alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014135EN.01003602.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/36

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — Eni v Commission

(Joined Cases T-240/12 and T-211/13) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Partial annulment and alteration by the General Court of the Commission’s decision - Reopening of the procedure - New statement of objections - Closure of the procedure - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 135/46

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Eni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Conte, R. Striani and T. Vecchi, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

In Case T-240/12, application for annulment of the Commission’s decision contained in a letter of 23 April 2012, informing the applicant of the Commission’s intention to reopen the procedure and to adopt a new statement of objections and, in Case T-211/13, application for annulment of Commission decisions C(2013) 1200 final of 26 February 2013 and C(2013) 1199 final of 27 February 2013 to reopen the procedure and to send the applicant a new statement of objections in Case AT. 40032–BR/ESBR — Recidivism, following the partial annulment by the General Court of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Cases T-240/12 and T-211/13 are joined for the purposes of the order. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Cases T-240/12 and T-211/13 are joined for the purposes of the order.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present actions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present actions.

| 3. | Eni SpA and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Eni SpA and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.

1

---
# C_2012217EN.01002801.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/28

---

Action brought on 29 May 2012 — International Brands Germany v OHIM — Stuffer (ALOHA 100 % NATURAL)

(Case T-243/12)

2012/C 217/58

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: International Brands Germany GmbH & Co. KG (Paderborn, Germany) (represented by: B. Hein and M. Hoffmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stuffer SpA (Bolzano, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 March 2012 in case R 1058/2011-1 and reject the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 March 2012 in case R 1058/2011-1 and reject the opposition;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: International Brands Germany GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘ALOHA 100 % NATURAL’ for goods in Class 32 — application No 7 050 701

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Stuffer SpA

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘ALOA’ for goods in Class 32

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
No. 46454.

#### Protest 985906-G of Amerlux Steel Corp. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

The hoop or band steel in question was found to be valued at 3 cents per pound or less. The protest was sustained in accordance with the agreed facts.
# C_2012379EN.01002701.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/27

---

Action brought on 10 October 2012 — Davril v Council and Commission

(Case T-448/12)

2012/C 379/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Philippe Davril (Épargnes, France) (represented by: C.-É. Gudin, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission and Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Award full compensation for the damage sustained by virtue of the monetary penalties imposed, that is to say, the sum of EUR 174 900; |
| --- | --- |

—

Award full compensation for the damage sustained by virtue of the monetary penalties imposed, that is to say, the sum of EUR 174 900;

| — | Award full compensation of the non-material damage sustained by him, that is to say, the sum of EUR 100 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

Award full compensation of the non-material damage sustained by him, that is to say, the sum of EUR 100 000;

| — | Order the Council and the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council and the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied upon in Cases T-195/11 Cahier and Others v Council and Commission
   (1) and T-458/11 Riche v Council and Commission. (2)

Cahier and Others

Council and Commission

1

Riche

Council and Commission

2

---

(1)  OJ 2011 C 173, p. 14.

1

(2)  OJ 2011 C 298, p. 28.

2

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.16

RESTRICTIVE LEGENDS ON REVERSE SIDE HEREOF

             Incorporated under the laws of the State of Minnesota

SPECIMEN                                                                SPECIMEN

                          GLOBAL MAINTECH CORPORATION


This Certifies that                SPECIMEN                     is the owner and

                    ____________________________________________
registered holder of _________________________________________________ Shares of

                   ____________________________________________________
  fully paid and nonassessable shares of Series F Convertible Preferred Stock,
no par value, of
                          Global MAINTECH Corporation

transferable only on the books of the corporation by the holder hereof in
person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate
properly endorsed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said corporation has caused this certificate to be
signed by its duly authorized officers and be sealed with the seal of the
corporation.

NO              this                        day of                      ,      .
                     ______________________        ____________________   ____

                _________________________     ________________________________
                     Secretary                           President
[CORPORATE
   SEAL]


<PAGE>

Neither these securities nor the securities into which these securities may be
convertible have been registered with the securities and exchange commission or
the securities commission of any state in reliance upon an exemption from
registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"), and, accordingly, may not be offered or sold except pursuant to an
effective registration statement under the securities act or pursuant to an
available exemption from, or in a transaction not subject to, the registration
requirements of the securities act and in accordance with applicable state
securities laws.

A full statement of the powers, designations, preferences and relative,
participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock or series
thereof of the corporation and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions
of such preferences and/or rights will be furnished by said corporation to any
stockholder under request and without charge.
# C_2013038EN.01002501.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/25

---

Order of the General Court of 3 December 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-464/12 P (R)) (1)

1

(Appeal - Order made at first instance in interim proceedings rejecting an application for suspension of operation of the contested decision - Commission’s refusal to reimburse the appellant in respect of sums which he claims were unjustly deducted from his allowance)

2013/C 38/44

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal seeking the setting aside of the order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 3 August 2012 in Case F-57/12 R Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR.

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.

1

---
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**Interviewof: James Comey
 
part1 |part2 |
 
SuDoc Number:Y 4.J 89/1:C 73/12/PT.1-2
Item Number:1020-C (online)
CGP systemNumber:001092369
February 8, 2019
No. A-232.

No. A-262.

#### Minnesota et al. *v.*Reserve Mining Co. et al.; and United States *v.*Reserve Mining Co. et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Renewed applications to vacate indefinite stay order pending appeal, presented to Mr. Justice Blackmun, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Reported below: 498 F. 2d 1073.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Ronald Reagan Strike Group Conducts ACSA Logistics

By Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Codie L. Soule, Commander Task Force 70, Public Affairs

                PHILIPPINE SEA  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Acquisition and Cross Servicing AgreementRonald Reagan Strike GroupU.S. 7th Fleet
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT
C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N (C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2
, SU B P ART B

. SE04360A134
No. 65819.

#### James Barclay & Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 164541-K/2905, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 5809] 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “A Mirror of Nature: Nordic Landscape Painting 1840-1910”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Minneapolis, Minnesota, from on or about June 24, 2007, until on or about September 24, 2007, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. 

Dated: May 16, 2007. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E7-9930 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
# C_2013026EN.01002501.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 5 November 2012 — Dixons Retail Plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-494/12)

2013/C 26/48

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dixons Retail Plc

Applicant:

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 14.1 of Council Directive of 28 November 2006 (2006/112/EU (1)) to be interpreted as applying when the physical transfer of goods is obtained by fraud in that the payment provided by the transferee is by means of a card which the transferee knows he has no authority to use? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 14.1 of Council Directive of 28 November 2006 (2006/112/EU (1)) to be interpreted as applying when the physical transfer of goods is obtained by fraud in that the payment provided by the transferee is by means of a card which the transferee knows he has no authority to use?

1

| 2. | When the physical transfer of goods is obtained by fraudulent use of a card, is there a ‘transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner’ within Article 14.1? |
| --- | --- |

2.

When the physical transfer of goods is obtained by fraudulent use of a card, is there a ‘transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner’ within Article 14.1?

| 3. | Is Article 73 to be interpreted as applying when payment is obtained by the transferor of goods under an agreement with a third party to make such payment in respect of a card transactions notwithstanding that the transferee of the goods knows that he has no authority to use the card? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 73 to be interpreted as applying when payment is obtained by the transferor of goods under an agreement with a third party to make such payment in respect of a card transactions notwithstanding that the transferee of the goods knows that he has no authority to use the card?

| 4. | When payment is made by a third party pursuant to an agreement between the transferor of the goods an the third party as a consequence of the presentation to the transferor of a card which the transferee of the goods has no authority to use is the payment obtained from the third party ‘in return for the supply’ within Article 73? |
| --- | --- |

4.

When payment is made by a third party pursuant to an agreement between the transferor of the goods an the third party as a consequence of the presentation to the transferor of a card which the transferee of the goods has no authority to use is the payment obtained from the third party ‘in return for the supply’ within Article 73?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax OJ L 347, p. 1

1

---
#### OKEELANTA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. Kelroy McDONALD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Respondent.

No. 98-3220.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 28, 1998.

Edwin G. Torres, Elizabeth J. du Fresne, P.A., Joseph P. Klock, Jr., and Mark R. Cheskin, P.A., of Steel Hector & Davis LLP, Miami, and Willie Gary, Robert Parenti, and Madison McClellan of Gary, Williams, Paren-ti, Finney, Lewis, McManus, Watson & Sper-ando, Stuart, for petitioner.

No response required for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We summarily dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari because this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the challenged order denying Petitioner’s motion to amend its answer to add a demand for jury trial. *See Bared & Co., Inc. v. McGuire,*670 So.2d 153, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); *Lindsey v. Sherman,*402 So.2d 1349, 1349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We also certify conflict with *Johnson Engineering, Inc. v. Pate,*563 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); *Quality Coffee Service, Inc. v. Tallahassee Coca-Cola Bottling Co.,*474 So.2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); and *Spring v. Ronel Refining, Inc.,*421 So.2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

DELL, FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.