alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>
This  Schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
unaudited  Statement of Financial  Condition at November 26, 1999 and  unaudited
Statement of Operations for the five-months  ended November 26, 1999,  which are
contained  in the body of the  accompanying  Form 10-Q and is  qualified  in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        5-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    Nov-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                         Nov-26-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        31,678
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       792,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           34,282
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         792,943
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     5,217
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     4,380
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      837
<INCOME-TAX>                                         362
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  475
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         475
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1205

To amend the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 to define fluid milk

processors to exclude de minimis processors, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 1 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. LEAHY introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered,

read the third time, and passed

A BILL

To amend the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 to define

fluid milk processors to exclude de minimis processors,

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fluid Milk Promotion

5 Amendments Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF FLUID MILK PROCESSOR.

7 (a) FLUID MILK PROCESSOR.—Paragraph (4) of sec8 tion 1999C of the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 (7

9 U.S.C. 6402(4)) is amended to read as follows:
2

•S 1205 CPS

1 ‘‘(4) FLUID MILK PROCESSOR.—The term ‘fluid

2 milk processor’ means any person who processes and

3 markets commercially more than 500,000 pounds of

4 fluid milk products in consumer-type packages per

5 month.’’.

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1999J(e)

7 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 6409(e)) is amended by inserting

8 after ‘‘4504(g))’’ the following: ‘‘, and that are fluid milk

9 processors,’’.

Æ
----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on External action of the Union: the role of organised civil society

(2006/C 195/16)

On 28 January 2004 the European Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on External action of the Union: the role of organised civil society.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 May 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Koryfidis.

At its 427th plenary session, held on 17 and 18 May 2006 (meeting of 17 May), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 140 votes to 3 with 9 abstentions.

Brussels, 17 May 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Transportation Safety Board

# TIME AND DATE:

 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, August 7, 2018.

# PLACE:

 NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20594.

      ( print page 33257)    

# STATUS:

 The one item is open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                    57568 Highway Accident Report—                    *Collision Between Freight Train and Charter Motorcoach at High-Profile Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing, Biloxi, Mississippi, March 7, 2017*                     (HWY17MH010)                

# NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:

 Telephone: (202) 314-6100.

The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.

                        Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle McCallister at (202) 314-6305 or by email at                         *Rochelle.McCallister@ntsb.gov*                         by Wednesday, August 1, 2018.                    

                        The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at                         *www.ntsb.gov.*

                        Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at                         *www.ntsb.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                         Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email at                         *bingc@ntsb.gov.*

# FOR MEDIA INFORMATION CONTACT:

                         Peter Knudson at (202) 314-6100 or by email at                         *peter.knudson@ntsb.gov.*

Dated: July 13, 2018.

LaSean McCray,

Assistant Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2018-15314 Filed 7-13-18; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
# C_2022266EN.01002301.xml

| 11.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — Sturz v EUIPO — Clatronic International (STEAKER)

(Case T-261/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark STEAKER - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No distinctive character - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 266/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Manfred Sturz (Schorndorf, Germany) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Clatronic International GmbH (Kempen, Germany) (represented by: V. Herbort, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 March 2021 (Case R 214/2020-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign STEAKER as an EU trade mark, by which the Board of Appeal found that the mark applied for was descriptive of the goods in question.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Manfred Sturz to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Manfred Sturz to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

---
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

D.C. KING, A.Y. MARKS, S.A. DOMINGUEZ

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ALEXANDRE C. ROBINSON

CORPORAL (E

- 4), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 2015 00418

SPECIAL COURT

- MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 10 September 2015

. Military Judge: Col J.K. Carberry, USMC

. Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, 1st Battalion, 7th

Marines, 1st Marine Division, MCAGCC, Twentynine Palms, CA

. Staff Judge Advocate's Rec ommendation: LtCol D.C. Young , USMC

. For Appellant: LCDR W

. Scott Stoebner, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian K. Keller , Esq

.

22 March 2016

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

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

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without

assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved

by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military

Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
#### Jerry WILCOX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-523.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 17, 1972.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and Edwin T. Mulock, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant, and Jerry Wilcox pro se.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and P. A. Bacyna, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

MANN, Judge.

Wilcox appeals the summary denial of his “Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis or Appropriate Relief,” which the trial judge properly considered under CrPR 3.850, 33 F.S.A. The petition plainly states that his misdemeanor conviction in 1961, while unrepresented by counsel, was being used to enhance his federal sentence which he is now serving. He relies on U. S. v. Tucker, 1972, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592, which holds that prior *invalid,*convictions cannot be used for enhancement. The trial judge in this case was in error in denying the petition solely on the ground that the petitioner’s sentence had expired. See Wilcox v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1972, 267 So.2d *421IS, and cases there cited. We adopt the reasoning, of Judge Rawls’ opinion in that case. In short, the question is not moot.

We would point out that the present case involves an allegedly invalid misdemeanor conviction, and involves necessarily the scope of retroactive effect to be given Argersinger v. Hamlin, 1972, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed. 530. *Tucker*involved prior felonies. The trial court is the appropriate place for consideration of the substantial question raised by this petition, and Wilcox should be afforded counsel for its proper presentation. The question is important. Undoubtedly it has been the subject of other cases by now reported, and we do not prejudge it.

The order appealed from is vacated and the cause is remanded for consideration in the light of cases cited in this opinion.

LILES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
#### Elmer C. DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-179.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 10, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
257 La. 451

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Aldrich SIMONEAUX.

No. 51098.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 18, 1971.

In re: Aldrich Simoneaux applying for writs of certiorari and review.

Writ refused. The showing made does not justify the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
IB

House Calendar No. 181

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 469

[Report No. 103–568]

Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4650) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 29, 1994

Mr. FROST, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4650)

making appropriations for the Department of Defense

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for

other purposes.

1 Resolved, That points of order against consideration

2 of the bill (H.R. 4650) making appropriations for the De3 partment of Defense for the fiscal year ending September

4 30, 1995, and for other purposes, for failure to comply

5 with clause 7 of rule XXI are waived. During consider6 ation of the bill, all points of order against provisions in
2

HRES 469 RH

1 the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule

2 XXI are waived.

House Calendar No. 181

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 469

[Report No. 103–568]

RESOLUTION

Waiving certain points of order against the bill

September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.partment of Defense for the fiscal year ending(H.R. 4650) making appropriations for the DeJUNE 29, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
OFFICER EMPLOYMENT CONTINUATION AGREEMENT

Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. ("the Company") and the undersigned
("Officer"), in partial consideration for their continuing officer and
employment relationship and to encourage continued employment in the event of a
potential Change of Control, agree as follows:

1. In the event of Termination of Employment of Officer resulting from a
Corporate Transaction, Change of Control or Hostile Take-Over (as those terms
are defined in the 1993 Stock Option Plan, collectively referred to in this
Agreement as "Change of Control") or from involuntary termination for reasons
other than cause, the Company will provide severance benefits as follows:

     a.   one year of Officer's base salary ("salary continuance"),
     b.   one year of Officer's variable compensation (computed using the
          mid-point of the applicable range and the company "meets plan"),
     c.   Officer level medical, dental, life and disability insurance during
          the period of salary continuance, and
     d.   vesting of outstanding stock options and restricted stock awards
          during the period of salary continuance.

2. "Termination of Employment" of Officer occurs when one of the following
occurs: he or she is terminated without cause, job location is changed more than
50 miles, his or her compensation is materially reduced or responsibilities are
substantially altered or reduced (without express consent of the employee) by
the Company, or by any successor to the Company in conjunction with or within
one year after the close of a Change of Control.

3. In the event of a Termination Of Employment in conjunction with a Change of
Control, then vesting of outstanding stock options and restricted stock held by
Officer shall accelerate at the time of such Termination. All vested options
shall be exercisable for the duration of the life of the option.

4. In order to receive the foregoing, Officer agrees to execute the Company's
release and non-competition agreement at the time of any such Termination of
Employment.

Agreed this 27 day of October, 1995.

NETWORK EQUIPMENT                        Gerald M. Schumacher      
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                      -----------------------
                                        (Print Name of Officer)
                                        
By: /s/ Joseph J. Francesconi           /s/ G.M. Schumacher
    -------------------------           -------------------
                                        (Signature)
Title: President & CEO
       ---------------------

October 26, 1995                                             N.E.T. Confidential
EXHIBIT NO. 15











To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Gerber Scientific, Inc.







|Re: | Registration Statements on Form S-8,
|--- | ------------------------------------
|    | File No. 2-93695, No. 33-58668,     
|    | No. 333-26177, No. 333-42879,       
|    | No. 333-81447, No. 333-83463 and    
|    | No. 333-39754                       
|    |                                     
|    | Registration Statement on Form S-3, 
|    | File No. 33-58670                   
|    |                                     





With respect to the subject Registration Statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated August 22, 2001 related to our review of interim financial information.



Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act, such reports are not considered a part of a Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.







/s/ KPMG LLP







Hartford, Connecticut
September 13, 2001
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1124

In Re: BERNARD MIDDLETON, a/k/a Cass,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(1:92-cr-00348-CMH-3)

Submitted: May 6, 2014 Decided: May 15, 2014

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Middleton, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Middleton petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

alleging that the district court has unduly delayed ruling on 

two post-judgment motions. He seeks an order from this court 

directing the district court to act. We conclude that there has 

been no undue delay in the district court. Therefore, although 

we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the 

mandamus petition without prejudice to Middleton’s right to file

another petition if the district court does not act 

expeditiously on the pending post-judgment motions. We also 

deny his motion to remove district judge and 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### BENNETT LEWIS’ Administrator *vs.*SAMUEL W. COUPER.

Causes are continued before a justice of the peace by regular adjournments from day t* day. Judgment cannot be rendered on any other day than that to which the caus? stands adjourned.

Certiorari.

Record. Summons issued returnable September 11, 1833. The defendant appeared and the case was adjourned until Sept. 14th, on which day the parties met, and adjourned until the 16th. The defendant pleads, &c. Plaintiff replies, &c. “ And now to wit, this *7528th day of Sept., 1833, having considered the proofs and allegations of the parties, judgment is rendered for plaintiff.”

*Booth,*for plaintiff.

*Gray,*for defendant.

*The Court*

reversed the judgment on the ground that it was given on a day to which the case did not stand adjourned. Causes are Continued before justices of the peace by regular adjournments from day to day, and should not be moved in on any other day than that which they stand adjourned.

Judgment reversed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 24, 2011 

d1017 

Order 

 

October 24, 2011 

142964(20)(23)(24) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142964 

 COA: 302803 

Oakland CC: 2009-229563-FC 

JOSEPH MELVIN ANDERSON, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 28, 2011 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. The motions to remand are DENIED.
#### Sally McCurley MAINOR et al., Appellants, v. Eugene G. HOBBIE and Nora E. Hobbie, Appellees.

No. M-371.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 20, 1970.

*500Philip D. Beall, Pensacola, for appellants.

Beggs, Lane, Daniel, Gaines & Davis, Pensacola, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal questions the correctness of a summary judgment rendered in favor of appellees.

The sole issue raised by the pleadings is whether the original owners and developers of a subdivision effectively dedicated to public use an irregular strip of land lying between a parcel of land owned by appellants and the waters of Black-water Bay in Santa Rosa County. A careful examination of the record on appeal conclusively establishes the absence of any genuine triable issue of a material fact and that appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed. Florida State Turnpike Authority v. Michael Baker, Jr., Inc., (Fla.App.1963) 156 So.2d 198; Pass v. Friedman, (Fla.App.1962) 140 So.2d 883; Osborne v. Shell Oil Company, (Fla.App.1958) 104 So.2d 670; Tooke v. Fosgate Citrus Concentrate Co-operative, (Fla.1956) 85 So.2d 828.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Raymond CULPEPPER.

No. 54000.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 4, 1973.

In re: Raymond Culpepper applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for a stay order.

Writ denied. Insufficient showing to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction at this time. Adequate remedy is afforded relator in the event of conviction.