alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER Peo p le of M l v Maran Chr i sto ph e r S imm o n s Docket No. 32 1 9 1 5 LC No. 13-003313

- F H Patrick M. Meter Pre s i din g Jud g e Kurt i s T. Wil der Am y Ronayne Krause

J u dge s T h e Co urt ord ers th a t th e Nove m be r 24 , 20 1 5 co n curring opinion is hereb y AMENDED . T he op i nion contained th e fo ll ow i ng c l erica l e r ro r : RO N

AYNE KR A U

S

E

, 

### J . , ( di sse ntin g) . It s h o uld read , RO N AY N E KRAU S E, J. , (concurr i ng) . In a ll ot her re spects, th e Nove mb e r 24 , 20 1 5 co nc urr i ng op in ion remains unchanged.

A tru e c op y e nte red a nd ce rt i fi e d b y J e rom e W. Z imm e r Jr .. C hi e r C l e rk. o n 

# JAN O 7 2 0

16 Dat e

# ~tV**~ hic** **~**
# C_2022095EN.01000901.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 11 October 2021 — TB

(Case C-628/21)

(2022/C 95/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TB

Other parties to the proceedings: Castorama Polska Sp. z o.o., ‘Knor’ Sp. z o.o.

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 8(1) read in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (1) be understood to refer to a measure to protect intellectual property rights only when the rightholder’s intellectual property right has been confirmed in these or other proceedings?
  – if Question 1 is answered in the negative |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 8(1) read in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (1) be understood to refer to a measure to protect intellectual property rights only when the rightholder’s intellectual property right has been confirmed in these or other proceedings?

– if Question 1 is answered in the negative

| 2. | Should Article 8(1) of the directive, read in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient to substantiate the fact that that measure refers to an existing intellectual property right, and not to prove that circumstance, especially in a case where a request for information about the origin and distribution networks of goods or services precedes the assertion of claims for compensation on account of an infringement of intellectual property rights? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Article 8(1) of the directive, read in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient to substantiate the fact that that measure refers to an existing intellectual property right, and not to prove that circumstance, especially in a case where a request for information about the origin and distribution networks of goods or services precedes the assertion of claims for compensation on account of an infringement of intellectual property rights?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Masakazu Kurushima, in my capacity as the President and Chief Executive Officer of California Steel Industries,
Inc., for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:

the annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006, filed by California Steel Industries, Inc., on March 28, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in such annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of California Steel Industries, Inc.

Dated: March 28, 2007



By:

/s/ Masakazu KurushimaMasakazu Kurushima,President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Arthur B. TINGLEY, Jr., and Lefferts L. Mabie, Appellants, v. GOLDEN ACRES GROVES, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-109.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 24, 1972.

Larry A. Klein, of Cone, Wagner, Nu-gent, Johnson, McKeown & Dell, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Thomas B. Mimms, Jr., of Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the final judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
# C_2021182EN.01003901.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/39

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 26 February 2021 — LB v TO

(Case C-120/21)

(2021/C 182/53)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: LB

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: TO

Question referred

Do Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude the application of national legislation such as Paragraph 194(1), in conjunction with Paragraph 195, of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code; ‘the BGB’), under which the entitlement to paid annual leave is subject to a standard limitation period of three years, which starts to run at the end of the leave year under the conditions set out in Paragraph 199(1) of the BGB, if the employer has not actually enabled a worker to exercise his or her leave entitlement by accordingly informing him or her of the leave and inviting him or her to take that leave?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.

---
Exhibit 10.18

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO  EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment No. 2 to Executive Management Agreement (this "Amendment") is made and entered into as of November 14, 2002, by and between Magnetek, Inc. (the
"Company"), a Delaware corporation, and The Spectrum Group, Inc. ("Spectrum"), a California corporation.

WITNESSETH

WHEREAS, the Company and Spectrum entered into a five-year Executive Management Agreement dated as of July 1, 1994 (the "Agreement") which would have expired by
its terms on July 1, 1999; and

WHEREAS,
the Board of Directors of the Company adopted certain resolutions as of May 5, 1999 extending the Agreement through June 30, 2000; and

WHEREAS,
the Company and Spectrum previously amended the Agreement extending the Agreement through December 31, 2002; and

WHEREAS,
the Company and Spectrum at this time desire to amend the Agreement so as to extend it through December 31, 2005.

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and Spectrum agree as follows:



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 2 to Executive Management Agreement as of the date first above written.

| |  | MAGNETEK, INC.          
| |  | ------------------------
| |  |                         
| |  | By:                     
| |  |                         
| |  |                         
| |  | THE SPECTRUM GROUP, INC.
| |  |                         
| |  | By:                     
| |  |                         

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7104

CORY LEE MCNEILL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE KENWORTHY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C Dever III,

District Judge. (5:06-hc-02177-D)

Submitted: December 19, 2007 Decided: January 22, 2008

Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cory Lee McNeill, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Cory Lee McNeill, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims

addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that McNeill has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


Fischer Imaging Australia Pty, Ltd.
5 Fir Street, Dingley, Victoria 3172
Australia


Fischer Imaging (China) Limited
1812 Exchange Square, 268 Dong Feng Road Central
Guangzhou, Peoples Republic of China 510030


Fischer Imaging (Deutschland) GMB
Alter Fischmarkt 11
20437 Hamburg


Fischer Imaging Europe A/S     Dissolved December 12, 1999
Nordkajen 11, DK-7100 Vejle
Denmark


Fischer Imaging (France) S.A.R.L.
42, Avenue Montaigne, F-75008
Paris, France
#### Kenneth G. CANNON, Appellant, v. FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Appellee.

No. 71-423.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 8, 1971.

McGee & Merritt, Brooksville, for appellant.

David Linn.and William J. Roberts, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(h), 30 F.S.A.

LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF OCTOBER 3, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 3, 1998 FOR GENRAD, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY>       U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                OCT-03-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                       1
<CASH>                                                            7,985
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    71,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      1,462
<INVENTORY>                                                      32,133
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                113,852
<PP&E>                                                           75,513
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   37,505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                  190,673
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            38,067
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                         28,976
<OTHER-SE>                                                       95,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    190,673
<SALES>                                                          43,039
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 60,550
<CGS>                                                            26,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    35,923
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 27,069
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  311
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 (2,753)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        750
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             (3,503)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    (3,503)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
The JG Industries, Inc. Third Quarter 10-Q for Fiscal 1997 and is qualified in 
its entirety by reference to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-25-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              OCT-26-1996
<CASH>                                          3,515
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                     815 
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0 
<INVENTORY>                                     9,090 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               14,081       
<PP&E>                                         14,538      
<DEPRECIATION>                                  9,074    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 22,321      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           8,400    
<BONDS>                                             0  
<COMMON>                                       11,246 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           4,283 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<OTHER-SE>                                    (3,781)       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   22,321         
<SALES>                                        45,072          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               45,072          
<CGS>                                          30,161          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17,036          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (13)       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,683)       
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (38)      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,721)      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,721) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.29) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.29) 
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021088EN.01002201.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v FL

(Case C-12/21)

(2021/C 88/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Respondent: FL

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
#### Willie James COOK and Accredited Surety & Casualty Company, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, for the Use and Benefit of DADE COUNTY, Appellee.

No. 78-108.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 18, 1978.

Brian R. McComb, Miami, for appellants.

Janet Reno, State’s Atty., and John P. Durant, Asst. State’s Atty., for- appellee.

Before BARKDULL, NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Florida Insurance Exchange v. State,*178 So.2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PROSOURCE, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997             DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997             SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                      15,194,000               2,763,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                              197,590,000             221,674,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,780,000               2,334,000
<INVENTORY>                                144,700,000              144,040,00
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           376,323,000             384,430,000
<PP&E>                                      92,534,000              77,131,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              27,395,000              27,494,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             509,564,000             503,724,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      265,462,000             298,882,000
<BONDS>                                    165,800,000             113,084,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        93,000                  94,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  72,596,000              78,421,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               509,564,000             503,724,000
<SALES>                                  2,933,662,000           4,125,054,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         2,933,662,000           4,125,054,000
<CGS>                                    2,699,636,000           3,806,811,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            2,699,536,000           3,806,811,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           224,714,000             345,494,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,305,000               1,682,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,736,000              14,824,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,074,000            (40,381,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,050,000)              15,410,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,024,000            (24,971,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (6,262,000)                 610,000
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,238,000)            (24,361,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.56)                  (4.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.56)                  (4.19)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 24.5**

 

 

**Power of Attorney**

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESEPRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Harris Ravineand David Kirwan the undersigned’s true and lawful attorneys-in-fact andagents, each with full power and substitution for the undersigned and in theundersigned’s name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign FischerImaging Corporation’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2004 (the “Form 10-K”) and any or all amendments to theForm 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto and otherdocuments in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,granting unto each of said attorneys-in-fact and agents full power andauthority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite andnecessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents andpurposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying andconfirming all that either of said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or hissubstitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtuehereto.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney to be executed as of this31st day of March, 2005.

 

 
|   | /s/  TAYLOR  SIMONTON |
|--------|---------------------------------|
|   | Signature                       |
|   |                            |
|   | Taylor  Simonton                |
|   | Print  Name:                    |

 

----
H. Res. 91

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

February 18, 1993.

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and

they are hereby, elected to the Committee on Post Office and

Civil Service: Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin; Sherwood L.

Boehlert, New York; and Jim Saxton, New Jersey.

Attest:

Clerk.