alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013038EN.01002503.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

---

Action brought on 12 December 2012 — Aroa Bodegas v OHIM — Bodegas Muga (aroa)

(Case T-536/12)

2013/C 38/46

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aroa Bodegas, SL (Zurukoain, Spain) (represented by: S. Alonso Maruri, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas Muga, SL (Haro, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul and therefore declare inapplicable the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2012 in Case R 1845/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul and therefore declare inapplicable the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2012 in Case R 1845/2010-4;

| — | annul and therefore declare inapplicable the decision of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2010 (opposition B1509499); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul and therefore declare inapplicable the decision of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2010 (opposition B1509499);

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

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: Figurative mark with the word element ‘aroa’ for goods in Classes 29, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 8 276 297

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bodegas Muga, SL

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark with word element ‘aro’ for goods in Class 33

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

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

Plea in law:

---
No. 48850.

#### Protests 98802-K, etc., of Lansen-Naeve Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

From an examination of the entry papers the court was unable to find anything sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was held presumptively correct. The protests were therefore overruled.
No. 44381.

#### Protests 575066-G, etc., of J. Kridel Sons & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that- the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          24,127
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  483,750
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,636
<INVENTORY>                                    497,414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,054,780
<PP&E>                                         696,621
<DEPRECIATION>                                 315,539
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,894,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          457,318
<BONDS>                                        346,647
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,586
<OTHER-SE>                                     670,634
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,894,575
<SALES>                                      1,806,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,806,153
<CGS>                                        1,338,213
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,338,213
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               316,379
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,029
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,773
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                110,759
<INCOME-TAX>                                    47,865
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             56,724
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    56,724
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.15


</TABLE>
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Solaris Oilfield Site Services Oper LLC

, * From the 35 th District Court

of Brown County,

Trial Court No. CV2009372

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 2 06

- C V * April 18 , 20 2 4

Brown County Appraisal District

, * Opinion by Williams , J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

error in the judgment below

. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion,

we reverse the judgment of the trial court in favor of Brown County Appraisal

District, and we render judgment in favor of Solaris Oilfield Site Services Oper

LLC . The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed agains t Brown County

Appraisal District.
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Huifeng Bio-Pharmaceutical Technology, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Sanding Tao, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date:  November 13, 2006  /S/    Sanding Tao Sanding Tao Chief Financial Officer
# C_2015328EN.01003601.xml

| 5.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/36

---

Action brought on 28 July 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-109/15)

(2015/C 328/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Wolff, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to grant the applicant an installation allowance

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Head of Unit ‘Individual rights and remuneration’ of 12 December 2014, and the defendant’s decision of 20 April 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Head of Unit ‘Individual rights and remuneration’ of 12 December 2014, and the defendant’s decision of 20 April 2015;

| — | Order the defendant to pay an installation allowance of EUR 21  688,20, plus statutory interest, from the date of the application being lodged; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay an installation allowance of EUR 21  688,20, plus statutory interest, from the date of the application being lodged;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
No. 39230.

#### Protests 789358-G, etc., of Romanes & Paterson et al. (Boston).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Outerwear in chief value of wool similar to that involved' in Abstract 36548 was held dutiable under paragraph 1114 as claimed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JACQUAY T. HALL,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 49 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of July, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET OF THE VOYAGER GROUP,  INC. AS OF OCTOBER 31, 2000 AND THE RELATED
STATEMENTS OF  OPERATIONS  AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                         197
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    157
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               382
<PP&E>                                         174
<DEPRECIATION>                                 54
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          716
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1
<OTHER-SE>                                     (236)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   510
<SALES>                                        144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               144
<CGS>                                          40
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  40
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               218
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             14
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (128)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (128)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (128)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.13)




</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

October 24, 1941

No. 46502.

#### Protests 975273-G, etc., of L. Bamberger & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

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

May 5, 1943

No. 48251.

#### Protests 999977-G, etc., of Eitinger Bead Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Certain of the merchandise stipulated to be beads similar to those the subject of Abstract 47818 was held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1503, as modified by the Czechoslovakian Trade Agreement (T. D. 49458). Other of the beads in question, stipulated to be similar to those involved in Abstract 47821 were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 1503; and others, similar to those the subject of Abstract 47816, were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1503 and said trade agreement (T. D. 49458). Protests sustained as to those items.
# C_2014184EN.01002503.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 4 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Thomas Etzold, Sandra Etzold, Toni Lennard Etzold v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-575/13) (1)

1

2014/C 184/43

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.

1

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES 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 Annual Report of Amtech Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Robert T. Hass, Vice President  Finance and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company. By /s/ Robert T. Hass
Robert T. Hass
Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer
Date: January 28, 2008
No. 96-8008.

#### Mans *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 74-6031.

#### Trailor *v.*Hopper, Warden.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
(Reap. Dec. 9928)

#### Akron Tire Supply Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 4759, etc.

(Decided March 1, 1961)

*Tomphins & Tomplcins*for the plaintiffs.

*William S. Orricle, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, that the items on the invoices covered by reappraisement appeals listed in Schedule A *612below, wbieb Schedule A is made a part of this stipulation, which are marked with A, or B, or C and the initials RMM, Examiner K. M. Maben, consist of the following identified articles, which are not specified in the Final List as set forth in T.D. 54521 and which fall within the following classifications as set forth in the Tariff Act of 1930 as modified:

> Items

> marked Notice of articles Classification

> A Parts of automobile trucks, other. 10%% Par. 369(c)

> B Parts of machines, in chief value of metal, 11%% Par. 372

> not specially provided for,

> C Parts of agricultural implements. Free Par. 1604

> That at the time of exportation said items marked A, or B, or C had “export values” as defined in Section 402, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, and that said “export values” were the appraised unit values as checked in red on the invoices, or attachments thereto, less 50%, less ocean freight and insurance and plus export packing as specified on the invoices.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined hi the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 943), and hold that such statutory value for the merchandise is the appraised unit values as checked in red on the invoices, or attachments thereto, less 50 per centum, less ocean freight and insurance, and plus export packing, as specified on the invoices.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2014102EN.01000802.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/8

---

Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví — Czech Republic) — MF 7 a.s. v MAFRA a.s.

(Case C-49/13) (1)

1

((Article 267 TFEU - Concept of ‘court or tribunal’ - Proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature - Independence - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

2014/C 102/10

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MF 7 a.s.

Applicant: MF 7 a.s.

Defendant: MAFRA a.s.

Defendant: MAFRA a.s.

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví — Interpretation of Article 3(2)(d) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25) — Criteria for the assessment of bad faith — Influence of circumstances which occurred after the application for registration was filed on the assessment of the good faith of the applicant — Consent by the proprietor of the trade mark to conduct which might limit its exclusive rights — Contracts concluded between the proprietor of the earlier trade mark and the applicant for the later trade mark not governing intellectual property rights — Tolerance of the contested trade mark by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark for a prolonged period.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví (Czech Republic) in its decision of 22 January 2013.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

1

---
No. 47711.

#### Protest 37729-K of F. W. Myers & Co., Inc. (Detroit).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co., Ltd.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported and that no addition should have been made for planing, tonguing, or grooving. The protest was sustained to this extent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                63,471
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      1,470,018
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (226,397)
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1,981,606
<PP&E>                                               551,883
<DEPRECIATION>                                       181,377
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     2,352,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1,282,711
<BONDS>                                            3,022,728
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                              15,881
<OTHER-SE>                                       (1,969,208)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       2,352,112
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   5,412,398
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   5,346,158
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     286,322
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 1,561,386
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (1,781,468)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (1,781,468)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (1,781,468)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.13)


</TABLE>
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 08756

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name Description

08756\08756_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

08756\08756_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

08756\08756_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 08756\08756_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08756\08756_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08756\08756_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08756\08756_PlantID_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 08756\Supporting Documentation\08756_Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08756\Supporting Documentation\08756_EIS.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08756\Supporting Documentation\08756_EPA Request Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08756\Supporting Documentation\08756_Water Balance Diagram.tif Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
# C_2013114EN.01003402.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Di Tullio v Commission

(Case T-39/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil Service - Members of the temporary staff - Leave for national service - Article 18, first indent, of the Conditions of Employment - Temporal effects of a judgment)

2013/C 114/55

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Roberto di Tullio (Rovigo, Italy) (represented by: initially by S. Woog and T. Bontinck, and subsequently by T. Bontinck, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2011 in Case F-119/10 Di Tullio v Commission [2011] ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-A-1-0000, and seeking to have that judgment set aside

Di Tullio

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Roberto Di Tullio to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Roberto Di Tullio to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

1

---