alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014421EN.01004901.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/49

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 6 May 2014 — Forget v Commission

(Case F-153/12) (1)

1

((Civil service - Official - Remuneration - Family allowances - Household allowance - Condition governing the grant - Registered partnership under the law of Luxembourg - Couple comprised of stable, non-marital partners having access to legal marriage - Official who does not fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 1(2)(c)(iv) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations))

2014/C 421/67

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Claude Forget (Steinfort, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Kerger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer et A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision refusing payment of the household allowance and of the survivor’s pension for the applicant’s partner.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Mr Forget to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Forget to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 23.02.2013, p. 26.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the balance sheet as
of December 31, 1998 and the statement of earnings for the nine months ended
December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   1-MO
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,025
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,182)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,630
<PP&E>                                          30,601
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,318)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 406,401
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,305
<BONDS>                                        227,446
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     147,195
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   406,401
<SALES>                                        112,531
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               112,531
<CGS>                                           81,585
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,585
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,917
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   694
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (965)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (965)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (965)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (12.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (12.06)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>              1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                                 436
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       14,241
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (1,407)
<INVENTORY>                                          6,912
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    21,467
<PP&E>                                              96,506
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (39,557)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     104,452
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               20,095
<BONDS>                                             20,029
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             4,993
<OTHER-SE>                                          29,097
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       104,452
<SALES>                                             16,398
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    16,398
<CGS>                                                9,880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       16,158
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     6,278
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     747
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (1,131)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          (308)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (823)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (823)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.17)



</TABLE>
No. 54375.

#### A. Schulman, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 141785-K (Boston).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of a synthetic resin in chief value of vinyl chloride similar in all material respects to the substance passed upon in Abstract 53993, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 96-6012.

#### Williams *v.*Toombs, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
APHIS Factsheet

Biotechnology Regulatory Services July 2012

Questions and 

Answers: Okanagan 

Specialty Fruits’ 

Non-Browning Apple 

(Events GD743 and 

GS784) 

APHIS received a petition from Okanagan 

Specialty Fruits Inc. (OSF), in April 2011, seeking a 

determination of nonregulated status for ArcticTM 

Apple developed to be resistant to apple browning. 

The apples contain an inserted gene sequence that 

allows the fruit to resist browning; when the apples 

are subjected to mechanical damage, such as slicing 

or bruising, the apple flesh remains its original color.

Q: What is the intended purpose of the ArcticTM 

Apple?

A: ArcticTM Apple will offer growers, packers, 

processors, wholesalers, retailers, the foodservice 

industry and consumers nonbrowning apple variants.

Q: How are ArcticTM Apples different from 

traditional apples?

A: The ArcticTM apples contain an inserted 

gene that allows the fruit to resist browning. The 

appearance and quality of these apples, however, 

are comparable to the appearance and quality of 

traditional apples.

Q: Is FDA aware of this petition?

A: OSF submitted to FDA a food and feed safety and 

nutritional assessment for events GD743 and GS784 

in 2010. It is currently under review at FDA. 

Q: Has ArcticTM Apple been field tested in the 

U.S.?

A: Yes, ArcticTM Apple has been field tested in 

Washington and New York States. All field tests 

that have occurred in the United States were under 

permits, including strict movement controls, granted 

by APHIS.

Q: Why is APHIS making this petition available to 

the public?

A: This first comment period provides the public an 

opportunity to review the petition for nonregulated 

status and provide input that will be considered by 

APHIS as it develops its ensuing environmental 

assessment and plant pest risk assessment. APHIS 

will accept written comments regarding the petition 

for a determination of nonregulated status from 

interested or affected persons for a period of 60 days 

from the date of the Agency’s notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Q: What is the next step following the comment 

period?

A: After the comment period closes, APHIS will 

carefully consider all written comments received 

during the comment period and any other relevant 

information; any substantive issues identified by 

APHIS based on our review of the petition and 

our evaluation and analysis of comments will be 

considered in the development of the Agency’s 

environmental assessment and plant pest risk 

assessment. 

Q: Under APHIS’ process, what does the Agency 

do after it prepares its draft assessments?

A: After the Agency prepares these documents, it 

makes them publicly available, providing a second 

30-day opportunity for public input. The Agency then 

carefully reviews comments before any determination 

becomes final. 

For more details on the petition process, go to:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/pet_proc_

imp_info.shtml 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Safeguarding American Agriculture
EXHIBIT 21.1 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT  NAME

STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OFINCORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION1.

ClassroomDirect.com, LLC

Delaware2.

Childcraft Education, LLC

Delaware3.

Bird-in-Hand Woodworks, LLC

Delaware4.

Frey Scientific, LLC

Delaware5.

Sportime, LLC

Delaware6.

Sax Arts & Crafts, LLC

Delaware7.

Premier Agendas, LLC

Delaware8.

Premier School Agendas, Ltd.

Canada9.

Select Agendas, Corp.

Canada10.

Califone International, LLC

Delaware11.

Delta Education, LLC

Delaware12.

SSI Guardian, LCC

Delaware
# C_2013026EN.01006501.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/65

---

Action brought on 21 November 2012 — Conrad Electronic v OHIM — Sky IP International (EuroSky)

(Case T-510/12)

2013/C 26/128

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Conrad Electronic SE (Hirschau, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M. Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier and A. Kramer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 September 2012 in Case R 1183/2011-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 September 2012 in Case R 1183/2011-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘EuroSky’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 4 539 896

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sky IP International Ltd

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national and Community word and figurative mark ‘SKY’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43 and 45

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

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

Pleas in law:

---
Order entered May 21, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00247-CV

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, EDMUND SANCHEZ, M.D. AND 

SRINATH CHINNAKOTLA, M.D., Appellants

V.

HAROLD BIGGS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF 

CHERI JEAN WELLS BIGGS, DECEASED, BRANDEN WELLS AND CHER BIGGS,

Appellees

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-05-11989

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal which was abated for settlement purposes. Because the 

Court has been informed the parties did not settle and only the clerk’s record has been filed, we 

ORDER court reporter Vielica Dobbins to file the reporter’s record no later than June 20, 2014. 

 /s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit
23.1


Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 
 
 We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-122098, 333-107904, 333-107903, 333-93021, 333-80923, 333-67751,
333-55810, 333-135713 and 333-139887) of SmarTire Systems Inc. (“the Company”)
of our report dated December 19, 2008 relating to the consolidated financial
statements which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A.  Our
report contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s ability to
continue as a going concern.
 
 /s/ BDO
Dunwoody LLP
 
 Chartered
Accountants
 
 Vancouver,
Canada
 December
19, 2008
# C_2017283EN.01005501.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/55

---

Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — Meta Group v Commission

(Case T-471/12) (1)

1

(2017/C 283/85)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1


                              DIGITAL FUSION, INC.

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

         The following is a list of all of the subsidiaries of Digital Fusion,
Inc. and the jurisdictions of incorporation of such subsidiaries. All of the
listed subsidiaries do business under their names presented below:

                  1.       CCL Telecommunication, Inc.
                           Delaware (state of incorporation)

                  2.       IBS Holdings Corp.
                           Delaware (state of incorporation)

                  3.       Halo Network Management, LLC
                           New Jersey (state of formation)

                  4.       Spectrum Information Services, Inc.
                           Alabama (state of incorporation)

                  5.       Realshare, Inc.
                           New Jersey (state of incorporation)

                  6.       Spencer Analysis, Inc.
                           New York (state of incorporation)

                  7.       Digital Fusion Solutions, Inc. (formerly digital
                           fusion, inc.)
                           Florida (state of incorporation)
No. 40496.

#### Protests 811770-G, etc., of George E. Warren Corporation et al. (Providence, etc.).

Opinion by First Division. Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2013336EN.01002401.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/24

---

Order of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Conticchio v Commission

(Case T-358/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Decision concerning the calculation of pension rights - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2013/C 336/50

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Rosella Conticchio (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Giuffrida and A. Tortora, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 July 2012 in Case F-22/11 Conticchio v Commission ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-0000, seeking to have that order set aside.

Conticchio

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

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

     In connection with the quarterly report of Global Realty  Development Corp.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB/a for the period  ending  June 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Roger Davis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (3)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date:  August 16, 2006                   By: /s/ Roger Davis
                                         -------------------
                                         Roger Davis
                                         Chief Financial Officer
# C_2012343EN.01000701.xml

| 10.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 22 August 2012 — RLvS Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v Stuttgarter Wochenblatt GmbH

(Case C-391/12)

2012/C 343/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: RLvS Verlagsgesellschaft mbH

Appellant on a point of law:

Respondent on a point of law: Stuttgarter Wochenblatt GmbH

Respondent on a point of law:

Question referred

Question referred

Do Article 7(2) and point 11 of Annex I, in conjunction with Articles 4 and 3(5), of the Directive (1) preclude the application of a national provision (in this case, Paragraph 10 of the Landespressegesetz Baden-Württemberg (Law governing the Press of the Land of Baden-Württemberg)) which is intended not only to protect consumers against misleading practices but also to protect the independence of the press and which, in contrast to Article 7(2) and point 11 of Annex I to the Directive, prohibits any publication for remuneration, irrespective of the purpose thereby pursued, if that publication is not identified by the use of the term ‘advertisement’, unless it is already evident from the arrangement and layout of the publication that it is an advertisement?

1

Land

---

(1)  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’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

1

---
# C_2012133EN.01003001.xml

| 5.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/30

---

Action brought on 16th January 2012 — ZZ v European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)

(Case F-7/12)

2012/C 133/59

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, A. Tymen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the 2009 career report, the list of reclassification of the civil servants for 2010 and, if necessary, the annulment of the decision rejecting his demand on 17 October 2011.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | The annulment of the Applicant’s 2009 career development report; |
| --- | --- |

—

The annulment of the Applicant’s 2009 career development report;

| — | the annulment of the 16 November 2010 decision fixing the list of staff reclassified in the reclassification exercise 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

the annulment of the 16 November 2010 decision fixing the list of staff reclassified in the reclassification exercise 2010;

| — | if necessary, the annulment of the decision of 17 October 2011 rejecting the Applicant’s complaint dated 16 June 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

if necessary, the annulment of the decision of 17 October 2011 rejecting the Applicant’s complaint dated 16 June 2011;

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

—

order ENISA to pay the costs.

---
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 11, 2015

No. 04-15-00438-CR and 04-15-00439-CR

Christopher J. PADILLA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR4826B and 2013CR4827

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The court has examined the clerk’s records in Nos. 04-15-00438-CR and 04-15-00439-

CR and is of the opinion that, in the interest of efficient administration, they should be 

consolidated for purposes of briefing and argument. 

We, therefore, ORDER Nos. 04-15-00438-CR and 04-15-00439-CR consolidated for 

purposes of briefing and argument on appeal. The parties must file motions, briefs, and other 

pleadings as if the appeals were one but put both appeal numbers in the style of the case. 

However, a record must be filed in each appeal, the record in each case will remain separate and, 

if supplementation of the record becomes necessary, the supplemental material must be filed in 

the appeal to which it applies. The cases must be argued together in one brief, as in a single 

appeal, and if oral argument is requested and granted, the entire case must be argued as a single 

appeal, with the total time limit for each party equal to the ordinary time limit for a single appeal. 

The court will dispose of the appeals with the same judgment, opinion, and mandate. This order 

does not extend the briefing schedule.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of August, 2015.

__________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court