alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023216EN.01001302.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — TB

(Case C-628/21, (1) Castorama Polska and Knor)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights - Right of information - Locus standi - Need to establish the existence of an intellectual property right in advance)

(2023/C 216/17)

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.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(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

must be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right under that provision, the applicant must, for the purpose of a request for information under Article 8, provide any reasonably available evidence enabling the court seised of that request to satisfy itself with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant is the rightholder, by submitting evidence appropriate to the nature of that right and any special applicable formalities.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

---
EXHIBIT 10.6






August 10, 1999




Mr. David J. Logan
P. O. Box 60
Great Barrington, MA  01230

Dear Dave:

The  purpose  of  this  letter is to offer  to  extend  your
consulting  agreement with Gerber Scientific, Inc.,  for  an
additional period of three (3) years with certain amendments
as stated below.

First,  your  compensation  under  the  contract  is  to  be
increased  to  One  Hundred  Thirty-Five  Thousand   Dollars
($135,000.00)  per annum payable monthly in accordance  with
the terms of the original July 1990 agreement.

Second,  paragraph  E.  of the July  1990  letter  agreement
whereby Gerber continues your participation under the  terms
of  its medical and relevant plans is to be deleted for this
and  any  subsequent renewal terms.  As we  have  discussed,
under  the  terms  of the Gerber plans, you  are  no  longer
eligible  to  participate in those  plans  after  your  65th
birthday.  You are, of course, eligible for Medicare and you
may  purchase supplementary medical insurance under  one  of
several  independent plans.  Your compensation,  above,  has
been  adjusted  to  reflect the increased  cost  to  you  to
independently  maintain such supplementary  insurance  which
is, of course, your sole responsibility.

Except  as  amended above, all terms and conditions  of  the
original  agreement  dated  July  18,  1990,  including  the
statement  of your duties and responsibilities shall  remain
in full force and effect.

Once  agreed to by you and approved by Mike Cheshire in  the
space(s)  provided below, this contract extension  shall  be
effective  July  19, 1999 without regard to the  date(s)  of
actual signatures.

Sincerely,

/s/ Richard F. Treacy, Jr.
Richard F. Treacy, Jr.




Accepted and Agreed:

/s/ David J. Logan
David J. Logan
Date:




Approved:

/s/ Michael J. Cheshire
Michael J. Cheshire
Chairman & CEO
Date:
#### Robert D. RAY v. SUPERIOR IRON WORKS AND SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., et al.

No. 54156.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1973.

In re: Superior Iron Works and Supply Company & Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Concordia. 284 So.2d 140.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

GTE Northwest 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                                   $ 98,080     
  Add - Income taxes                                                    54,525     
       - Fixed charges                                                  28,380     
                                                                      --------     
Adjusted earnings                                                     $180,985     
                                                                      ========     
                                                                                   
Fixed charges:                                                                     
  Interest expense                                                    $ 27,387     
  Portion of rent expense                                                          
     representing interest                                                 993     
                                                                      --------     
Adjusted fixed charges                                                $ 28,380     
                                                                      ========     
                                                                                   
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                        6.38     
</TABLE>
THE UNITED BUILDING

77 WEST WACKER DRIVE

CHICAGO, IL60601

DAN WEISS

MANAGING DIRECTOR -INTERNATIONALAFFAIRSAND REGULATORY 

PHONE/FAX: (312) 997-7573

DAN.WEISS@UNITED.COM

August 20, 2012

Mr. Paul L. Gretch

Director

Office of International Aviation

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Joint Application of GoJet, Mesa, SkyWest and Shuttle America 

(Avianca share share)

Docket DOT-OST-2012-0139

Dear Mr. Gretch:

United has completed its poll of carrier representatives in the attached service list. No carrier

objects to the approval of GoJet, Mesa, Shuttle America and SkyWest’s application to code share 

with Avianca. United asks that the requested authorities be awarded promptly so that the carriers

can secure foreign authority, make final operating plans and begin marketing these services.

Respectfully submitted,

Dan Weiss

Managing Director – International Affairs and

Regulatory 

UNITED AIR LINES, INC. 

cc: Esta Rosenberg

Robert Finamore

Richard D. Mathias

David M. Endersbee
 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing document on all 

persons named below by causing a copy to be sent via email.

msinick@ssd.com (Alaska)

francis.heil@aa.com

robert.wirick@aa.com

rsilverberg@sgbdc.com (ABX/ Air Transport Intl.)

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com (Amerijet)

jcanny@amerijet.com

stephen.lachter@lachterlaw.com (ASTAR)

rpommer@atlasair.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

charters@evergreenairlines.com (Evergreen)

cefelts@fedex.com

anbird@fedex.com

nssparks@fedex.com

robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com (Frontier)

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com (Frontier)

jhill@dowlohnes.com (Hawaiian/JetBlue)

matwood@cozen.com (Kalitta)

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com

bob.kneisley@wnco.com (AirTran/Southwest)

leslie.abbott@wnco.com (AirTran/Southwest)

dkirstein@yklaw.com (Spirit)

jyoung@yklaw.com (Spirit)

john.fredericksen@suncountry.com

anita.mosner@hklaw.com (UPS)

jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com (UPS)

howard.kass@usairways.com

jegillick@zsrlaw.com (Virgin America)

john.varley@virginamerica.com

mlbenge@zsrlaw.com (World)

william.stallings@usdoj.gov

dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil

john.allen@faa.gov

Annalei Avanceña 

International Regulatory Advisor

August 20, 2012
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0333

-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/15/2010 09:30PM -----

To: "Higgins,Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

From: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US 

Date: 02/09/2010 09:44PM 

cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael 

Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy 

Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Subject: revised RICE preamble/rule and RIA

Hi Cortney,

How is the weather? Have you gotten a lot more snow? Attached is the revised RICE 

preamble/rule (clean and redline) and RIA. 

Melanie King 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Code D243-01 

RTP, NC 27711 

Phone: (919) 541-2469 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

king.melanie@epa.gov

Page 1
# C_2023179EN.01000601.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie — Poland) — AR and Others v PK and Others

(Case C-618/21, (1) AR and Others (Direct action against the insurer))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 3 - Compulsory insurance of vehicles - Article 18 - Direct right of action - Scope - Determination of the amount of compensation - Hypothetical costs - Possibility of making the payment of compensation subject to certain conditions - Sale of the vehicle)

(2023/C 179/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AR, BF, ZN, NK Sp. z o.o. s.k., KP, RD Sp. z o.o.

Defendants: PK S.A., CR, SI S.A., MB S.A., PK S.A., SI S.A., EZ S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, read in conjunction with Article 3 of that directive,

must be interpreted as

| — | not precluding national legislation which, in the event of a direct action, by the person whose vehicle has suffered damage as a result of a road traffic accident, against the insurer of the person responsible for that accident, provides that the sole means of obtaining redress from that insurer is by way of monetary compensation, |
| --- | --- |

—

not precluding national legislation which, in the event of a direct action, by the person whose vehicle has suffered damage as a result of a road traffic accident, against the insurer of the person responsible for that accident, provides that the sole means of obtaining redress from that insurer is by way of monetary compensation,

| — | precluding rules for the calculation of that compensation and conditions relating to its payment, in so far as they would have the effect, in the context of a direct action brought under Article 18, of excluding or limiting the insurer’s obligation, under Article 3, to cover all the compensation which the person responsible for the damage must provide to the injured party in respect of the damage suffered by that party. |
| --- | --- |

—

precluding rules for the calculation of that compensation and conditions relating to its payment, in so far as they would have the effect, in the context of a direct action brought under Article 18, of excluding or limiting the insurer’s obligation, under Article 3, to cover all the compensation which the person responsible for the damage must provide to the injured party in respect of the damage suffered by that party.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

---
No. 10680.

#### Mader, Trustee, *v.*Holden, Admr., et al.

Decided February 2, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Muskingum» county. '

*Mr. J. T. Crew,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. George K. Browning*and *Mr. Robert King,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Davis and Si-iauck, JJ., concur.
# C_2022222EN.01002502.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Ryanair DAC v Happy Flights Srl, formerly Happy Flights Sprl

(Case C-386/21) (1)

(2022/C 222/38)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and statement of earnings of Gerber Scientific, Inc.
as of and for the six-month period ended October 31, 1999 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                          20,218
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  120,455
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     92,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               254,059
<PP&E>                                         158,377
<DEPRECIATION>                                  61,493
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 576,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          121,044
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,977
<OTHER-SE>                                     233,236
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   576,405
<SALES>                                        292,329
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               292,329
<CGS>                                          169,526
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  264,212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,137)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,871
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,383
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,883
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,883
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .71


</TABLE>
# C_2006281EN.01001301.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/13

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-82/05) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of goods - Article 28 EC - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Marketing of frozen bakery products)

(2006/C 281/20)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou and M. Apessos, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 28 EC — National legislation considering the ‘bake-off’ process (thawing and reheating of pre-baked and frozen bread) to be a process of manufacturing bread and allowing only bakeries to sell bread manufactured in that way.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by treating the process of final baking or reheating of ‘bake-off’ products in the same way as the full process of manufacturing bread and by making it subject to the conditions prescribed by the national legislation with regard to bakeries, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by treating the process of final baking or reheating of ‘bake-off’ products in the same way as the full process of manufacturing bread and by making it subject to the conditions prescribed by the national legislation with regard to bakeries, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 16.04.2005

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 200218 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Stephen R. Wherry, Vice President, Treasurer, AssistantSecretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

(1)   The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to The Goldfield Corporation and will beretained by The Goldfield Corporation and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: August 12, 2004

/s/ Stephen R. WherryStephen R. WherryVice President, Treasurer,   AssistantSecretary and   Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 8.1

                    SUBSIDIARIES OF W.P. STEWART & CO., LTD.

                                                         JURISDICTION OF
SUBSIDIARY                                                INCORPORATION
--------------------------------------------------     --------------------
W.P. Stewart & Co. (Europe), Ltd. ................            England

NS Money Management Ltd. .........................            Bermuda

Cribewell Investments ............................            Curacao

TPRS Services N.V ................................            Curacao

W.P. Stewart & Co., Inc. .........................           Delaware

W.P. Stewart Securities Limited ..................            Bermuda

W.P. Stewart Asset Management Ltd. ...............            Bermuda

W.P. Stewart Fund Management Limited .............            Ireland

W.P. Stewart Asset Management (NA), Inc. .........           New York

W.P. Stewart Asset Management, Inc. ..............           Delaware

W.P. Stewart Asset Management (Europe), Ltd. .....            Bermuda

W.P. Stewart Asset Management (Curacao), N.V .....     Netherlands Antilles

W.P. Stewart Asset Management (Europe), N.V ......        The Netherlands

TPR Curacao N.V ..................................     Netherlands Antilles

WPSH Management N.V ..............................     Netherlands Antilles

W.P. Stewart Fund Management S.A .................          Luxembourg

W.P. Stewart/Hartmann Ltd. .......................            Bermuda
* 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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 25, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-10955

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HENRI ROCHA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:04-CR-1-ALL-R

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

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Henri Rocha pleaded guilty in the Western District of Texas

to possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to 10 months in

prison and two years of supervised release. His supervised

release term commenced in August 2003 but was revoked in July

2004. The district court imposed a revocation sentence of 24

months. Rocha now appeals, contending that the sentence is

unlawful.
No. 04-10955

-2-

Rocha’s 24-month sentence is the maximum term of

imprisonment that may be imposed upon revocation of a term of

supervised release from a Class D felony. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e)(3). The Government contends that Rocha’s underlying

marijuana offense was a Class D felony, but Rocha argues, based

on his 10-month underlying sentence, that it was a Class A

misdemeanor, or, at most, a Class E felony. There is nothing

properly in the record from which we may determine the

classification of Rocha’s offense, which is necessary to

determine the maximum authorized revocation sentence. See

18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a), 3583(e). The Government has supplemented

the record with the Statement of Reasons from Rocha’s underlying

judgment, but this document does not indicate the statutory

maximum sentence for Rocha’s offense from which the

classification under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a) may be inferred. We

note also that the district court did not discuss at the

revocation sentencing the classification of Rocha’s underlying

offense or the suggested sentencing guideline range.

Given the lack of clarity in the record, we REMAND to the

district court for the limited purpose of making findings as to

Rocha’s offense of conviction, i.e. what provision of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(b) supported the conviction, the statutory maximum

sentence, and the classification of the underlying offense. 

See FED. R. APP. P. 10(e)(2)(C). This court retains jurisdiction
No. 04-10955

-3-

of the appeal during the pendency of the limited remand. See

Wheeler v. City of Columbus, 686 F.2d 1144, 1154 (5th Cir. 1982). 

 LIMITED REMAND.