alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022359EN.01007001.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/70

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Rimini Street v EUIPO (WE DO SUPPORT)

(Case T-634/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark WE DO SUPPORT - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 359/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rimini Street, Inc. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: E. Ratjen, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 August 2021 (Case R 710/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rimini Street, Inc., to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rimini Street, Inc., to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.

---
EX 10.41





Fourth Amendment


to


Employment Agreement




This Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement(the “Fourth Amendment”), is being entered into effective March 10, 2011 by and between ImageWare Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Mr. Wayne Wetherell (the “Executive”).





Whereas, the Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of September 27, 2005 and subsequently amended on September 27, 2008 and again on April 6, 2009 and again on December 10, 2009 (as amended, the “Employment Agreement”);




WHEREAS, the Executive continues to perform valuable services for the Company and the Company desires to assure itself of the continuing services of Executive; and




WHEREAS, in consideration of the foregoing and in order to amend the terms of the Agreement and to provide for the continued services of the Executive in accordance with the present intent of the Company and the Executive.




NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further consideration of the mutual covenants contained in the Employment Agreement, the parties do hereby agree that the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:




1.
Section“2.Term of Agreement”strike the language “continue until December 31, 2010” and replace it with “continue until December 31, 2011”.




2.
Except as expressly amended herein, the Employment Agreement shall continue and be in full force in all respects.








/s/ ImageWare Systems, Inc.

/s/ Wayne WetherellImageWare Systems, Inc.

Wayne Wetherell
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,727
<SECURITIES>                                     1,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,718
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,668
<INVENTORY>                                      6,640
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,540
<PP&E>                                           9,763
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,320
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,289     
<OTHER-SE>                                    (34,984)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,558
<SALES>                                         48,928
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,928
<CGS>                                           42,754
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,232
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,394
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 403
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,655)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       310
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,965)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,965)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.01)
        

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 1996, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                             313
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,938
<ALLOWANCES>                                       386
<INVENTORY>                                     14,278
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,893
<PP&E>                                          14,927
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,970
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,968
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           134
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,625
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,695
<SALES>                                         33,445
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,445
<CGS>                                           23,086
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,514
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 167
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,678
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,211
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,467
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        


</TABLE>
# C_2022024EN.01001101.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/11

---

Appeal brought on 3 June 2021 by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2021 in Case T-282/19, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO

(Case C-345/21 P)

(2022/C 24/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (represented by: S. Malynicz, BL, S. Baran, Barrister, V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 23 November 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi should bear its own costs.

---
EXHIBIT 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
 State or JurisdictionName
    
    of IncorporationPicor Corporation
    
    Delaware, USAV*I Chip Corporation
    
    Delaware, USAVLT, Inc.
    
    California, USAVicor GmbH
    
    GermanyVICR Securities Corporation
    
    Massachusetts, USAVicor France SARL
    
    FranceVicor Italy SRL
    
    ItalyVicor Hong Kong Ltd.
    
    Hong KongVicor U.K. Ltd.
    
    United KingdomVicor B.V.
    
    NetherlandsVicor Japan Company, Ltd.
    
    JapanVicor Development Corporation
    
    Delaware, USAAegis Power Systems, Inc.
    
    Delaware, USAMission Power Systems, Inc.
    
    Delaware, USANorthwest Power Integration, Inc.
    
    Delaware, USAConverpower Corporation
    
    Delaware, USAFreedom Power Systems, Inc.
    
    Delaware, USA
# C_2021462EN.01004402.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/44

---

Order of the General Court of 20 August 2021 — PepsiCo v EUIPO (Smartfood)

(Case T-224/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 462/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PepsiCo, Inc. (Raleigh, North Carolina, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2021 (Case R 1947/2020-4) concerning the application for registration of the figurative mark in colour Smartfood.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | PepsiCo, Inc. shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

PepsiCo, Inc. shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---
# C_2022432EN.01000502.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Raiffeisen Leasing, trgovina in leasing d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-235/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 203 - Sale-and-lease back agreement - Persons liable for payment of VAT - Possibility of treating a written contractual agreement as an invoice)

(2022/C 432/06)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raiffeisen Leasing, trgovina in leasing d.o.o.

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006, on the common system of value added tax,

must be interpreted as meaning that:

a contractual sale-and-lease back agreement, the conclusion of which was not followed by the issue of an invoice by the parties, may be regarded as an invoice, within the meaning of that provision, where that contractual agreement contains all the information necessary for the tax authorities of a Member State to be able to establish whether the substantive conditions for the right to deduct value added tax are satisfied in the case, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14782]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: July 11, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie J. Pelton, 202-268-3049.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
July 5, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 70 to 
Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2018-190, CP2018-264.

Maria W. Votsch,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-14782 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
H. Res. 585

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

November 29, 1994.

Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and directed to administer the oath of office to the gentleman from

Oklahoma, Mr. Steve Largent.

Resolved, That the question of the final right of Mr.

Steve Largent to a seat in the One Hundred Third Congress

be referred to the Committee on House Administration.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### HIALEAH-MIAMI SPRINGS FIRST STATE BANK, Appellant, v. B. S. ENTERPRISES, INC., Charles A. Beaudreau, Olive Beaudreau, and John B. Shoup, Appellees.

No. 77-1619.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1978.

*1244Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene and Ar~ naldo Velez, Miami, for appellant.

Ronald C. Kopplow, Joe N. Unger, S. Melvin Apotheker, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and NATHAN, JJ.

BARKDULL, Judge.

Plaintiff Bank appeals an order dated July 14,1977 requiring it to produce examination reports which pertain to auditor inspections by the State Comptroller’s Office and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (F.D.I.C.), insofar as such documents pertain to the mortgage and loan transaction which is the basis of a foreclosure action.

The petitioner-appellant Bank contends the trial court erred in requiring it, a Florida banking corporation, to produce for inspection reports issued by the Department of Banking where Section 658.10(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1975)1 provides that such reports are confidential. Communications are not to be made public unless with the consent of the Department of Banking and Finance, and no consent was given by such department. Second, that the court erred in requiring plaintiff, a Florida banking corporation, to produce for inspection reports issued by the F.D.I.C. after an audit, where F.D.I.C. regulation # 309 provides that such reports are the property of the F.D.I.C. and not to be disclosed.2

We affirm the right of the respondents to attempt discovery through the records sought. However, it appears that as to the State records, the court should first make an in-camera inspection in accordance with the law in effect on the date the order under review was entered. As to the Federal records, the trial court may authorize the appellees to attempt to secure production of these, but should not direct the petitioner Bank to produce Federal records.

Therefore, the order under review is affirmed as to the right of inspection, but reversed as to directing the Bank to produce these records without first (as to the State records) having an in-camera inspection by the trial judge, and (as to the Federal records) the respondent should merely be authorized to seek to obtain them from the necessary Federal officials.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

1

. Effective July 1, 1977, the above statute was changed to read, in part, as follows:

> “(2)(a) Orders of courts of hearing officers for the production of confidential records and information shall provide for in-camera inspection by the court or the hearing officer

2

. This provides, in part, as follows:

> “Notwithstanding any of the foregoing provisions, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, in his discretion and pursuant to law, may authorize the production, examination, or inspection of any records, or the disclosure of any information * * * if he shall find such action to be in the best interests of the corporation and consistent with the public interest and applicable law.”
#### Roma and Joseph QUARTANA v. David W. JENKS, Mrs. Romayne Jenks, Mrs. Pat Farley and Progressive Arts, Inc.

No. 62030.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Roma and Joseph Quartana applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the *1166Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Jefferson. 355 So.2d 607.

Not considered. Not timely filed. See Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule X, Sec. 4(b).
# C_2022073EN.01000601.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 13 October 2021 — O.K. v Mercedes-Benz Bank AG

(Case C-630/21)

(2022/C 73/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: O.K.

Defendant and respondent: Mercedes-Benz Bank AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 14 of Directive 2008/48 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the consumer’s right of withdrawal no longer exists if the credit agreement has been fully performed by both parties? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 14 of Directive 2008/48 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the consumer’s right of withdrawal no longer exists if the credit agreement has been fully performed by both parties?

| 2. | If Question 1. is answered in the negative:
  Does Article 14 of Directive 2008/48 preclude a rule in the national law of a Member State which has the effect that the consumer’s right of withdrawal can no longer be exercised if the credit agreement has been fully performed by both parties? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1. is answered in the negative:

Does Article 14 of Directive 2008/48 preclude a rule in the national law of a Member State which has the effect that the consumer’s right of withdrawal can no longer be exercised if the credit agreement has been fully performed by both parties?

| 3. | If Question 1. is answered in the negative and Question 2. in the affirmative:
  Does Article 14(3) of Directive 2008/48 preclude a rule in the national law of a Member State under which a consumer who has effectively exercised his or her right of withdrawal based on Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48 has a right to have the creditor surrender the benefits that it has derived from the payments that the consumer has made to it up to the time of withdrawal? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 1. is answered in the negative and Question 2. in the affirmative:

Does Article 14(3) of Directive 2008/48 preclude a rule in the national law of a Member State under which a consumer who has effectively exercised his or her right of withdrawal based on Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48 has a right to have the creditor surrender the benefits that it has derived from the payments that the consumer has made to it up to the time of withdrawal?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

---
H. Res. 327

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

January 25, 1994.

Resolved, That until otherwise ordered, the hour of meeting of the House shall be noon on Mondays and Tuesdays;

2 p.m. on Wednesdays; 11 a.m. on all other days of the week

up to and including May 15, 1994; and that from May 16,

1994, until the end of the second session, the hour of daily

meeting of the House shall be noon on Mondays and Tuesdays and 10 a.m. on all other days of the week.

Attest:

Clerk.
# C_2022463EN.01004501.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/45

---

Order of the General Court of 15 September 2022 — European Paper Packaging Alliance v Commission

(Case T-518/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Environment - Commission Guidelines on single-use plastic products - Directive (EU) 2019/904 - Reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Paper Packaging Alliance (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and A. Scalini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of points 2.1.2 and 2.2.1 and of Tables 4-2 and 4-8 of the Commission guidelines on single-use plastic products in accordance with Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (OJ 2021 C 216, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | The European Paper Packaging Alliance shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission except those relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Paper Packaging Alliance shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission except those relating to the applications to intervene.

| 4. | The European Paper Packaging Alliance, the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Parliament and the Council shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The European Paper Packaging Alliance, the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Parliament and the Council shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Staley, Appellant.

[656 NYS2d 983]

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordance with the same Memorandum as in *People v Flagg*(237 AD2d 955 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Fallon, JJ.