alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015190EN.01001101.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Republic of Poland v European Commission

(Case T-290/12) (1)

((Agriculture - Common organisation of markets - Processed fruit and vegetables sectors - Aid to producer groups - Limitation on the Union’s financial participation - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state reasons - Sincere cooperation))

(2015/C 190/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: initially by B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, and subsequently by B. Majczyna and K. Straś, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by N. Donnelly, B. Schima and D. Milanowska, and subsequently by D. Milanowska and B. Schima, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Article 1(2) to (4), (6), (12) and (13), Article 2(1) to (3), read in conjunction with Article 3 of, and Annexes I and II to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 302/2012 of 4 April 2012 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 99, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 11, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, March 11, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21I0143. MSC PROPERTIES, LLC et al. v. ASHLEY PADEN.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 20A540
Exhibit 32.1



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 FirstBingo.com (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Richard L. Wachter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Dated this 13th day of November, 2003.



| | /s/ Richard L. Wachter
Richard L. Wachter
Chief Financial Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------













---
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2922

___________________________ Juan Carlos Solorzano-Guerrero lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner

v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of United States

lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent

____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

____________ Submitted: March 18, 2020 Filed: March 25, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Mexican citizen Juan Carlos Solorzano-Guerrero petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to remand, in which he argued that the immigration judge lacked the statutory authority to enter a 2011 order of removal in absentia. After careful review, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the motion was untimely andnumerically barred. See Rodriguez de Henriquez v. Barr, 942 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir.

2019) (explaining the standard of review); Pinos Gonzalez v. Barr, 929 F.3d 595, 598 (8th Cir. 2019) (noting that a motion for remand is the functional equivalent of a motion to reopen). We therefore decline to reach the parties’ arguments regarding the underlying merits of the motion. We further conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision declining to sua sponte rescind, reconsider, or reopen the proceedings because Solorzano-Guerrero has not raised a colorable constitutional claim. See Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d 955, 962-63 (5th Cir. 2019) (concluding that the petitioner, who sought to rescind his order of removal in absentia and reopen his proceedings, did not demonstrate a due process violation because he had no liberty interest in the discretionary reopening of removal proceedings); Pinos-Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 436, 441 (8th Cir. 2008) (concluding that an applicant has no constitutionally protected liberty or property interest in the discretionary relief of cancellation of removal, and cannot establish a due process right to obtain that relief). Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
WEINBERG & COMPANY, PA
                        Town Executive Center
                     6100 Glades Road, Suite 314
                      Boca Raton, Florida 33434


          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT


We hereby consent to the use in the Form 10-KSB of Aberdeen Acquisition
Corporation our report for the period from December 3, 1997 (inception) 
to December 31, 1998 dated February 19, 1999 relating to the financial 
statements of Aberdeen Acquisition Corporation which appear in such
Form 10-KSB.


                              WEINBERG & COMPANY PA
                              Certified Public Accountants


Boca Raton, Florida 
March 8, 1999
# C_2014315EN.01003102.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/31

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — The Cartoon Network, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Boomerang TV SA

(Case C-670/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark BOOMERANG - Earlier Community figurative mark Boomerang TV - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion))

TV

2014/C 315/50

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: The Cartoon Network, Inc. (represented by: I. Starr, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Boomerang TV SA

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | The Cartoon Network Inc. is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Cartoon Network Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

1

---
# C_2013377EN.01000402.xml

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/4

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — IDT Biologika GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-6/13 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Public supply contracts - Call for tenders related to the supply in Serbia of rabies vaccines - Rejection of a tender - Appeal clearly inadmissible or unfounded)

2013/C 377/07

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: IDT Biologika GmbH (represented by: R. Gross and T. Kroupa, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2012 in Case T-503/10 IDT Biologika v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 10 August 2010 awarding the contract (reference EuropeAid/129809/C/SUP/RS) for the supply of rabies vaccines for vaccination campaigns in Serbia to the consortium led by the company Bioveta a.s. and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant — Whether the limits to which the Commission is subject in the exercise of its discretion were exceeded

IDT Biologika

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | IDT Biologika GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

IDT Biologika GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.

1

---
No. 96-7778.

#### McNamara *v.*Maryland.

Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.
No. 40531.

#### Protest 965309-G of Charles A. Redden, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

The protest was dismissed as untimely.
# C_2012295EN.01003502.xml

| 29.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/35

---

Action brought on 3 August 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-85/12)

2012/C 295/63

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to calculate accredited pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 27 January 2012 to accredit the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service at the Commission pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 27 January 2012 to accredit the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service at the Commission pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | to the extent necessary, annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 2 May 2012 against the decision determining the accreditation in the European Union pension scheme of the applicant’s pension rights acquired before his entry into service; |
| --- | --- |

—

to the extent necessary, annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 2 May 2012 against the decision determining the accreditation in the European Union pension scheme of the applicant’s pension rights acquired before his entry into service;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
Exhibit 10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 
 FORM OF 
 AMENDMENT TO THE 
 BALTIMORE COUNTY SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B. 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 WHEREAS, Joseph J. Bouffard (the “Executive”) entered into an employment agreement with Baltimore County Savings Bank, F.S.B (the
“Bank”) effective November 27, 2006 (the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Bank and the Executive wish to
amend the Agreement to: 
  

	 	•	 	 comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and the regulatory guidance promulgated thereunder; and 



 

	 	•	 	 allow BCSB Bancorp, Inc. (the stock holding company formed in connection with the Bank’s second step conversion) to become a party to the Agreement as
guarantor; and 


 WHEREAS, BCSB Bancorp, Inc. has agreed to serve as guarantor under the Agreement; and 

WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that it may be amended or modified at any time by means of a written instrument signed by the parties.

 NOW, THEREFORE, the Bank, BCSB Bancorp, Inc. and the Executive hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 
 FIRST CHANGE 
 Effective as of the date hereof,
Section 12 of the Agreement shall be amended to add the following subsection (d): 
 “d. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any cash payable to
Executive under Section 12(b) of this Agreement shall be payable in a lump sum within 10 calendar days after Executive’s termination of employment, provided, however, if, at the time of Executive’s termination of employment, Executive
is a “specified employee” (as defined in Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) and the payment under Section 12(b) is subject to Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, then such payment shall not be
made until six months and one day following the date of Executive terminates employment, except as may otherwise be permitted under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.” 
 SECOND CHANGE 
 Effective as of the date hereof, the
Agreement shall be amended to add Section 27: 
 “27. Source of Payments. All payments provided in this Agreement shall be timely paid in
cash or check from the general funds of the Bank. BCSB Bancorp, Inc. or its successor however, unconditionally guarantees payment and provision of all amounts and benefits due hereunder to Executive and, if such amounts and benefits due from the
Bank are not timely paid or provided by the Bank, such amounts and benefits shall be paid or provided by BCSB Bancorp, Inc. or its successor.” 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank and BCSB Bancorp, Inc. have caused this Amendment to be executed by
their duly authorized officers, and Executive has signed this Amendment on the              day of             ,
2007. 
  

					
	ATTEST:	 		 	BALTIMORE COUNTY SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B.
			
	  	 		 	  
		 		 	For the Board of Directors
			
	ATTEST:	 		 	BCSB BANCORP, INC.
		 		 	(as guarantor)
			
	  	 		 	  
		 		 	For the Board of Directors
			
	WITNESS:	 		 	EXECUTIVE
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB OF
SEGWAY VI CORP. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2003, KEN TETTERINGTON,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF SEGWAY VI CORP.
HEREBY CERTIFY PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF, THAT:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
          2003, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ended June 30, 2003, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Segway
          VI Corp.

Dated:  August 11, 2003

Segway VI Corp.


By: /s/ Ken Tetterington
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
BAS

March 12, 1997

Dr. Michael P. Silvon
2470A Kestral Boulevard
West Lafayette, IN 47906

Dear Mike,

This letter constitutes an offer
for a position at Bioanalytical Systems, Inc. (BAS) as Vice President, Business
Development. Should you chose to accept this offer, you would report directly to
me. The financial package includes an annual base salary of $82,500; an initial
bonus of $2,500 to be granted with your first pay check; participation in our
officers bonus plan, which potentially could reward you with up to a 25%
bonus in the current fiscal year; and participation in the BAS 401(k) Plan
according to the Employee Handbook as issued in February 1997.

Benefits are as described in the
Handbook, with the exception that your initial vacation will be 3 rather than 2
weeks in view of your seniority. Please contact Mrs. Lina Reeves-Kerner or Mike
Scott if you have questions regarding the company benefits. An employee
agreement is also enclosed and must be signed prior to your starting date. In
addition, this offer is contingent upon your successful completion of a medical
examination from our company physician. The offer is also predicated upon your
providing proof of eligibility to work in the United States, within three days
of employment, as mandated by current federal employment laws. Proof of
eligibility includes a valid drivers license, original social security card,
passport, certified birth certificate, or an unexpired employment eligibility
card.

As a new employee, your first
ninety days will be a trial period during which BAS can evaluate you and you can
evaluate BAS. Because employment at BAS is at-will and it does not promise
employment for any specific period of time, either you or the Company may
terminate the employment relationship for any reason at any time either before
or after completion of the trial period.

As we have discussed, BAS faces
a number of challenges in the months ahead. Our team believes that an
experienced executive with your talents will contribute greatly to meeting these
challenges and we willl initially use you as combination in-house consultant,
devils advocate, and interface with outsiders from the financial
community. Recognizing the financial risk to you personally in this age of
downsizing and reorganizing, BAS agrees to severance pay of 6 months during the
first 4-12 months of employment, and 12 months of severance pay thereafter in
the event of your being dismissed from employment without cause.

This letter constitutes the full
extent of our offer to you which you may accept by returning a copy with your
signature below, along with the signed employee agreement. We look forward to a
long and fruitful association.

| | Sincerely,
Peter T. Kissinger, Ph.D.
Chairman and CEO
| | -----------------------------------------------------

PTK/cp
Enclosures

I accept this position as outlined in this letter.

|/s/ Michael P. Silvon
Michael P. Silvon | 3/17/97
Date
|--------------------------------------- | ------------
Exhibit 23.2 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 2 to Registration Statement No. 333-126573 on Form S-3, in RegistrationStatement No. 333-116837 on Form S-8 and in Registration Statement Nos. 333-126312 and 333-127464 on Form S-3 of Strategic Hotel Capital, Inc. of our report dated February 24, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements of SHC PragueInterContinental B.V. appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Strategic Hotel Capital, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

 

Deloitte s.r.o. 

Prague, Czech Republic 

March 2, 2006
#### Gallagher *&*Ascher Co. *v.*United States

No. 7668.

Invoice dated Vernon, Canada, December 10, 1947.

Certified December 12, 1947.

Entered at Chicago, Ill., January 5, 1948.

Entry No. 4284.

(Decided February 18, 1949)

*Lawrence, Tuttle & Harper (Frank L. Lawrence*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Charles J. Miville,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows between counsel for the plaintiff (s) and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, concerning the merchandise referred to herein:

> 1) That the involved issues in this appeal are the same in all material respects as in Tower v. US, RD 7624, on Canadian sales tax, and the record in that case may be incorporated herein.

> 2) That the appraised value of said merchandise, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is 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 in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> 3) That this case may be deemed to be 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 are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Diane DeTore, Respondent, v Lester Cruikshank, Appellant.

[700 NYS2d 921]

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Ellingsworth v City of Watertown,*113 AD2d 1013). (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Court, Dwyer, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.
# C_2015302EN.01000401.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg

(Case C-580/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 8(3)(e) - Sale of counterfeit goods - Right to information in the context of proceedings for infringement of an intellectual property right - Legislation of a Member State which allows banking institutions to refuse a request for information relating to a bank account (banking secrecy)))

(2015/C 302/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Coty Germany GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(3)(e) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows, in an unlimited and unconditional manner, a banking institution to invoke banking secrecy in order to refuse to provide, pursuant to Article 8(1)(c) of that directive, information concerning the name and address of an account holder.

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.

1

---