alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020320EN.01002701.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/27

---

Action brought on 28 July 2020 — Sfera Joven v EUIPO — Koc (SFORA WEAR)

(Case T-493/20)

(2020/C 320/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sfera Joven, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andrzej Koc (Kobyłka, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark SFORA WEAR — Application for registration No 15 853 245

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2020 in Case R 2030/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent, it upholds the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in the opposition proceedings B 2 834 862, granting in part the EU trade mark No 15 853 245 SFORA WEAR (word), to distinguish specific goods in Classes 18 and 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent, it upholds the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in the opposition proceedings B 2 834 862, granting in part the EU trade mark No 15 853 245 SFORA WEAR (word), to distinguish specific goods in Classes 18 and 25;

| — | order any party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order any party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Inadequate assessment of the evidence of use of the opposing mark, and infringement of Article 10(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625. |
| --- | --- |

—

Inadequate assessment of the evidence of use of the opposing mark, and infringement of Article 10(4) 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, and breach of the classification criteria laid down in the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957 (in its most recent version), together with the Explanatory Notes and Class Analysis prepared by WIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and breach of the classification criteria laid down in the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957 (in its most recent version), together with the Explanatory Notes and Class Analysis prepared by WIPO.

---
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Ted BENDER, Appellee.

No. 70-477.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 14, 1971.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Orange County; W. Rogers Turner, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
NUMBER 13

- 19

- 0 0 654

- CV



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ AMERICAN TV/ELECTRONICS, INC. DBA AMERICAN AC & HEATING Appellant ,

v.

MARCELO AND JOVANA GARCIA VICTORIANO TREVINO , Appellee s

.

_

___________________________________________________________ On a ppeal from the 398 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

_

___________________________________________________________ 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria , and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

This matter is before the Court on the appellant ’ s failure to file a brief or reasonably

explain the failure to do so. The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on June 9,

2020 . On August 25, 2020 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had2 not been timely filed and that the app eal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution

under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date

of the letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not

significantly injured by the ap pellant's failure to timely file a brief.

The Clerk’s office called appellant’s counsel and was informe d the case had

settled. To date, no brief, response to correspondence, nor motion regarding a settlement,

if any, have been received by the Court.

Appe llant has failed to either reasonably explain his failure to file a brief, file a

motion for extension of time to file his brief, or file his brief. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

JAIME TIJERINA Justice

D elivered and filed the 7th day of January , 202 1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                 903,209
<SECURITIES>                         3,169,234
<RECEIVABLES>                        1,555,688
<ALLOWANCES>                           126,000
<INVENTORY>                            302,172
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     6,126,672
<PP&E>                              14,644,232
<DEPRECIATION>                       8,576,866
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      14,253,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                1,178,832
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                               223,180
<OTHER-SE>                          11,746,789
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        14,253,736
<SALES>                              5,382,442
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     5,857,496
<CGS>                                2,297,792
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        4,696,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         6,471
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        10,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      1,154,171
<INCOME-TAX>                           426,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    727,671
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                           727,671
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023071EN.01001101.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — KT, NS v FTI Touristik GmbH

(Case C-396/221) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive (EU) 2015/2302 - Article 14(1) - Package travel and linked travel arrangements - Performance of a package travel contract - Liability of the organiser concerned - Measures to fight the worldwide spread of an infectious disease - COVID-19 pandemic - Restrictions imposed at the travel destination and in the place of residence of the traveller concerned and in other countries - Lack of conformity of the services provided as part of the package concerned - Appropriate reduction in the price of that package)

(2023/C 71/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: KT, NS

Defendant: FTI Touristik GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC,

must be interpreted as meaning that a traveller is entitled to a reduction in the price of his or her package holiday where a lack of conformity of the travel services included in the package is due to restrictions that have been imposed at the travel destination to fight the spread of an infectious disease and such restrictions have also been imposed in the traveller’s place of residence and in other countries due to the worldwide spread of that disease. In order for that price reduction to be appropriate, it must be assessed in the light of the services included in the package concerned and must correspond to the value of the services for which a lack of conformity has been found.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.

---
#### Clyde JONES, Petitioner, v. CONCRETE PAVERS, INC., National Surety Corporation and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 38864.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 24, 1969.

Irvin A. Meyers, of Meyers & Mooney, Orlando, for petitioner.

R. G. Ross, of Pitts, Eubanks, Ross & Paul, Orlando, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date June 26, 1969.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petitions, records and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

Accordingly, the petitions for certiorari and attorney’s fee are hereby denied.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
#### Gilbert HILL, etc., Appellant, v. Hon. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 74-223.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 28, 1974.

Habeas corpus denied.
Forest Northern Region 

## USDA United States Region One Department of Service 200 EastBroadway Agriculture Missoula, MT 59802
File Code: 2580 Date: 

### NOV 9 

### 2007 Laurel Dygowski Regional Haze Coordinator Air Quality Planning and Management Unit US EPA

- Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129 Dear Ms. Dygowski: The USDA Forest Service Northern Region is pleased to provide the following comments in regards to the BART Analysis submittedbyAsh Grove Cement.

• We concur with the analysis providedbyEC/R that a greater level ofcontrol ofNOx emissions can be achieved using SNCR and a low NOx burner than what is quoted by Ash Grove. Ash Grove should redo its calculations based on the highest potential1eve1 ofcontrol.

• The Forest Service would like to see more information pertaining to the actual level of PM 10 control provided bythe existing control devices. The Forest Service is concerned about the high levels ofPM 10 emissions even with the existing controls inplace.

• When assessing deciview improvements or costs per deciview for improvements, Ash Grove should consider all Class I areas, notjust Gates ofthe Mountains. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this analysis. Sincerely,

# ~AJ01Lu- 4t/ntM;.it.. (THOMAS L. TIDWELL

Regional Forester

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper \i
...
# Official Journal L 83I/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 083I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6510 March 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 083I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6510 March 2022

---

| Contents | | Corrigenda | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/267 of 23 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine ( OJ L 42 I, 23.2.2022 ) | 1 |
| | * | Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2022/398 of 9 March 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine ( OJ L 82, 9.3.2022 ) | 2 |

Contents

Corrigenda

page

*

Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/267 of 23 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine ( OJ L 42 I, 23.2.2022 )

( OJ L 42 I, 23.2.2022 )

1

*

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2022/398 of 9 March 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine ( OJ L 82, 9.3.2022 )

( OJ L 82, 9.3.2022 )

2

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
EX-10.18






 Apria, Inc. has requested confidential treatment of this registration statement and
associated correspondence 
 pursuant to Rule 83 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

 Exhibit 10.18 

November 15, 2020 
 Robert P. Walker 

 

	Re:	 Amendment of Executive Severance Agreement 



Dear Robert: 
 This letter confirms the amendment, as set forth
below, of your Executive Severance Agreement, dated April 1, 2013, with Apria Healthcare Group Inc. (the “Agreement”). This letter supersedes that certain letter agreement between you and Apria Healthcare LLC, dated
June 27, 2018, in its entirety. 
 In the event that you become entitled to severance pay pursuant to Section 4 of the Agreement, each payment in
a series of payments under the Agreement shall be deemed to be a separate payment for purposes of Section 409A of the Code of 1986, as amended. 

Except as expressly provided in the preceding paragraph, your Agreement continues in effect in accordance with its terms. This letter agreement shall be
construed and interpreted consistent with Section 11(a) of the Agreement. 
 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Celina
Scally at [redacted]. 
  

			
	APRIA HEALTHCARE GROUP INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Raoul Smyth

	Name:	 	Raoul Smyth
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President, General Counsel


 Acknowledged and agreed: 
  

	
	/s/ Robert P. Walker
	Robert P. Walker
#### William Paul HARRISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-458.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 16, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William W. Herring, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged in an indictment with murder in the first degree, was tried by a jury, found guilty of the offense charged and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison. By this appeal he asks that the judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside and that he be awarded a new trial on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have carefully read and considered the transcript of testimony and evidence offered during the trial. To sustain the conviction, the State relies upon circumstantial evidence to establish appellant’s guilt. Without recounting in detail the evidence adduced at the trial, we find in the record ample competent evidence which is wholly consistent with appellant’s guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. It is evident that the jury elected to believe the testimony of the witnesses testifying on behalf of the State and to disbelieve appellant’s testimony regarding his version of how the shotgun discharged and killed the victim. Both the jury by its verdict and the able trial judge in denying appellant’s motion for new trial found the evidence to be wholly sufficient to sustain the judgment here assaulted. The weight to be given the evidence and the credibility to be accorded the witnesses who testify lie peculiarly within the province of the jury. Its findings of fact, as affirmed by the trial court, will not be disturbed unless shown to be clearly erroneous.

Appellant having failed to demonstrate error, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
263 La. 92

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Charles HEBERT v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 52729.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 17, 1972.

In re: Charles Hebert applying for writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and/or remedial writs.

Writs refused. Considering the per curiam of the trial court, the showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction or original jurisdiction.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Nathaniel SMITH.

No. 62470.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Nathaniel Smith applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied. The mandamus is moot, since the trial court acted upon the relator’s petition.
#### Marie McKEAN, Appellant, v. John CLAFFEY, Appellee.

No. 67-37.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Dec. 6, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 5, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 04706**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  04706\04706_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 04706\04706_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04706\04706_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04706\04706_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04706\04706_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04706\04706_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04706\04706_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04706\04706_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04706\04706_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

04706\Certification Statement Plant ID 04706.pdf Plant certification statement 04706\Supplemental Documents\04706_A5-2 plant aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04706\Supplemental Documents\04706_A5-3 WB Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

04706\Supplemental Documents\04706_AEP ELGs ICR submittal letter 10-13-10.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04706\Supplemental Documents\04706_D3-1 POND 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 04706\Supplemental Documents\04706_D3-1 POND 5.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 04706\Supplemental Documents\04706_F4-1 LTS-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04706\Supplemental Documents\04706_F4-1 LTS-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04706\Supplemental Documents\04706_F4-1 LTS-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04706\Supplemental Documents\04706_F5-6 Fly Ash Pond Wells.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04706\Supplemental Documents\04706_F5-6 Landfill Wells Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04706\Supplemental Documents\04706_Follow up Email 1.pdf Follow-up correspondence and materials as part of survey. x 04706\Supplemental Documents\04706_Follow up Email 2.pdf Follow-up correspondence and materials as part of survey. x 04706\Supplemental Documents\04706_Follow up Email 3.pdf Follow-up correspondence and materials as part of survey. x 04706\Supplemental Documents\04706_Follow up Response 2.pdf Follow-up correspondence and materials as part of survey. x 04706\Supplemental Documents\04706_Follow up Response.pdf Follow-up correspondence and materials as part of survey. x 04706\04706_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04706\04706_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 04706\Supplemental Documents\04706_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in theSteam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
# C_2022472EN.01002102.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — ‘Mikrotīkls’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-542/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Heading 8517 - Subheadings 8517 70 11 and 8517 70 19 - Router aerials)

(2022/C 472/25)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Mikrotīkls’ SIA

Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 8517 70 11 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the customs and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2000 of 31 January 2000, as that annex has been amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012 and by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013,

must be interpreted as meaning that it does not cover router aerials configured for communication in local area networks (LAN) and/or in wide area networks (WAN).

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

---