alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AR THUR

SARKISSIAN, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. C OM M ISSIONER

OF INTER

NAL REVENUE, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 13-70121

Ta x C t. No. 27511-11 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

a De c ision of the Unite d Stat e s Tax C ourt Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2015 ** B e fore : LEAVY, C ALLAHAN, a nd M . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s. Arthur Sa rkissia n a ppe a ls from

the Ta x C ourt’ s orde r dism issing his ac tion for la c k of subje c t

m atte r jurisdic tion. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 26 U.S.C . § 7482(a )(1). W e re vie w for c le ar e rror the Tax C ourt’ s fa c tua l findings, W illiams v . C omm’r , 935 F.2d 1066, 1068 (9th C ir. 1991), a nd we a ffirm . 

# F IL ED MAY26 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).The Ta x C ourt did not c le arly e rr in finding tha

t Sa rkissia n a c tua lly re c e ive d the n otic e of de fic ie nc y . Se e Erhard v . C omm’r , 87 F.3d 273, 274 (9th C ir. 1996) (notic e of de fic ie n c y

is va lid if “ the taxpa

y e r ac tually

re c e iv e s the notic e , re ga rdle s s of whe re the IR S m a ils thenotic e ” ); se ealso Spark man v . C omm’r , 509 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ [T] he Tax C ourt . . . m ay disre ga rd unc ontra dic te d te stim ony by a taxpa y e r whe re it finds tha

t te stim ony

la c king in c re d ibility .” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d)). W e re je c t Sa rkissia n’ s a rgum e nts c onc e rning due proc e ss a nd the IR S’ s a lle ge d inte ntiona l fa ilure to se nd notic e s to Sa rkissia n’ s tax pre pa

re r a nd attorne y . AFFIRM E D.

2 1 3 - 7 0 1 2 1
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED
FROM  THE  REGISTRANT'S  1996  AUDITED   CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE  SHEETS  AND
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND> 
<CIK>                         0000939730
<NAME>                        EXPERT SOFTWARE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         2,959
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,775
<ALLOWANCES>                                   5,061
<INVENTORY>                                    1,256
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,428
<PP&E>                                         1,897
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,909)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 19,077
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,352
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       75
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,350
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   19,077
<SALES>                                        31,012
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               31,012
<CGS>                                          16,420
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  45,452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1,364
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (92)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14,348)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,067)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10,281)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,281)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.33)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2020201EN.01004301.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/43

---

Action brought on 15 April 2020 — Stone Brewing v EUIPO — Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) (STONE BREWING)

(Case T-200/20)

(2020/C 201/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stone Brewing Co. LLC (Escondido, California, United States) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Ltd (Burton Upon Trent, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade mark STONE BREWING — Application for registration No 15 423 668

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2020 in Case R 1524/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | make an award of costs in its favour. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an award of costs in its favour.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 71(1)(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 71(1)(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6410
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES RICHARD HYDEN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Cynthia D. Kinser, Magistrate Judge. (CR-90-39-B, CA-94-597-R) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 5, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Richard Hyden, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. * We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hyden , Nos. CR-90-39-B; CA-94-597-R (W.D. Va. Feb. 26, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
House Calendar No. 62

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 214

[Report No. 103–163]

RESOLUTION

Waiving certain points of order against the bill

for other purposes.the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, andpartment of the Interior and related agencies for(H.R. 2520) making appropriations for the DeJUNE 29, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 62

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 214

[Report No. 103–163]

Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 2520) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for

the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 29, 1993

Mr. GORDON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 2520)

making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That all points of order against consider2 ation of the bill (H.R. 2520) making appropriations for

3 the Department of the Interior and related agencies for

4 the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other

5 purposes, are waived. During consideration of the bill, all

6 points of order against the following provisions in the bill
2

HRES 214 RH

1 for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are

2 waived: beginning on page 4, line 22, through page 5, line

3 13; beginning on page 14, line 1, through ‘‘construction’’

4 on line 11; beginning on page 54, line 1, through line 4;

5 beginning on page 58, line 14, through line 22; beginning

6 on page 78, line 8, through page 80, line 10; beginning

7 on page 85, line 15, through page 86, line 15; beginning

8 on page 86, line 20, through page 87, line 3; and begin9 ning on page 89, line 18, through line 21. Where points

10 of order are waived against only part of a paragraph, a

11 point of order against matter in the balance of the para12 graph may be applied only within the balance of the para13 graph and not against the entire paragraph.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JG
INDUSTRIES, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE THIRD QUARTER OF FISCAL 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000             JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-30-1999             OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                               7                     213
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      554                     714
<ALLOWANCES>                                        16                      17
<INVENTORY>                                      9,486                   9,221
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,374                  10,241
<PP&E>                                          13,263                  14,538
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,397                  10,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,683                  16,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,966                   9,717
<BONDS>                                            732                   1,914
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,500                   1,500
<COMMON>                                        11,246                  11,246
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,823)                (10,073)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,683                  16,429
<SALES>                                         36,042                  38,145
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,042                  38,145
<CGS>                                           23,731                  25,372
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,731                  25,372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,354                  14,172
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   222                     380
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 110                      52
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,438)                 (1,905)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        29                      29
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,467)                 (1,934)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                     124
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,467)                 (1,810)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.48)                  (1.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.48)                  (1.80)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                           EXHIBIT 3.2

                    CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                
                             OF THE
                                
                CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                                
                          R-NET CORP.
                                
       Under Section 805 of the Business Corporation Law

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT:

     (1)  The name of the corporation is:

                    R-NET CORP.

     (2)  The Certificate of Incorporation was filed at the
Department of State of the State of New York on the 9th day of
December, 1994.

     (3)  The Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended to
effect a change in corporate name:

     Paragraph One (1) of the Certificate of Incorporation is
hereby amended to read:

     The name of the corporation is:

                    ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP.

     (4)  The amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation was
authorized by a vote of the Board of Directors, followed by a
vote of the holders of a majority of all outstanding shares
entitled to vote thereon at a meeting of shareholders.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this certificate has been subscribed this
20th day of December, 1994 by the undersigned, who affirm that
the statements made herein are true under the penalties of
perjury.

/s/ Jeremiah T. Carr                    /s/ Gregg C. Sayre
---------------------------             -------------------------
Jeremiah T. Carr, President             Gregg C. Sayre, Secretary
#### THE STATE *vs.*ISAAC UPDIKE.

Re-trial had in a criminal case, at the same term; the first jury having been discharged by the court.

New Castle,

May term, 1847.

Indictment, kidnapping William Hogans, negro.

This case was tried on a previous day of this term; and the jury being unable to agree, after being up all night, were discharged by the Court from rendering a verdict.

It now came up again before another jury, and the defendant was convicted.

*Bayard, jr.,*

moved to arrest judgment, on the ground that the jury having been discharged in the former case without the prisoner’s consent, he could not be tried again without putting him twice in jeopardy; but he afterwards withdrew his motion, being satisfied that the ground was not tenable. (See 9 *Wheat. Rep.*597.)
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

             FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
        WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES AND EARNINGS USED IN PER SHARE
                                   COMPUTATION
                        (DOLLARS AND SHARES IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED    SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                  JUNE 30,              JUNE 30,
                                             ------------------    -----------------
                                              2003       2002       2003       2002
                                             ------     ------     ------     ------
<S>                                          <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
The weighted average number of shares of
  Common Stock were as follows .........     90,000     90,000     90,000     90,000
                                             ======     ======     ======     ======
</TABLE>

Income used in the computation of earnings per share were as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED           SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                 JUNE 30,                    JUNE 30,
                                                          ----------------------      ----------------------
                                                            2003          2002          2003          2002
                                                          --------      --------      --------      --------
<S>                                                       <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
CONSOLIDATED
Net earnings .......................................      $ 53,745      $ 34,694        99,054      $ 75,152

Dividends paid on preferred stocks .................          (130)         (130)         (260)         (260)
                                                          --------      --------      --------      --------

                                                          --------      --------      --------      --------
Income used in per share computation of earnings ...      $ 53,615      $ 34,564        98,794      $ 74,892
                                                          ========      ========      ========      ========
Basic and fully dilutive earnings per share ........      $   0.60      $   0.38          1.10      $   0.83
                                                          ========      ========      ========      ========
</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 160/24 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 160 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5124 June 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 160

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5124 June 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2008/C 160/01 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive) (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2008/C 160/01

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive) (1)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# C_2020077EN.01006001.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/60

---

Action brought on 24 January 2020 — Di Bernardo v Commission

(Case T-41/20)

(2020/C 77/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Danilo di Bernardo (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 13 March 2019 taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 29 November 2018 in Case T-811/16; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 13 March 2019 taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 29 November 2018 in Case T-811/16;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant, as compensation for material harm caused to the applicant, a sum of EUR 50 000 as well as a sum of EUR 7 000, subject to increase in the course of the proceedings, as compensation for his moral harm; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant, as compensation for material harm caused to the applicant, a sum of EUR 50 000 as well as a sum of EUR 7 000, subject to increase in the course of the proceedings, as compensation for his moral harm;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the competition notice by the Examining Board in so far as the eligibility criteria that it laid down unlawfully restrict the scope of that notice. The applicant claims in that regard that, by adopting eligibility criteria which had the effect of excluding the taking into account of experience similar to that of the applicant, experience nevertheless compatible with the requirements of the competition notice, the Examining Board infringed the latter. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the competition notice by the Examining Board in so far as the eligibility criteria that it laid down unlawfully restrict the scope of that notice. The applicant claims in that regard that, by adopting eligibility criteria which had the effect of excluding the taking into account of experience similar to that of the applicant, experience nevertheless compatible with the requirements of the competition notice, the Examining Board infringed the latter.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment vitiating the contested decision and relating to the question whether the applicant’s professional experience is related to the responsibilities described in the competition notice. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment vitiating the contested decision and relating to the question whether the applicant’s professional experience is related to the responsibilities described in the competition notice.

---
1 

### Medina, Dayana

From: Pettyjohn, Mary <PETTYJOHN@adeq.state.ar.us>

Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 10:07 AM

To: Medina, Dayana Subject: FW: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. - Lake Catherine Unit 4 - BART FFA

Attachments: LC U4 FFA Cover Letter.pdf; LC U4 BART FFA - Final 03-04-2013.pdf

Hi Dayana,

Here is Entergy’s Lake Catherine BART analysis. Please share with the group.

Thank you, Mary

From: Triplett, David [mailto:dtripl1@entergy.com]

Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 9:33 AM

To: Bates, Mike

Cc: Bassett, Karen; Spencer, Stuart ; Pettyjohn, Mary; GLOVER, MYRA H; GUNN, TOMMY REID; McQueen, Kelly; JOHNSON, GEORGE; HANTZ, JOSEPH; 'Jeremy Jewell'; Kasi Dubbs Subject: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. - Lake Catherine Unit 4 - BART FFA

Mike,

Please find the attached BART 5-factor analysis and cover letter for Unit 4 at Entergy’s Lake Catherine facility. A hard copy will be hand-delivered later this morning.

Thanks.

David Triplett, P.E. Air Lead, Arkansas Environmental Support Entergy Services, Inc. (501) 377-4030 (office) | (501) 650- 1752 (cell) | (281) 297-6126 (fax)