alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022198EN.01004201.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — Vetpharma Animal Health v EUIPO — Deltavit (DELTATIC)

(Case T-146/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark DELTATIC - Earlier EU word mark DELTA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a), and Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

(2022/C 198/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vetpharma Animal Health, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Deltavit (Janzé, France) (represented by: G. Barbaut, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 December 2020 (Case R 776/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Deltavit and Vetpharma Animal Health.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vetpharma Animal Health, SL, to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vetpharma Animal Health, SL, to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 3. | Orders Deltavit to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Deltavit to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The data reported in this exhibit are based on unaudited  statements but include
all adjustments which the company considers necessary for a fair presentation of
results for this period.

</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000041499
<NAME> THE GILLETTE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                            101,000
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,762,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       51,000
<INVENTORY>                                     1,765,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                4,515,000
<PP&E>                                          5,972,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,323,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,182,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           4,366,000
<BONDS>                                         2,825,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                        84,000
<COMMON>                                        1,364,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      1,010,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,182,000
<SALES>                                         2,045,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2,045,000
<CGS>                                             749,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     749,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  857,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 49,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   386,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                      128,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               258,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      258,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .24


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### National Park Service

          - [NPS-MWR-INDU-25223; PS.SMWLA0077.00.1]

# AGENCY:

National Park Service, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notification of boundary revision.

# SUMMARY:

The boundary of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore is modified to include 1.30 acres of land located in Porter County, Indiana, immediately adjacent to the boundary of the national lakeshore. The United States will acquire the parcel by a land exchange.

# DATES:

The effective date of this boundary revision is July 16, 2018.

# ADDRESSES:

The map depicting this boundary revision is available for inspection at the following locations: National Park Service, Land Resources Program Center, Midwest Region, 601 Riverfront Drive, Omaha, Nebraska 68102 and National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chief Realty Officer Daniel L. Betts, National Park Service, Land Resources Program Center, Midwest Region, 601 Riverfront Drive, Omaha, Nebraska 68102, telephone (402) 661-1780.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 54 U.S.C. 100506(c), the boundary of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore is modified to include 1.30 acres of adjacent land identified as Tract 09-131. The boundary revision is depicted on Map No. 626/140729, dated January, 2018.

54 U.S.C. 100506(c) provides that, after notifying the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make this boundary revision upon publication of notice in the                     **Federal Register**                    . The Committees have been notified of this boundary revision. This boundary revision and subsequent acquisition will be accomplished in accordance with a settlement to a case pending in the Federal Court System regarding an encroachment onto Federal land. There will be no alienation of Federal land through the land exchange.                

Dated: April 25, 2018.

Cameron H. Sholly,

Regional Director, Midwest Region.

[FR Doc. 2018-15072 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
<PAGE>


                            CRA MANAGED CARE, INC.
                 Calculation of Shares Used in Determining
           Earnings Per Share and Pro Forma Earnings Per Share
          for the Years Ended December 31, 1994, 1995 and 1996


                                                                 Exhibit 11.1

<TABLE>
                                              1994        1995        1996
                                           ---------   ---------   ---------

<S>                                        <C>         <C>         <C>

Weighted average number of shares of       4,700,000   6,413,000   8,284,000
  common stock outstanding during the
  period

Common stock equivalents, under the          115,000     127,000     191,000
  treasury stock method                    ---------   ---------   ---------

                                           4,815,000   6,540,000   8,475,000
                                           ---------   ---------   ---------
                                           ---------   ---------   ---------

</TABLE>

                                       27
#### William C. Rosenfeld et al., Respondents, v Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., et al., Respondents, and Louis G. Bissell, Jr., et al., Appellants.

[655 NYS2d 473]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered February 16, 1996, which, *inter alia,*approved the proposed settlement, dismissed the complaint on the merits and with prejudice, and awarded $560,000 in attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly approved as fair, adequate and in the best interests of the class a settlement that required defendants to disclose to their customers that they received compensation from borrowing and lending securities in their customers’ margin accounts, but did not provide any cash benefits to the class members, where the likelihood of success was highly questionable in view of defendants’ then pending motion to dismiss on Federal preemption grounds *(see, Guice v*
      *200
      *Schwab & Co.,*89 NY2d 31); only 253 of the over 5 million class members opted out and only 55 members objected; the complaint sought predominantly equitable relief; the negotiations were conducted at arm’s length and over an extensive period; the likelihood of proving individual damages was remote; and the cost of establishing such damages would likely exceed the amount recovered *(see, Matter of Colt Indus. Shareholder Litig.,*155 AD2d 154, 160, *mod on other grounds*77 NY2d 185). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
# C_2022051EN.01003002.xml

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — QB v Commission

(Case T-71/21) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary staff - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance - Main occupation - Work done for another State)

(2022/C 51/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: QB (represented by: R. Wardyn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and A.C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Office for the ‘Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements’ (PMO) of 6 April 2020 refusing to grant the expatriation allowance to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders QB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders QB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

---
258 La. 557

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Rory K. MASON v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 51361.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 26, 1971.

In re: Rory K. Mason applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writs denied. The showing made is not sufficient to justify the exercise of our jurisdiction.

SUMMERS, J., I agree the writ should be refused for the rules of this Court have not been complied with.

BARHAM, J., is of the opinion the application should not be considered or that its deficiencies supplied. Although there have been 3 separate applications below we do not know if an evidentiary hearing has been had. There are no minutes and there is an allegation of a plea of guilty without waiver of constitutional rights. We cannot pass upon the merits of this application as it stands.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15110]


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

CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of Commission telephonic business meeting.

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

DATES: Wednesday, July 18, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. ET.

ADDRESSES: Meeting to take place by telephone.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Walch, (202) 376-8371, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4c4c1d6d8ddd7d5d2d2d5ddc6c7f4c1c7d7d7c69ad3dbc2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bacacfd8d6d3d9dbdcdcdbd3c8c9facfc9d9d9c894ddd5cc">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This business meeting is open to the public 
by telephone only.
    Participant Access Instructions: Listen Only, Toll Free: 1-877-260-
1479; Conference ID: 713-3156. Please dial in 5-10 minutes prior to the 
start time.

Meeting Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda
II. Discussion of Discovery Plan
III. Adjourn Meeting.

    Dated: July 11, 2018.
Brian Walch,
Director, Communications and Public Engagement.
[FR Doc. 2018-15110 Filed 7-11-18; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 22


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

      As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report dated February 9, 2000 included in this Form 10-KSB, into the
Company's previously filed Registration Statements, including: Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (file nos. 333-07269, 333-07235; 333-77291, 333-77289 and
333-77287) and Registration Statements on Form S-3 (file nos. 333-66663,
333-78687 and 333-90841). It should be noted that we have not audited any
financial statements of the Company subsequent to December 31, 1999 or performed
any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.



                                          /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN L.L.P.
                                          ARTHUR ANDERSEN L.L.P.


Los Angeles, California
March 24, 2000
# C_2022165EN.01002501.xml

| 19.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 21 December 2021 — R.I. v Inspecția Judiciară, N.L.

(Case C-817/21)

(2022/C 165/32)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: R.I.

Respondents: Inspecția Judiciară, N.L.

Question referred

Must Article 2 and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, Decision 2006/928 (establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption), (1) and the guarantees of independence and impartiality imposed under EU law, be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows the chief inspector of the Judicial Inspectorate to issue administrative acts of a normative nature (subordinate to the law) and/or an individual nature by which he or she decides autonomously on the organisation of the institutional framework of the Judicial Inspectorate for the selection of judicial inspectors and the assessment of their activity, the conduct of the inspection activities, and the appointment of the deputy chief inspector, where, under organic law, those persons alone may carry out, approve or reject acts of disciplinary investigation in respect of the chief inspector?

---

(1)  Commission Decision 2006/928 of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption (OJ 2006 L 354, p. 56).

---
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- Zalzar FZE ASBCA No. 59341 Under Contract No. ) ) ) ) ) ) SDZ-OEF/OIF-06-011-08-006-08027 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Mr. Zalzar Temiraliev Director Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney CPT Vera A. Strebel, JA Erica S. Beardsley, Esq.

Trial Attorneys ORDER OF DISMISSAL By notice ofappeal dated 29 May 2014, appellant appealed from a 23 May 2014 notice ofnon-default contract termination. By letter dated 6 June 2014, appellant submitted an unopposed request to withdraw the appeal, along with two related appeals, "without prejudice to re-file appeals ofthese claims, ifnecessary, when the Contracting Officer has issued a Final Decision on each claim." In response to the Board's request for further information, by Order dated 16 June 2014, appellant stated: Zalzar
...confirms that it intends to withdraw [this appeal] without prejudice. Zalzar is in the process offiling a claim with the Contracting Officer concerning the termination and will request a final decision upon the receipt ofwhich Zalzar intends to file a new notice ofappeal with the Board
.... The government having no objection to appellant's request, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to a timely appeal to the Board from the denial or deemed denial ofZalzar's claim. Dated: 10 July 2014
Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsI certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANo. 59341, Appeal ofZalzarFZE, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREYD. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
#### PETER A. HUMPHRIES, Constable *vs.*CLARK WEBSTER, indorsee, &c.

An action against a constable for neglecting to return an execution would not lie before a justice of the peace, prior to the Act of 1833.

Certiorari. This was an action brought by Webster against Humphries, the constable, for the amount of an execution, at the suit of the said Webster against Andrew Alston, which the said constable had not returned agreeably to the command thereof; and thus rendered himself liable. *Big.*341.

The question was, whether the justice had jurisdiction.

Wales, for plff. Rodney, for deft.

(But see Act of 1833, (8 *v.*265,) since passed, *giving jurisdiction in such case.)*

*The Court*

said that an action for neglect to return an execution by which the constable becomes liable, ought to be a special action on the case founded on the statute. It must be in tort. An action for money had and received, could not be sustained. Though the Act makes the constable equally liable as if the money had been received, it cannot affect the form of the remedy, which must show the special matter on which the constable’s liability arises, and must therefore, be a special action on the case, founded on the neglect of duty, and the statutory liability. Such an action is not within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace.

Judgment reversed.
#### Mieczyslaw Gawel et al., Appellants, v Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Respondent.

[655 NYS2d 351]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about December 12, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, to deny defendant’s motion, and to reinstate those two causes of action.

We find, contrary to the motion court, that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) *(Colluci v Equitable Life Assur. Socy.,*218 AD2d 513), 12 NYCRR 23-1.30 *(Dickson v Fantis Foods,*235 AD2d 452), and 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (c) *(Zuniga v Stam Realty,*169 Misc 2d 1004) contain "concrete specifications”, rendering the section 241 (6) claim viable, and find issues of fact as to whether their alleged violation contributed to plaintiffs injury. The section 200 claim is also viable. The testimony of defendant’s chief construction inspector that he was stationed at the work site, inspected the work on a daily basis, kept a daily log, and had the authority to stop the performance of and to order the correction of unsafe *139work practices raise issues of fact as to whether defendant supervised the work site *(see, Lombardi v Stout,*80 NY2d 290, 295). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
# C_2021252EN.01000701.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/7

---

Appeal brought on 2 February 2021 by BSH Hausgeräte GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 2 December 2020 in Case T-152/20, BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-67/21 P)

(2021/C 252/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: BSH Hausgeräte GmbH (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 12 May 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FIANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS OF
INCOME, BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,542
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,509
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,051
<PP&E>                                          59,842
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,255
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          393,207
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           111
<OTHER-SE>                                   (482,757)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,368
<SALES>                                         96,543
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,543
<CGS>                                           54,232
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  191,835
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (95,292)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (95,292)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (95,292)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
#### Peter Patrick LONGLEY, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Adult Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-345.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 29, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.