alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31774-31775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14575]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Pistoia Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 29, 2018, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Pistoia Alliance, Inc. has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Thomas Doerner 
(individual), Loerrach, GERMANY; TetraScience Inc., Boston, MA; Melanie 
Brewer (individual), Santa Barbara, CA; Richard Holland (individual), 
Fordingbridge, UNITED KINGDOM; Omix Ventures Private Limited, Douglas, 
ISLE OF MAN; Digipharm, Zug, SWITZERLAND; Lab Automation Network, 
Tubigen, GERMANY; IDBS, Guildford, UNITED KINGDOM; Scilligence 
Corporation, Cambridge, MA; Envision Biotechnology Inc., Grandsville, 
MI; Synthace Ltd., London, UNITED KINGDOM; Wellcome Sanger Institute, 
Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM; Medalynx Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA; Tag.bio, 
San Francisco, CA; and Global Value Web BV, Liessel, THE NETHERLANDS, 
have been added as parties to this venture.
    Also, Tessella, Oxfordshire, UNITED KINGDOM; and AMRA (Advanced MR 
Analytics AB), Linkoping, SWEDEN, have withdrawn as parties to this 
venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to 
file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, Inc. filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on July 15, 2009 (74 FR 34364).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 6, 
2018. A notice was published in the Federal

[[Page 31775]]

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 24, 2018 (83 FR 
17851).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-14575 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 12

GTE California Incorporated and Subsidiary

STATEMENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Thousands of Dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Six Months Ended
                                                                    June 30, 1997
                                                                  ----------------
<S>                                                               <C>
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income from continuing operations                                   $245,759
  Add - Income taxes                                                   158,084
       - Fixed charges                                                  60,828
                                                                      --------
Adjusted earnings                                                     $464,671
                                                                      ========
                                                                     
Fixed charges:                                                       
  Interest expense                                                    $ 54,275
  Portion of rent expense                                            
     representing interest                                               6,553
                                                                      --------
Adjusted fixed charges                                                $ 60,828
                                                                      ========
                                                                     
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                        7.64
</TABLE>
# C_2022207EN.01000501.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bremen — Germany) — DM v CTS Eventim AG & Co. KGaA

(Case C-96/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Right of withdrawal for distance and off-premises contracts - Exceptions to the right of withdrawal - Article 16(l) - Provision of services related to leisure activities - Contract providing for a specific date or period of performance - Provision of ticket agency services - Intermediary acting in its name but on behalf of the organiser of a leisure activity - Risk associated with the exercise of the right of withdrawal)

(2022/C 207/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DM

Defendant: CTS Eventim AG & Co. KGaA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(l) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that the exception to the right of withdrawal provided for in that provision may be relied on against a consumer who has concluded, with an intermediary acting in its name, but on behalf of the organiser of a leisure activity, a distance contract for acquiring a right of access to that activity, provided that, first, the termination of the obligation to perform that contract vis-à-vis the consumer by means of withdrawal, in accordance with Article 12(a) of that directive, would place the risk linked to the setting aside of the capacity thus released on the organiser of the activity concerned and, second, the leisure activity to which that right gives access is scheduled to take place on a specific date or within a specific period.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

---
# C_2020129EN.01002501.xml

| 20.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/25

---

Action brought on 27 February 2020 — Collibra v EUIPO — Dietrich (collibra)

(Case T-129/20)

(2020/C 129/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Collibra (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Renck, A. Bothe, lawyers and I. Junkar, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hans Dietrich (Starnberg, Germany)

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 figurative mark collibra — Application for registration No 16 787 889

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 in Case R 738/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

Pleas in law

| — | 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;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2020329EN.01001701.xml

| 5.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/17

---

Action brought on 4 August 2020 — Rezon v EUIPO (imot.bg)

(Case T-487/20)

(2020/C 329/35)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Yordanova-Harizanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark ‘imot.bg’ — Application for registration No 18 001 398

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2020 in Case R 2270/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and order registration of the mark at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and order registration of the mark at issue;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### RAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, and the Travelers Insurance Company, a corporation, Petitioners, v. Lem Tom TURNER and Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 44486.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 16, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed.
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge

for the District of Nebraska.

___________

No. 95-2500

___________

John C. Wray, II, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

David Avery; Harold W. Clarke; *

Charles West, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: January 19, 1996

 Filed: January 23, 1996 ___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Nebraska inmate John Wray appeals the district court's1 grant

of summary judgment to defendant prison officials in his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record and the

parties' briefs, we conclude that summary judgment was properly

granted, and we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2020095EN.01004401.xml

| 23.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/44

---

Action brought on 3 February 2020 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ NEW YORK)

(Case T-67/20)

(2020/C 95/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hauz 1929 Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Lyberis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Houzz, Inc. (Palo Alto, California, United States)

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 figurative mark HAUZ NEW YORK — Application for registration No 17 593 807

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 in Case R 886/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

partially annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings, including those incurred before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings, including those incurred before EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | 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.

---
# INSTRUCTIONS

# 485 Ground Trans
[No. 1229-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

February 22, 1972.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Daniel William Knottnerus, *Petitioner.*
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [ Project No. 14581-002; Project No. 2299-082]
 Take notice that the schedule for processing the following hydroelectric applications has been modified. a. 
                    *Type of Applications:*
                     Major Licenses. b. 
                    *Project Nos.:*
                     14581-002 and 2299-082. c. 
                    *Date filed:*
                     October 11, 2017. d. 
                    *Applicant:*
                     Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District (Districts). e. 
                    *Name of Projects:*
                     La Grange and Don Pedro Hydroelectric Projects. f. 
                    *Location:*
                     The La Grange Project is located on the Tuolumne River in 
                    ( print page 31387)
                    Stanislaus and Tuolumne Counties, California. The Don Pedro Project is located on the Tuolumne River in Tuolumne County, California. Portions of both projects occupy public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. g. 
                    *Filed Pursuant to:*
                     Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. 
                    *Applicant Contacts:*
                     Steve Boyd, Turlock Irrigation District, 333 East Canal Drive, Turlock, California 95381-0949, (209) 883-8300; and Anna Brathwaite, Modesto Irrigation District, P.O. Box 4060, Modesto, CA 95352, (209) 526-7384. i. 
                    *FERC Contact:*
                     Jim Hastreiter at (503) 552-2760 or 
                    *james.hastreiter@ferc.gov*. j. 
                    *Procedural Schedule:*
                     The Commission's November 30, 2017, Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis for each of the projects established July 2018 as the estimated date for issuing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The revised estimate for issuing the Draft EIS is now November 2018. As such, the applications will be processed according to the following revised schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. If a due date falls on a weekend or holiday, the due date will be the following business day. Milestone
Target dateCommission issues Draft EIS
November 2018.Comments on Draft EIS
January 2019.Modified Terms and Conditions
March 2019.Commission issues Final EIS
May 2019.
 Dated: June 27, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2018-14345 Filed 7-3-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Raymond Robert CORRIEA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 41504.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 15, 1972.

Robert P. Kundinger, Pompano Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of rape without a recommendation of mercy and sentenced to death. Subsequently, under authority of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (opinion filed July 17, 1972), this Court in Anderson et al. v. State, 267 So.2d 8 (opinion filed September 8, 1972) remanded appellant’s cause to the Circuit Court for resentencing. F.S. § 794.01 (1969), F.S.A.

This cause has now been presented and orally argued before the Court. Upon consideration thereof and careful analysis and study of the record and briefs in this cause, we find no error warranting a reversal of the judgment of conviction. Accordingly said judgment and the sentence pursuant thereto, as heretofore modified, is hereby

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. J., ERVIN, CARLTON, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., and DREW, J. (Retired), concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Leroy STERLING v. 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT.

No. 62332.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Leroy Sterling applying for writ of mandamus. E. Parish of Feliciana.

Writ denied. Moot.
U.S. General Services Administration

For more information, visit:

www.gsa.gov/computersforlearning

Computers for Learning Program

The CFL program allows government agencies to transfer 

excess educationally useful computer equipment to schools 

and educational nonprofit organizations, giving special 

consideration to those with the greatest need. The CFL website 

developed by GSA facilitates these transfers. The website 

enables schools and educational nonprofit organizations to 

view computers and peripheral equipment reported by federal 

agencies. Eligible recipients can customize searches on the CFL 

website, select and request items through a “checkout” process. 

Use of the CFL website requires registration to validate basic 

eligibility requirements. Final eligibility determinations of the 

potential recipient and allocation of the property are done by the 

federal agency that holds the excess equipment.

Who is eligible to receive computer equipment through the 

CFL program?

• Schools and educational nonprofit organizations located in the 

United States, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, can receive computer equipment 

through the CFL program.

• A school is eligible to participate if it is a public, private or parochial 

school serving some portion of the pre-kindergarten through grade 

12 population. Day care centers must provide a state approved 

preschool curriculum in order to participate.

• An educational nonprofit organization must have a 501(c)(3) Tax 

ID and meet the educational institution criteria specified under 

Title 40 USC such as certification and license requirements. 

Recipients of computers and other educationally useful federal 

equipment must make their own arrangements for transportation 

and pickup of the property, including payment for such, and gain 

title to the property upon receipt.

Education is a national priority. Every child should be 

educated to his or her full potential. The Computers 

For Learning (CFL) Program established by 

Executive Order 12999 [Educational Technology: 

Ensuring Opportunity for All Children in the Next 

Century] helps accomplish this goal by integrating 

computer technology into the classroom.
Order entered September 17, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00194-CR

EDWARD LAMAR PORTER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18-00712-T

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s September 13, 2019 first motion for extension of time to 

file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief due on or before October 7, 2019.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### DARLING RASH *vs.*EDWARD HOLLIDAY.

Certiorari to Justice Ringgold.

The action below was in trespass. The summons stated the damages claimed to be *twenty dollars.*Referees reported in favor of plaintiff below *twenty-five*dollars, and judgment rendered by the jus* tice for -that sum.

*Bates,*for Colescott.

*Frame,*for Rash.

*The Court*

reversed both of these judgments, on the ground that the plaintiffs could not legally obtain judgment for a greater amount than was stated in the summons to be claimed from the defendants respectively.
#### Billy C. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-68.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 20, 1969.

Billy C. Edwards, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined, and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.