alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022432EN.01002601.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Blueroots Technology v EUIPO — Rezk-Salama and Breitlauch (SKILLTREE STUDIOS)

(Case T-607/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SKILLTREE STUDIOS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 432/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Blueroots Technology GmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: A. Huber-Erlenwein, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, interveners before the General Court: Christof Rezk-Salama (Trier, Germany), Linda Breitlauch (Trier) (represented by: F. Weber, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 July 2021 (Case R 2218/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Blueroots Technology GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Blueroots Technology GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1219 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1219

  To extend the existing suspension of duty on chemical intermediate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 14 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

   Mr. Coats introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the existing suspension of duty on chemical intermediate.

    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 CHEMICAL 
              INTERMEDIATE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.30.96 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/92'' and 
inserting ``12/31/96''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Martinez, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 407]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered December 2, 1994, convicting *308him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant admitted stabbing the victim but claimed that he was defending himself against the victim’s unrelenting sexual assault. However, the defendant inflicted 139 stab wounds, penetrated several major organs, and broke the knife blade, but he only sustained a cut finger. Contrary to his account of a violent struggle, the evidence showed that the victim’s small hotel room was neat and relatively undisturbed, and the bloodstain patterns on the wall indicated that the victim was on the ground when most of the wounds were inflicted.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
EX-10.26





 Exhibit 10.26 

[English Translation] 

Mr. Sébastien Robitaille 

Montrouge, On June 26, 2019, 
 Mail
delivered in person. 
 Dear Sébastien, 
 We are
pleased to inform you that you are promoted to the position of Chief of Staff under the operational and functional authority of the CEO, effective July 1, 2019. The job description for this position is attached to this amendment. 

Moreover, as from this date, your gross monthly remuneration will amount to €16,666.67 (sixteen thousand six hundred and
sixty-six euros and sixty-seven cents). 
 Your open-ended employment contract is maintained in all its provisions
not contrary to the present amendment. 
 In addition, your current duties as Deputy Chief Financial Officer will remain unchanged until the arrival of the
Chief Financial Officer whose recruitment is underway. 
 Upon the arrival of the future Chief Financial Officer, it is agreed that you will cease your
duties as Deputy Chief Financial Officer. 
 Please return one copy of each, dated, signed and preceded by the words “read and approved, good for
agreement”. 
 Yours sincerely 
 Daniel Tassé

 CEO
Exhibit 10.21



EXAR CORPORATION



COMPENSATION DEFERRAL AND OPTION CANCELLATION AGREEMENT



This Agreement is made June 13, 2005 (the Effective Date), by and between Exar Corporation (the Company) and John S. McFarlane
(the Participant).



Under the terms of the
Companys 1996 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan (the Plan) the Participant elected on December 15, 2004 to apply fifty percent (50%) of Participants directors fees to be earned during 2005 (the 2005
Deferral) toward the acquisition of a stock option to purchase shares of the Companys common stock at a price less than the fair market value of the stock on the date the option was granted in accordance with the terms and conditions of
Section 6 of the Plan. In connection with the 2005 Deferral, on January 3, 2005, the Company granted Participant an option to purchase 2,152 shares of Company common stock with an exercise price equal to $4.60 (the 2005 Option).



As permitted by Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended, the Participant and the Company both desire to cancel both the 2005 Deferral and the 2005 Option.



The Participant and the Company agree as follows:



1. The 2005 Deferral shall be cancelled as of the Effective Date and the amount of directors fees previously subject to the 2005 Deferral will be
paid to the Participant as soon as administratively practicable, but in no event more than 30 days following the Effective Date.



2. The 2005 Option shall be cancelled as of the Effective Date and that following such cancellation, the Participant shall have no rights whatsoever with
respect to the 2005 Option.



3. This Agreement represents the
entire agreement and understanding between the parties as to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, whether written or oral. No waiver, alteration or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement
shall be binding, unless in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of the parties hereto.



4. This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, regardless of the laws that might otherwise
govern under applicable principles of conflicts of laws thereof.



|                 |  |                      |  |                      
|---------------- |  | -------------------- |  | ---------------------
|EXAR CORPORATION |  | PARTICIPANT         
|                 |  |                     
|By:              |  | /s/ Roubik Gregorian |  | /s/ John S. McFarlane
|Its:             |  | President            |  | John S. McFarlane
<PAGE>

                                       EXHIBIT 10.19



SUMMO USA CORPORATION
1100 DENVER CENTER BUILDING
1776 LINCOLN STREET, DENVER, COLORADO 80203
TELEPHONE: 303/861-5400 FAX: 303/861-0934


                                                 April 5, 1995



Mr. Robert A. Prescott
1587 Bermuda Dunes Drive
Boulder City, Nevada 89005



Dear Bob:


     This letter confirms your engagement as Vice President and General 
Manager of Summo USA Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Summo Minerals 
Corporation.

     Your annual salary will be $ 100,000.00 and we will provide a standard 
benefits package. We anticipate introducing a cash bonus scheme which you 
will both help design and participate in once the scheme is adopted. You will 
receive options to purchase 100,000 shares of Summo Minerals Corporation. The 
options will have a 5 year term and be priced in accordance with the 
requirements of the Vancouver Stock Exchange where Summo Minerals Corporation 
is currently listed.

     Your engagement will commence on April 24, 1995. We recognize that the 
development of the Lisbon Valley Project is critical to the ongoing success 
of the Corporation.  We have agreed that should this project not proceed 
and your services no longer be required as a consequence, we will pay you one 
year's salary as a severance in these circumstances.

                                                  Very truly yours,



                                                  SUMMO USA CORPORATION


                                                  /s/ HUGH J. MATHESON
                                                  Hugh J. Matheson
                                                  President
# C_2023329EN.01002201.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik v EUIPO — aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik (aTmos)

(Case T-694/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark aTmos - Earlier national trade names aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik GmbH and aTmos - Relative ground for invalidity - Article 53(1)(c) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(c) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 329/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik GmbH, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: F. Stangl and S. Pilgram, lawyers)

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: aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik GmbH, Riedstadt (Riedstadt, Germany)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 September 2021 (Case R 1844/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ATmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik GmbH, Düsseldorf to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ATmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik GmbH, Düsseldorf to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Freddy Richard PARKER v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53196.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Mar. 1, 1973.

In re: Freddy Richard Parker applying for remedial writs and writ of habeas corpus.

Writ granted. Evidentiary hearing ordered.
#### Anna Lee GREENE and W. A. Greene, Individually and as trustees of The Baptist Benevolent Foundation, Appellants, v. The BAPTIST BENEVOLENT FOUNDATION, a nonprofit Florida corporation, and Louise Nowlin, as President and Trustee of that Foundation; Glen Martin, as a donor to that Foundation and as a representative of the class of all other donors to the Foundation; and Glen W. Martin, Glenda M. Martin, and Effle M. Martin, as incorporators and life members of that Foundation, Appellees.

No. J-233.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Oct. 10, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
#### Sebastian vs. Mary Bryan.

*Appeal from. Phillips Circuit Court.*

Mr. Justice Fairchild

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is in all respects like *Sebastian vs. John Bryan,*and the judgment of the Circuit Court of Phillips county must be reversed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Roubik Gregorian, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to my knowledge, the Annual Report of Exar Corporation on Form 10-K/A for the period ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Exar Corporation.

Date: November 8, 2006



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ ROUBIK GREGORIAN                           
|Roubik Gregorian                               
|Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
# C_2020279EN.01006101.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/61

---

Action brought on 9 July 2020 — UniCredit Bank v SRB

(Case T-431/20)

(2020/C 279/76)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: UniCredit Bank AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: F. Schäfer, H. Großerichter and F. Kruis, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including annexes, in so far as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including annexes, in so far as they concern the applicant;

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas:

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and of the right to sound administration, since the contested decision and Annexes I and II thereto did not contain an adequate statement of reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and of the right to sound administration, since the contested decision and Annexes I and II thereto did not contain an adequate statement of reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and of the right to sound administration under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, since the applicant was not heard before the adoption of the contested decision, which contains an individual measure adversely affecting the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and of the right to sound administration under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, since the applicant was not heard before the adoption of the contested decision, which contains an individual measure adversely affecting the applicant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy under Article 47(1) of the Charter, since it is in practice impossible to carry out an effective judicial review of the accuracy of the decision’s content. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy under Article 47(1) of the Charter, since it is in practice impossible to carry out an effective judicial review of the accuracy of the decision’s content.

---
EXHIBIT 23.2




               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in Registration  Statement
Nos.  2-99954,  33-6920,  33-41542,  33-41543,  33-82474  and 33-60901 of Sierra
Health  Services,  Inc.  on Forms S-8 of our report  dated  February  17,  1995,
(except for Note 16 which is as of June 13, 1995) with respect to the  financial
statements of CII Financial, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1994 appearing
in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sierra Health  Services,  Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 1996.



BDO SEIDMAN, LLP



Los Angeles, California
March 28, 1997
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATION


I, James M. Kilts, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Gillette Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [intentionally omitted]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:  April 29, 2004

                                    /s/ James M. Kilts
                                    ------------------------------------
                                    James M. Kilts
                                    Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
                                    Executive Officer
```

                                                                     Exhibit 3.2

                        CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF SHARES
                          INTO SMALLER DENOMINATIONS OF
                          SIERRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC.

Anthony M. Marlon, M.D. hereby certifies that:

1. He is the President of SIERRA  HEALTH  SERVICES,  INC., a Nevada  corporation
(the "Corporation").

2. The amount of the total  authorized  capital stock of the  Corporation is Two
Hundred  Ten  Thousand   Dollars   ($210,000)   consisting  of  twenty   million
(20,000,000) shares of common stock of the par value of One Cent ($.01) each and
one million  (1,000,000)  shares of preferred stock of the par value of One Cent
($.01) each.

3.  Pursuant to a Unanimous  Written  Consent of the Board of  Directors  of the
Corporation  dated as of  October  28,  1992 and  Section  78.207 of the  Nevada
Revised  Statutes,  the Board of  Directors  adopted  resolutions  dividing  the
20,000,000  shares of the Common Stock, par value $.01 per share,  authorized to
be issued by the Articles of Incorporation,  as amended, of the Corporation into
40,000,000  shares of Common Stock having a par value of $.005 per share without
changing the total authorized capital from $210,000 as set forth in the Articles
of Incorporation,  as amended, of the Corporation, such division to be effective
upon the filing of this  Certificate with the Secretary of State of the State of
Nevada.

4. This  Certificate  is rendered  pursuant to Nevada Revised  Statutes  Section
78.207.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the date
set forth below.

Date: November 11, 1992

                                                    -----------------------
                                                    ANTHONY M. MARLON, M.D.

State of Nevada

County of Clark

     On this 11th day of November, 1992, personally appeared before me, a Notary
Public,  ANTHONY M.  MARLON,  M.D.,  personally  known or proved to me to be the
person whose name is subscribed to the above instrument who acknowledged that he
executed the instrument.

     Witness my hand and official seal.

     --------------------------------
     Notary Public
     in and for the aforesaid
     County and State
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 523 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 523

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       August 18, 1994.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4603) making 
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1995, and making supplemental appropriations for these departments and 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes. 
All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration 
are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```