alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020414EN.01004101.xml

| 30.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/41

---

Action brought on 30 September 2020 — MS v Commission

(Case T-602/20)

(2020/C 414/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: MS (represented by: M. Medla, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in the form of the decision on the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in the form of the decision on the complaint;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is directed against Decision PMO 4, TFT IN, 0425863600, of the European Commission, PMO — Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements, PMO 4 — Pensions and relations with former officials, of 3 December 2019, in the form of Decision HR.E.2/NX/sb/Ares of the European Commission, DG HR — Directorate General for Human Resources and Security, DIR E — Legal Affairs & Partnerships, Unit 2 — Appeals & Case Monitoring, of 30 June 2020, by which the applicant’s complaint against the contested decision was rejected.

The action is based on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (1) in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of the decision of the Administrative Committee of the Court of Justice of 12 May 2004 laying down general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

The applicant claims that the defendant incorrectly used as a basis for the calculation of the years of pensionable service to be credited the capital that was actually transferred and discounted by 3,9 % per annum to the day of the transfer application. According to the applicant, instead, the defendant should have used as a basis for this calculation the value, submitted by the national pension scheme provider, of the pension rights at the time of the transfer application. This would have led to a number of years of pensionable service to be credited that is over 20 % higher.

---

(1)  Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I Volume 1959-1962, p. 135).

---
# C_2020095EN.01004402.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 4 February 2020 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ EST 1929)

(Case T-68/20)

(2020/C 95/54)

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 EST 1929 — Application for registration No 17 636 119

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 in Case R 885/2019-5

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.

---
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

 General DataComm Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries 
 Calculation of Earnings per Share                             Exhibit 11 
 (In thousands except per share data)

				                                          		Three months ended
						                                          December 31,
						                                          1995     1994
<S>                                              <S>      <S>
Primary earnings per share:
    Weighted average number of common shares       
      outstanding                                20,499   18,198
    Assumed exercise of certain stock options         -        - 
                                           					 ------   ------
			                                          			 20,499   18,198
					                                          	 ------   ------
Net loss                                        ($2,891)   ($805)
						                                           ------   ------
Loss per share                                   ($0.14)  ($0.04)
						                                           ------   ------
  
Fully diluted earnings per share:
    Weighted average number of common shares       
       outstanding                               20,499   18,198
    Assumed exercise of certain stock options        -        - 
                                           					 ------   ------
						                                           20,499   18,198
						                                           ------   ------
Net loss                                        ($2,891)   ($805)
						                                           ------   ------
Loss per share                                   ($0.14)  ($0.04)
					                                          	 ------   ------
</TABLE>                                   
                            				   -15-
[No. 831-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

November 1, 1971.]

#### Phyllis E. Meder, *Appellant,*v. CC-ME Company, Inc., *et al., Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 707476, George H. Freese, J., entered April 17, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 540 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 540

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to 
                        the situation in Haiti.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 1994

 Mr. Hastings (for himself, Ms. Waters, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Johnston of 
   Florida, Mr. Payne of New Jersey, and Mrs. Clayton) submitted the 
 following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to 
                        the situation in Haiti.

Whereas the Government of the United States for 3 years has sought through 
        diplomatic means the return of the democratically elected President of 
        Haiti to his rightful place as President of Haiti;
Whereas representatives of the United States Government were successful in 
        reaching a peaceful agreement with the de facto leaders of Haiti;
Whereas these de facto leaders of Haiti signed an agreement which set the date 
        of October 15th for the return of Haitian President Jean Bertrand 
        Aristide;
Whereas this agreement stipulates that certain military officers of the Haitian 
        Armed Forces will retire in accordance with United Nations Resolutions 
        917 and 940;
Whereas these military officers have agreed to retire when an amnesty, similar 
        to that proposed in the Governor's Island Accord, is voted into law by 
        the Haitian Parliament, or by October 15, 1994 or whichever comes first; 
        and
Whereas the signatories of this agreement have agreed that legislative elections 
        will be held in a free and democratic manner: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the return of President Aristide to his 
        democratically elected position as President of Haiti;
            (2) urges the Haitian military to ensure a peaceful 
        transition;
            (3) calls for the earliest possible retirement of certain 
        Haitian military leaders; and
            (4) calls upon the President of the United States to return 
        to the United States at the earliest practicable date all 
        United States Armed Forces (except those forces participating 
        in long-term peacekeeping activities with the United Nations).

                                 <all>
```
H. Res. 568

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 7 (legislative day, October 6), 1994.

Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the House shall consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 21) to designate certain lands in the California Desert as wilderness, to establish Death Valley, Joshua

Tree, and Mojave National Parks, and for other purposes. All

points of order against the conference report and against its

consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as

ordered on the conference report to final adoption without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Attest:

Clerk.
# C_2021019EN.01007101.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/71

---

Action brought on 5 November 2020 — Hansol Paper v Commission

(Case T-693/20)

(2021/C 19/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hansol Paper Co. Ltd (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1524 of 19 October 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain heavyweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea in so far as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1524 of 19 October 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain heavyweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea in so far as it relates to the applicant;

| — | order the Commission and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s methodology for the determination of the undercutting and underselling margins of the applicant violates Articles 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation.

---
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 16.1

                      Albright, Persing & Associates, Ltd.

                          Certified Public Accountants

                          1025 Ridgeview Dr., Suite 300

                               Reno, Nevada 89509

December 10, 1999

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

Re:      HomeSeekers.com, Incorporated
         Commission File No. 0-23835

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have read Item 4 of HomeSeekers.com, Incorporated's Form 8-K dated December
8, 1999, and we agree with such statements, except that we are not in a position
to (1) agree or disagree with HomeSeekers.com, Incorporated's statement that the
Registrant's Audit Committee participated in and approved the decision to change
independent accountants, or (2) confirm that HomeSeekers.com, Incorporated
engaged new principal accountants on December 8, 1999 and therefore, during the
fiscal years ended June 30, 1999 and 1998 and the subsequent interim period to
the date hereof, HomeSeekers.com, Incorporated did not consult Ernst & Young LLP
regarding any of the matters or events set forth in Item 304 (a)(2)(i) and (ii)
of Regulation S-K.


Very truly yours,

/s/ Albright, Persing & Associates, Ltd.
#### R. C. RUSSELL v. John A. HULSEBOSCH, et ux.

No. 46007.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 26, 1970.

William W. Ferguson, Raymond, P. Howard Parkman, Clinton, for appellant.

Stennett, Wilkinson & Ward, Jackson, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 15




          November 11, 1996


          To Mirage Resorts, Incorporated:

          We are aware that  Mirage Resorts, Incorporated has  incorporated
          by reference in its Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No.
          33-16037), on Form S-8 (File No. 33-48394), on Form S-8 (File No.
          33-63804), on Form S-8 (File No. 33-60183), on Form S-3 (File No.
          33-65317) and on Form S-3 (File No. 333-07261) its Form 10-Q  for
          the  quarter  ended September 30, 1996, which includes our report
          dated November 11,  1996 covering the unaudited interim financial
          information contained therein.  Pursuant  to Regulation C of  the
          Securities Act of 1933, that report  is not considered a part  of
          these registration statements or  a report prepared or  certified
          by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

          Very truly yours,



          ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial  information  extracted from the General
Instrument Corporation financial statements for the three months ended March 31,
1997  and  is  qualified  in  its  entirety  by  references  to  such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>     0000040656                       
<NAME>      GENERAL INSTRUMENT                  
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         82,007
<SECURITIES>                                   18,328
<RECEIVABLES>                                  517,160
<ALLOWANCES>                                   17,954
<INVENTORY>                                    354,848
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,083,088
<PP&E>                                         573,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,709,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          478,305
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,372
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,201,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,709,377
<SALES>                                        641,271
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               641,271
<CGS>                                          469,092
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  469,092
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12,888
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                31,394
<INCOME-TAX>                                   13,711
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            17,683
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   17,683
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .13
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 564 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 240
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 564

                          [Report No. 103-829]

  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5110) to approve and 
   implement the trade agreements concluded in the Uruguay Round of 
                    multilateral trade negotiations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 4, 1994

   Mr. Derrick, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5110) to approve and 
   implement the trade agreements concluded in the Uruguay Round of 
                    multilateral trade negotiations.

    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution 
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the 
House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5110) to approve and 
implement the trade agreements concluded in the Uruguay Round of 
multilateral trade negotiations. The first reading of the bill shall be 
dispensed with. All points of order against the bill and against its 
consideration are waived. General debate shall proceed without 
intervening motion, shall be confined to the bill, and shall not exceed 
four hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Pursuant to section 
151(d) of the Trade Act of 1974, after general debate the Committee 
shall rise and report the bill to the House. Pursuant to section 
151(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
motion.
                                     

                                                 House Calendar No. 240

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 564

                          [Report No. 103-829]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5110) to approve and 
   implement the trade agreements concluded in the Uruguay Round of 
                    multilateral trade negotiations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 4, 1994

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 The undersigned, Mario A. Rivas, President and Chief Executive Officer of ANADIGICS, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated: March 9, 2011
 By:
/s/ Mario A. RivasMario A. RivasPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 This certification shall not be deemed to be “filed” for the purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as being incorporated by reference.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to ANADIGICS, Inc. and will be retained by ANADIGICS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Oct 2022
#### Barbara Ann RHODES, Petitioner, v. FARM STORES et al., Respondents.

No. 43840.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 15, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### State use Trustees etc., vs. May et al.

In an action by the State for the use of the trustees of schools of township No. etc., on the bond of M., the common school commissioner, the declaration alleged a liability on the bond of M., as common school commissioner, for his acts as commissioner of the townships; the defendants made default, and on enquiry of damages, the plaintiff offered to prove that M. had eolleeted money belonging to the specified township; *Held,*that the default of the defendants admitted that the *349declaration contained a cause of action against them, and that the evidence ought to have been admitted.

*Error to Union Circuit Court.*

Hon. Leu B. Green, Circuit Judge.

Carleton, for .plain.tiff.-

Mr. Justice Fairchild

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The State of Arkansas, for the use of the trustees of schools of township No. sixteen south, and range No. sixteen west, in Union county, sued the defendants in error, May and Tatum and others, on the bond of May, given as common school commissioner for Union county. It is alleged in the declaration, that, by the assent of the inhabitants of the township and acts of May, he became liable on his bond of common school commissioner of the county for-his acts as commissioner of the township, and fifteen breaches of his duty as township commissioner are charged against him. May and Tatum made default, and a discontinuance was entered as to the other defendants.

The fourth breach charged that May received about eight hundred dollars belonging to the school fund of the specified township, and had not paid it over as required by law; hnd to support the breach, on an enquiry of damages, the plaintiff offered in evidence the bond described in the breach, across the face of which xvas written by May, “ paid and canceled this 9th day of October, 1854, J. L. May, commissioner of township 16, range 16,” with proof that May collected the money on the bond at the time of the indorsement. The bill of exceptions states that the plaintiff also offered to sustain the other breaches by similar proof, applicable to each breach, although the offered testimony is not set out. The court sustained the objection of May to the evidence, to which the plaintiff excepted. The default of May and Tatum admitted that the declaration contained a cause of action against them, and the evidence offered *350to sustain the fourth breach was pertinent, and should have been received. On account of the ruling of the court in rejecting the evidence offered to sustain the breaches only nominal damages were awarded to the plaintiff, and she brought error.

We decline to enter into the field of speculation to which we are invited, by deciding questions not presented by the record, but for the error of the court manifest by the transcript, reverse the judgments •.