alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022257EN.01003201.xml

| 4.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Munich (Representation of two crossed stripes placed on the side of a shoe)

(Case T-117/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a cross on the side of a sports shoe - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 257/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Munich, SL (La Torre de Claramunt, Spain) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. Guix Vilanova, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2020 (Case R 2882/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Deichmann and Munich.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Deichmann SE to pay the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and of Munich, SL. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deichmann SE to pay the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and of Munich, SL.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
#### Mrs. Helen M. RUTLAND v. Darold L. RUTLAND.

No. 46003.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 26, 1970.

W. E. Gore, Jr., Jackson, for appellant.

Daniel, Coker, Horton & Bell, William Larry Latham, Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2023278EN.01000701.xml

| 7.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 June 2023 — YG v European Commission

(Case C-818/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Official - Promotion - 2019 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote the appellant to grade AST 9 - Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Comparison of merits - Distortion of the evidence - Disregard for and distortion of the pleas in the application at first instance - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Failure to fulfil the duty to state reasons)

(2023/C 278/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: YG (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Radu Bouyon and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders YG to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders YG to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

---
No. 10545.

#### The Dayton & Troy Electric Railway Co. *v.*Neher.

Decided December 8, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Miami county.

*Messrs. B. PI. & R. A. Kerr*and *Mr. A. F. Broom-hall,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Davy & St. John,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Shauck, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32706-32707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14988]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 10461]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported 
for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Keir Collection of Art of the Islamic 
World'' Exhibitions

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that two objects to be included in exhibitions of the 
Keir Collection of Art of the Islamic World, re-imported from abroad 
for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are re-imported pursuant to a loan agreement 
with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the 
exhibition or display of the first object at the Dallas Museum of Art, 
in Dallas, Texas, and at possible additional

[[Page 32707]]

exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, from on or about July 12, 
2018, until on or about December 31, 2019, is in the national interest. 
I also determine that the exhibition or display of the second object at 
the Dallas Museum of Art, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, from on or about July 12, 2018, until on 
or about May 16, 2021, is in the national interest. I have ordered that 
Public Notice of these determinations be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elliot Chiu, Attorney-Adviser, Office 
of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-
6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a495f594e535554080e0f037a494e5b4e5f145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ee9d8b8d9a878180dcdadbd7ae9d9a8f9a8bc0898198">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-10 of July 6, 2018.

 Jennifer Z. Galt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2018-14988 Filed 7-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
p.1 

OAR Box 1147 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

131) IV-E-4 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:54 PM Sheet 131 of 242 
P.2 

Km? 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR.'VHCHIGAN 48105 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

SEP / I 1987 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Measurement of Underground Tank Emptying Losses by 

Sun Oil Company 

FROM: 

TO: 

THRU: 

John F. Anderson, Senior Project Mana 

Standards Development and Support Bra 

Public Docket A-87-11 

Chester J. France, Chief^,-^ 

Standards Development aiWSu 

nch 

On August 17, 1987 I spoke with Mr. Jack Freeman to obtain 

details about testing Sun Oil has been doing to measure 

emptying and breathing losses from underground gasoline storage 

tanks. They had reportedly not found any emissions from tanks 

equipped with vent valves. 

Mr. Freeman explained their procedure and confirmed the 

fact that their measurements detected no outflow from the tank 

vents tested during routine station use. By the use of a pair 

of one-way ball valves, Sun was able to separate inflow from 

outflow and measured each with gas meters. Mr. Freeman said 

the average inflow was about 30 percent of the volume of the 

fuel dispensed, and that there was no outflow at any time (day 

or night). Measurements were taken at two stations, one of 

which was open 24 hours a day. interestingly, Mr. Freeman 

noted that the type of check valve which they use is never 

completely sealed. It is designed to maintain a small opening 

at all times. Even so, it appeared to provide sufficient flow 

restriction to eliminate tank breathing.
No. 10691.

#### Deering *v.*The Society for Savings in the City of Cleveland et al.

Decided February 9, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

Mr., *M. P. Mooney,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Hart, Canfield & Croke*and *Messrs. Cushing & Siddal*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.
# C_2022064EN.01001101.xml

| 7.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/11

---

Appeal brought on 23 September 2021 by Abitron Germany GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 July 2021 in Case T-75/20, Abitron Germany GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-589/21 P)

(2022/C 64/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Abitron Germany GmbH (represented by: T. Dolde, C. Zimmer, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Hetronic International, Inc.

By order of 13 December 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50077 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LARS NELSON BORNKESSEL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-94-CR-77

- - - - - - - - - - April 15, 1997 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lars Nelson Bornkessel was convicted by a jury for wire fraud. Bornkessel did not raise the issue concerning the district court’s enhancement for finding that he was a manager on his first appeal and it will not be considered on this second appeal. See Burroughs v. FFP Operatiing Partners , 70 F.3d 31, 33 (5th Cir. 1996); Eason v. Thaler , 73 F.3d 1322, 1329 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court did not err in finding that BornkesselNo. 96-50077 - 2 - was responsible for $381,937.96 in losses as assistant manager at Nationwide. See United States v. Davis , 76 F.3d 82, 84 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution. See United States v. Ryan , 874 F.2d 1052, 1054 (5th Cir. 1989).
AFFIRMED.
#### Louis SIDWEBER, a/k/a Robert Weaver, Appellant, v. Dorothy SIDWEBER, a/k/a Dorothy Weaver, Appellee.

No. 74-7.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 6, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
H. Res. 133

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

March 18, 1993.

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 further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 64) setting

forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for the fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.

The concurrent resolution shall be considered as read for

amendment under the five-minute rule. No amendment shall

be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment

may be offered only in the order printed and by the named

proponent or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall be

debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall

not be subject to amendment except as specified in this resolution. All points of order against the amendments printed in

the report are waived. If more than one amendment in the
2

HRES 133 EH

nature of a substitute is adopted, only the last to be adopted

shall be considered as finally adopted and reported to the

House. After the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment and a final period of general

debate, which shall not exceed twenty minutes equally divided

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member

of the Committee on the Budget, the Committee shall rise

and report the concurrent resolution to the House with such

amendment as may have been finally adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to final adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered by the chairman

of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to section

305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to achieve

mathematical consistency. The concurrent resolution shall not

be subject to a demand for division of the question of its

adoption.

Attest:

Clerk.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40751

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

QUADRO CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Defendants, 

QUADRO CORPORATION; WADE L. 

QUATTLEBAUM; RAYMOND L. FISK;

MALCOLM S. ROE,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:96-CV-38)

September 8, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This matter is on appeal by Quadro Corporation, et al., of a permanent
2

injunction issued upon petition ofthe United States of America. Having considered

the briefs and oral arguments of counsel, and pertinent parts of the record, and

finding neither reversible error nor abuse of discretion, the judgment appealed is

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1043 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1043

  To extend until January 1, 1998, the existing suspension of duty on 
             certain bicycle parts, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 27 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

    Mr. Glenn (for himself, Mr. Ford, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Lugar) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend until January 1, 1998, the existing suspension of duty on 
             certain bicycle parts, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXISTING SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON CERTAIN BICYCLE 
              PARTS.

    The following headings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States are each amended by striking ``12/31/92'' and inserting 
``12/31/97'':
            (1) Heading 9902.40.11.
            (2) Heading 9902.73.12.
            (3) Heading 9902.73.15.
            (4) Heading 9902.84.79
            (5) Heading 9902.85.12.
            (6) Heading 9902.87.14.
            (7) Heading 9902.87.15.
            (8) Heading 9902.87.16.

SEC. 2. RENEWAL OF EXISTING CUSTOMS EXEMPTION APPLICABLE TO BICYCLE 
              PARTS IN FOREIGN TRADE ZONES.

    Section 3(b) of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as the 
Foreign Trade Zones Act) (19 U.S.C. 81c(b)) is amended by striking 
``December 31, 1992'' and inserting ``December 31, 1997''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
amendments made by this Act apply with respect to goods entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Provision.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law to the contrary, upon 
a request filed with the appropriate customs officer before the 195th 
day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry or 
withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of goods to which any 
amendment made by this Act applies and that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992; and
            (2) before the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act;
and with respect to which there would have been a lower duty if the 
amendment made by this Act had applied to such entry or withdrawal, 
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though the amendments made by 
sections 1 and 2 applied to such entry or withdrawal.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 24 - Consent of Registered Public Accountants

 

 

MOE O’SHAUGHNESSY & ASSOCIATES, P.S.

 

CONSENT OF REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

 

Board of DirectorsElectronic Systems Technology, Inc.Kennewick, Washington

 

We hereby consent to the use of our opinion, dated February 10, 2006,on the financial statements of Electronic Systems Technology, Inc., for the years endedDecember 31, 2005 and 2004 in the Form 10-KSB.

 

MOE O'SHAUGHNESSY & ASSOCIATES, P.S.
/s/ JENNY E. ANDERSON

Jenny E. Anderson,Certified Public Accountant

 

Spokane, WashingtonFebruary 28, 2006
#### Charles W. WHEELER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1381.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 12, 1972.

Charles W. Wheeler, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, 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 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 is hereby affirmed.
# C_2022463EN.01002701.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Paesen v EEAS

(Case T-88/21) (1)

(Civil service - Official - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Head of delegation - Management trial period - Final assessment report of the management trial period - Act not adversely affecting an official - Inadmissibility - Re-assignment to a non-managerial post at EEAS headquarters - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Conditions for the application of Article 11 of Commission Decision C (2008) 5028/2 of 9 September 2008 on middle management staff to heads of delegation - Failure to include documents in the personal file - Interests of the service - Misuse of powers - Request for assistance - Decision rejecting the request - Liability)

(2022/C 463/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sandra Paesen (Beersel, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of (i) the final assessment report of her management trial period, (ii) the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) dated 10 April 2020 re-assigning her to a non-managerial post and (iii) the decision of the EEAS dated 12 May 2020 rejecting her request for assistance, second, compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by her.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Sandra Paesen to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Sandra Paesen to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

---
#### Roy J. PHELPS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2158.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 27, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Kurt Marmar, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Margarita Esquiroz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Roy Phelps, appeals his conviction for manslaughter (as a lesser included offense of second degree murder for which he was informed against).

Defendant first urges as reversible error the denial of his motion for mistrial on the ground that the prosecution had elicited testimony from him that he had been in jail in violation of the stipulation that neither the prosecutor or defense coun*1222sel would inquire whether the defendant had ever been convicted of a crime.

This contention arises out of the following colloquy between the defendant and the prosecutor:

> “Q You did not think he was going to live?

> “A I didn’t give that no thought. I just hope the cops to come, and they did.

> “Q When they got there you did not let them in?

> “A They didn’t ask that question.

> I told them I didn’t think I needed to go down to the police station.

> “Q That is not the first time for you, it is, Mr. Phelps?

> “MR. LINK: Objection.

> “THE COURT: Sustained.

> “A No, sir. It is not.”

We find the notion that the above colloquy indicated to the jurors that the defendant had previously been convicted of a crime is highly speculative and reversible error cannot be predicated upon mere conjecture. See *Sullivan v. State,*303 So.2d 632 (Fla.1974); *Hutchins v. State,*334 So.2d 112 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).

Defendant also argues that the judge erred in admitting into evidence initial statements made by the defendant to the officers when they first arrived on the scene in that the judge failed to make a specific finding of voluntariness. We cannot agree.

A review of the record with respect thereto refutes this contention. At the hearing on judgment’s motion to suppress these and other statements, the judge specifically found that at the time defendant made these initial statements he understood what he was saying. There being no suggestion of coercion, we conclude that the judge determined that these statements were voluntary by virtue of his finding above and refusal to suppress them. See *Wilson v. State,*304 So.2d 119 (Fla.1974).

We also considered defendant’s remaining points on appeal and find that he has failed to make reversible error appear.

Affirmed.
#### Phillip MALVEAUX, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 53306.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 20, 1973.

In re: Phillip Malveaux, Jr. applying for remedial writs and writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The application for appeal is within the jurisdiction of the trial court, not the Supreme Court.

BARHAM, J.,

concurs. Prompt relief can be obtained from this Court if the trial court does not protect relator’s right to appeal.