.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Sept. 22, 2005.

Andrew Porter, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Edwin R. Mccullough, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, and Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judges.

*716ORDER

This court ordered a limited remand so the district court could state on the record whether the defendants’ sentences remain appropriate now that *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), has limited the Guidelines to advisory status. *See United States v. Paladino,*401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2005).

The district judge has now replied that he is “uncertain” whether he would have imposed the same sentences based on the existing record; the judge has requested an opportunity to resentence the defendants based on a new sentencing hearing. The government opposes resentencing, arguing that the district court did not unequivocally state in response to the *Paladino*remand that he would have imposed lesser sentences had he known the Guidelines were advisory. The government asserts that plain error under *Paladino*is not established unless the district judge advises that he would have been inclined to impose lesser sentences *at the time of initial sentencing*had he known the Guidelines were advisory.

We have recently rejected this argument as an “unduly narrow view” of the purpose of the *Paladino*limited remand procedure. *United States v. Askew,*417 F.3d 648 (7th Cir.2005). In *Askew,*the district judge responded to this court’s *Paladino*remand by stating that she was “unable at this time to say” whether she would have imposed the same sentence under an advisory Guidelines scheme and expressed her “desire to resentence the defendant.” *Id.*at 649. We broadly interpreted this response as “an affirmative answer to our question whether plain error occurred” and remanded for resentencing. *Id.*

*Askew*applies here. Accordingly, we Vacate the defendants’ sentences and Remand this matter to the district court for resentencing.
No. 64340.

protests 59/8751, etc. (Buffalo).

#### C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 29, 2013

p0422 

# Order

April 29, 2013

146593

PITSCH RECYCLING & DISPOSAL, INC.

and PITSCH SANITARY LANDFILL, INC.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 146593

COA: 302163

Ionia CC: 06

- 024599

- CZ

IONIA COUNTY,

Defendant

- Appellee,

and

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 1, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.