alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014253EN.01002701.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — Rani Refreshments v OHIM — Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Sani)

(Case T-523/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Sani - Earlier Community figurative marks Hani or llani and RANI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 253/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rani Refreshments FZCO (Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: M. Chapple, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Poczesna, Poland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 September 2012 (Case R 236/2012-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Aujan Industries Co. (S J C) and Global-Invest Bartosz Turek.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action.

| 2) | Orders Rani Refreshments FZCO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Rani Refreshments FZCO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

1

---
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-678V

Filed: February 4, 2022

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ELIZABETH TURNER,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

UNPUBLISHED

Decision on Joint Stipulation;

Shoulder Injury; Influenza (“Flu”)

Vaccine

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Amy Senerth, Esq., Muller Brail, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Andrew Henning, Esq., US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Roth, Special Master:

On May 23, 2017, Elizabeth Turner [“Ms. Turner” or “petitioner”] filed a petition for 

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

2 Petitioner alleges that 

she suffered from a shoulder injury afterreceiving an Influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 1, 2015.

Stipulation, filed Feb. 4, 2022 at ¶¶ 1-4. Respondent denies that the immunization caused 

petitioner’s injury. Stipulation at ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On February 4, 2022, the parties 

filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “unpublished,” it will nevertheless be posted on the 

Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 

116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision will 

be available to anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may object to the Decision’s 

inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party 

has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is 

a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes 

medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 

privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public. Id.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

Respondent agrees to issue the following payment:

A lump sum of $25,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Elizabeth 

Turner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available 

under § 300aa-15(a).

I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and 

on the terms set forth therein. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance 

with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth 

Mindy Michaels Roth 

Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.
Exhibit 10.43 

 

Director Compensation Arrangements

 

The directors of Icoria who are also employees receive no compensation for serving on the Board of Directors. 

 

Icoria has an arrangement to pay each of its non-employee directors a fee of$25,000 per year. Icoria also reimburses its non-employee directors for reasonable expenses incurred in attending Board and Committee meetings. With the following exceptions, the Chairman of the Board is eligible to receive a 50% premium over thestandard fee and the Audit Committee and Compensation Committee Chairmen are eligible to receive a 20% premium over the standard fee. This excludes duplicate premiums to the Compensation Committee Chairman and the Chairman of the Board. 

 

Quarterly, each non-employee director receives an option to purchase 2,500shares each quarter upon grants by the Compensation Committee, except for the Chairman of the Board, who receives an option to purchase 3,000 shares. These options vest in equal monthly increments over 36 months. Upon a change in control theseoptions become fully vested.
| (1)   | the                Quarterly                Report                on Form 10-QSB of PrimePlayer Incorporated for the quarter ended                March 31,                2004 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                quarter ended March 31, 2004, fairly presents in all material respects,                the financial condition and results of operations of PrimePlayer                Incorporated. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/  Alexander                Gilliland                                          |   |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|  Name:     |  Alexander                Gilliland                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|  Title:    |  Principal                Executive Officer,Principal                Financial Officer and Director                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|  Date:     |  May                25, 2006                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
# C_2015096EN.01002401.xml

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/24

---

Order of the General Court of 6 February 2015 — Fuhr v Commission

(Case T-248/12) (1)

1

(2015/C 096/30)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         517,340
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               544,182
<PP&E>                                          61,964
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 623,084
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       126,703
<OTHER-SE>                                     496,381
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   623,084
<SALES>                                         14,025
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,025
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  133,441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (119,416)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (119,416)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (119,416)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.01)


</TABLE>
Case No. 8,693.

#### McCLEAN v. PLUMSELL.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 86.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1830.

Imprisonment for Debt — Prison-Bounds Bond —Close Custodt.

An insolvent debtor, found guilty upon allegations filed under the 7th section of the insolvent act of the District of Columbia [2 8tat. *1268237], will not be ordered into close custody if he is out upon a prison-bounds bond.

[Cited in Eckle y. Fitzgerald, Case No. 4,267.]

Allegations were filed by Cornelius Mc-Clean, a creditor, against Thomas Plumsell, a petitioner for the benefit of the “Act for the relief of insolvent debtors within the District of Columbia,” upon which he was found guilty.

Mr. Morfit, for creditor,

prayed that the debtor might be committed to close custody, although he was out upon a prison-bounds bond.

But THE COURT refused, and directed that the entry of the judgment of the court be, “that the said Thomas Plumsell be precluded from any benefit under the act,” &c., according to the precedent in Newton’s Case [Case No. 10,188], at April term, 1824.

See the case of Keirll v. McIntire [Case No. 7,651], at May term, 1826, and Eckle v. Fitzgerald [Id. 4,267], at this term.
(Reap. Dec. 9059)

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L. A. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 1737; 734; 11669.

(Decided January 23, 1958)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle, Sr.,*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Joseph E. Weil,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

These three appeals to reappraisement were consolidated on plaintiff's' motion.

The only evidence adduced was the affidavit of Ignacio Del Rio, executed in Mexico City. Counsel for the parties stipulated facts which identify Mr. Del Rio as the seller of the imported merchandise and Mr. Roy Arnold, mentioned in the affidavit, as a partner of H. & R. Arnold, the ultimate consignee of the merchandise. On this record, the case was submitted and leave granted counsel to file briefs.

Instead' of filing the brief, plaintiff’s counsel has notified the court that these appeals to reappraisement are abandoned. This action comes too late, evidence having been introduced, both parties having *665rested, and the litigated issue being submitted for judicial determination.

The merchandise is described as brass keyrings with various colored stones. The value as entered was advanced in appraisement. There is nothing before us to indicate what the statutory basis of appraisement was. Plaintiff’s evidence asserts that the merchandise is unique, specially made in Mexico for the Arnold concern to its design specifications. The evidence does not establish value either for such or similar merchandise.

Plaintiff has not borne its burden of proof. I conclude, on the evidence of record, that the value of this merchandise is the appraised value.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of IWT Tesoro Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David W.Whitwell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

Theforegoing certification shall not be deemed to be filed for the purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject toliability under this section.  Thiscertification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to theextent that this Exhibit 32.2 is expressly incorporated by reference in anysuch filing.
| Dated: August 16, 2007 |   | /s/ David W. Whitwell   |   |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | David W. Whitwell       |
|                   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C.Section 1350 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

----
No. 49502.

#### Protests 24604-K, etc., of John Thallon & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of chicken or poultry in tins assessed on the full content of the tin, and that it is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Hearty*(31 C. C. P. A. 106, C. A. D. 257), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the chicken was held dutiable on the weight of the meat alone, as claimed, exclusive of the extraneous material found in the tins and as set forth in this decision.
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

NO.

§

§

§

§

§

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEALRECEIVED IU

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

JUN26 2015

Pro Se Motion for Extension of Time „, . . „, r„ r ti TM ti Abe Acosta, C ep To File Petition for Discretionary Review

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

COMES NOW the Appellant/Petitioner inthe above-styled and numbered cause andp.. Cn

respectfully moves this Honorable Court to extend the time for filing the Appellant's Petition for'^'NAL APPALS

jjjw or opt Discretionary Review inthis cause and insupport thereofwould show to the Court the ^J'3

following: Abel Acosta, Clerk

1. The style and number ofthis case in the Court ofAppeals, is: Joj^p ^Q-Cr^ ^

0[-JLi-OOofi> -CA.

The State ofTexas, Appeal No. Af-li'000 jl -CR.

2. The style and number ofthe case in the trial court is: The State ofTexas v.

J°kA (jura, ;Cause N^^'^Qi^'; from the *H District Court of

Dallas County, Texas. * , ±.

3. The Appellant was convicted ofthe felony offense of j frc*u/^</c~*tC*~ r

4. Judgment was entered on and punishment was assessed at _^a

years confinement and afine in the amount of Jj I^QOO' Vo .

5. The conviction was affirmed in the Court of Appeals on Jvn^- m j " .

PRO SE MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW - Page 1
6. The deadline for filing the Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review in this

V ->

7. An extension oftime for a period ofsixty (60) days is requested that would make

the due date J?Ao./n Ur j^j Aotf •

8. No prior request for an extension oftime has been made.

9. The facts relied upon to show good cause for the requested extension are, as

follows: The Appellant/Petitioner was represented by court appointed counsel during the appeal

ofthis case to the Court of Appeals. After the conviction was affirmed, the trial court refused to

appoint counsel to file a Petition for Discretionary Review. Therefore, additional time is needed

for the Appellant/Petitioner to either prepare and file the Petition pro se or to seek legal

assistance in filing the Petition.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Appellant /Petitioner respectfully

requests that this Honorable Court extend time for filing the Petition for Discretionary Review in

this cause to J^aTj.^^ ft j^e/f .

Respectfully submitted,

cause is

rS&JU&yyjnJfr>

[Name

PRO SE MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW - Page 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The Appellant/Petitioner hereby certifies that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing

Motion has been mailed to the Office ofthe Criminal District Attorney for (o /'(/> County,

, and mailed via U.S. mail, to the Office ofthe State Prosecuting Attorney,

,on the £) day of 3<"<- ,20 //.

[Name]l»J^7oSif>^ iuarr** -ft/fcy \^\

PRO SE MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW - Page 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7599

DAVID MYRON CARTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; WARDEN, BUCKINGHAM

CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CA-97-982-2)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 20, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Myron Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Carter v. Virginia, No. CA-97-982-2 (E.D.

Va. Oct. 24, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process. Appellant’s motion for transcript is denied.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-109183, 333-110678, 333-113192, 333-117441, 333-117443 and333-125901 on Form S-3 and Registration Statements Nos. 333-119690, 333-109917, 333-99645, 333-74124, 333-55364, 333-34202 and 333-42952 on Form S-8 of our reports dated September 28, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements andfinancial statement schedule of Avanex Corporation and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the uncertainty of Avanex Corporation’s ability to continue as a going concern);and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting (which expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting because of material weaknesses)appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Avanex Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2005. 

 

**DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP**

 

San Jose,California 

September 28, 2005
No. 96-6017.

#### Morrison *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 62107.

#### Westchester Aquarium Supply Co. *v.*United States,

protest 324522-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of aquarium sea moss similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Westchester Aquarium Supply Co.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 146, C. D. 1767), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2014009EN.01002203.xml

| 11.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2013 — El Hogar Perfecto del Siglo XXI v OHIM — Wenf International Advisers Ltd (Corkscrew)

(Case T-337/12) (1)

1

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a corkscrew - Earlier national design - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Overall impression not different - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Articles 4, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

2014/C 9/36

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: El Hogar Perfecto del Siglo XXI, SL (Madrid (Spain)) (represented by: C. Ruiz Gallegos and E. Veiga Conde, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Wenf International Advisers Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by J.L. Rivas Zurdo, E. Seijo Veiguela and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 June 2012 (Case R 89/2011-3) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Wenf International Advisers Ltd and El Hogar Perfecto del Siglo XXI, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders El Hogar Perfecto del Siglo XXI, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders El Hogar Perfecto del Siglo XXI, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

1

---