alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022119EN.01004602.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/46

---

Order of the General Court of 22 December 2021 — D&A Pharma v EMA

(Case T-381/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Medicinal products for human use - Application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Hopveus - Non-renewal of a permanent scientific advisory group - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 119/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Debregeas et associés Pharma (D&A Pharma) (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Viguié and D. Krzisch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: C. Bortoluzzi, H. Kerr, S. Marino and S. Drosos, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of EMA not to renew the scientific advisory group on psychiatry within the Committee for Human Medicinal Products, revealed implicitly by the public call for expression of interest for experts to become members of EMA’s scientific advisory groups and the press release of EMA of 5 May 2021.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the European Parliament.

| 3. | Debregeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Debregeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) shall pay the costs.

| 4. | The Parliament shall bear its own costs relating to its application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Parliament shall bear its own costs relating to its application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---
# C_2022244EN.01002702.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-57/21) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Obligation to increase on-the-spot checks - Article 35 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 - Legal value of the working documents of the Commission - Calculation of the increase in the rate of on-the-spot checks)

(2022/C 244/35)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina, A. Sauka and Z. Teleki, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2020 L 390, p. 10), only in so far as the European Commission excluded the sum of EUR 4 334 068,02 from the amount of financial aid granted to it by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the financial year 2018 on account of an insufficient number of on-the-spot checks.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), only in so far as that the European Commission excluded the sum of EUR 4 334 068,02 from the amount of financial aid granted to Hungary by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the financial year 2018 on account of an insufficient number of on-the-spot checks; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), only in so far as that the European Commission excluded the sum of EUR 4 334 068,02 from the amount of financial aid granted to Hungary by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the financial year 2018 on account of an insufficient number of on-the-spot checks;

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

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

---
# C_2022418EN.01003202.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Peace United v EUIPO — 1906 Collins (MY BOYFRIEND IS OUT OF TOWN)

(Case T-699/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark MY BOYFRIEND IS OUT OF TOWN - Declaration of revocation - Absence of genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use - Abuse of rights)

(2022/C 418/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Peace United Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Artzimovitch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: 1906 Collins LLC (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: C. Mateu, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 July 2021 (Case R 276/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Peace United Ltd to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Peace United Ltd to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---
#### QUALITY FRUIT BUYERS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. KILLARNEY FRUIT COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-908.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 22, 1972.

Leonard C. Carter, Lakeland, for appellant.

F. Hartselle Baker, of Robertson, Williams and Duane, P. A., Orlando, for ap-pellee.

MANN, Judge.

Quality Fruit Buyers, Inc., which bird-dogs, says bird-dogging is illegal. That takes a little explanation.

Quality agreed to sell 50,000 boxes of oranges, which it did not own, to Kil-larney for future delivery, at a price of 40 cents per pound solids. Florida is full of fruit buyers who “bird-dog,” finding oranges for processors and buyers for growers’ fruit. It delivered 20,297 boxes, but defaulted as to 29,703 boxes. The price having risen, Killarney sustained a loss fixed by the Commissioner of Agriculture at $17,331.70, which Quality paid rather than suffer the loss of its license. In this action to recover the amount paid, it alleges that the contract was void because it is forbidden by the bucket shop law, Fla.Stat. § 851.01 (1971), F.S.A., which forbids transactions “closed, adjusted, or settled according to or on the basis of the market quotations.” That isn’t what happened here. Quality didn’t agree to deliver at the market price on a future day, but at a price certain. The prohibition of the bucket shop law does not apply.

Quality next asserts that Fla. Stat. § 672.105(2), F.S.A., renders the transaction void. This point is also without merit. That statute relates to the identification of specific goods before an interest in the goods passes, but does not by any means forbid the sale of fungible goods without specific identification. It is simply irrelevant to the contract between Quality and Killarney.

*425Quality may not appreciate haying to live up to this contract, but unless there is something in the statutes not brought to our attention on this appeal, it may find comfort in the knowledge that its business is lawful. This means that if the price goes down instead of up during the current season, its customers cannot allege the invalidity of their agreements and offer only the market value for oranges delivered. The learned trial judge who entertained Quality’s action properly dismissed it.

Affirmed.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
#### James Perrow SHINPAUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-668.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 21, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[No. 862-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

May 15, 1972.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. William Arthur Kirk, Jr., *Appellant.*
#### Willie A. McDOWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-205.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 19, 1973.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. Hunt v. State (Fla.1956) 87 So.2d 584.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
No. 504.

#### H. B. Crone *v.*John W. Snook, Warden.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia.

January 11, 1926.

*Mr. William Schley Howard*for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

Petition.for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, for the reason that the court has examined the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, for which this is an appeal, has found, the question therein presented frivolous, and dismisses the'appeal.
#### Odila R. MASANOTTI, Petitioner, v. O’MALLEY SAILMAKERS et al., Respondents.

No. 39939.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 13, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and THORNAL, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14720]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than July 25, 2018.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. John D. Anderson, Malvern, Pennsylvania, Mark E. Anderson, 
Bolingbrook, Illinois, and Thomas M. Anderson III, Leeds, Alabama, 
together as a group acting in concert; to retain voting shares of NBE 
Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain shares of Pioneer State 
Bank, both of Earlville, Illinois.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 5, 2018.
Yao-Chin Chao,
Assistant Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-14720 Filed 7-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Smart-Tek Solutions
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Date: May 20, 2011

/s/ Brian
BonarBrian Bonar 
  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

---
EXHIBIT 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                                                    |  |                       
|------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|                                                                    |  | State of Incorporation
|Subsidiaries  Direct / wholly-owned                                |  |                       
|Community Bank                                                      |  | Alabama               
|Community (AL) Capital Trust I                                      |  | Delaware              
|Community Funding Company                                           |  | Alabama               
|                                                                    | 
|Subsidiaries  Indirect / wholly-owned by Community Bank            |  |                       
|Community Appraisals, Inc                                           |  | Alabama               
|1stCommunity Credit Company                                         |  | Alabama               
|Community Insurance Corp                                            |  | Alabama               
|                                                                    | 
|Subsidiaries  Indirect / wholly-owned by Community Insurance Corp. |  |                       
|Southern Select Insurance, Inc.                                     |  | Alabama
#### PRISCILLA M'CAULLEY *vs.*ROBERT M. M‘CAULLEY.

The court will entertain a suit for divorce though the defendant appears and *does not deny*the petition.

Petition for divorce.

The petition stated that the parties were married in February 1816. That the petitioner at the time of her marriage owned about 500 acres of land and had about $1500 in cash. That the respondent has for fourteen years past treated the petitioner with extreme cruelty, frequently beating her so as to endanger her life. That he has introduced into his house an abandoned woman with whom he lives in open adultery; that he had taken her to his bed in the presence of the petitioner and of her children, compelling her and them to lie on the floor; that he has finally driven petitioner from her home and she is now dependent on charity; and that he is doing his best to waste and destroy her property. Prays the benefit of the act of assembly of 3d February 1832. 8 *vol.*148.

Petition sworn to; copy served and proved; summons issued and served. The respondent appears by *Thomas Robinson*his attorney and refuses to deny the facts stated in the petition. This course was supposed to be taken with a view to oust the court of jurisdiction. See the peculiar wording of section second of the act. “If the deft, shall not appear, or appearing shall deny the facts stated, &c., the court shall thereupon proceed to hear and determine, &c.”

The *Court*

proceeded notwithstanding to hear the case and the facts being fully established they made the following decree:

“And now, to wit, this thirteenth day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three, upon the hearing of this cause, it appearing to the court that the said Robert M. M£Caulley and Priscilla M£Caulley were lawfully married at the time in the petition set forth, and were and are lawful husband and wife, and as such have been commonly held, reputed and taken to be; and it further appearing to the said court, that the said Robert M£Caulley, after the solemnization of the said marriage, being altogether unmindful of his conjugal vow, did commit the crime of adultery, and that he did also treat the said Priscilla MUaulley his wife with extreme cruelty: it is therefore considered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the marriage between the said Robert M. M£Caulley and Priscilla M‘Caulley ought to be dissolved; and the marriage aforesaid between the said Robert M. M£Caulley and Priscilla M£Caulley is (according to the statute in such case made and provided) pronounced and declared to be dissolved, and the said parties to be divorced and separated accordingly; and that all and every the duties, rights and claims accruing to either of the said parties by reason of the said marriage shall henceforth cease and determine. And it is further considered, adjudged and decreed that the said Priscilla M£Caulley shall be restored to all her lands and tenements; and that she shall be further allowed out of the real and personal estate of the said Robert M. M£Caulley the sum of one hundred dollars; and it is also ordered, adjudged and decreed that the said Robert M. M£Caul-. lev pay the costs in this cause.”
#### William SIMMONS, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA TIMBER PRODUCTS et al., Respondents.

No. 41040.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 28, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
#### Max J. RASHKIN and Evelyn Rashkin, his wife, Appellants, v. David C. PEARCE, Appellee.

No. 77-1198.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 26, 1978.

Michael B. Davis of Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Wallis E. Schulle of Simpson, Brodbeck & Schulle, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

REVERSED on authority of *Frank v. Campbell Property Management, Inc.,*351 So.2d 364 (Fla.4th DCA 1977).

DAUKSCH and BERANEK, JJ., and GREEN, OLIVER L., Associate Judge, concur.
#### Carlton Michael NIX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2327.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 24, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Seminole County; Tom Waddell, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
UNITED STATESSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWASHINGTON, DC 20549
FORM 10-K
****
 **(Mark One)
x**ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 **For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005
or 
 ̈**TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 **For the transition period from                  to                 **

**Commission File Number: 1-8865**************
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1238 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1238

 To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on 1-chloro-5-hexanone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 15 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on 1-chloro-5-hexanone.

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

SECTION 1. 1-CHLORO-5-HEXANONE.

    Heading 9902.30.20 of subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/
92'' and inserting ``12/31/94''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by this Act 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.
    (b) Reliquidation.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 or any other provision of law, upon proper request filed with 
the appropriate customs officer on or before the 90th day after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, any entry of an article described in 
subheading 9902.30.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992, and
            (2) before the date which is 15 days after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act,
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry occurred on or 
after the date that is 15 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

                                 <all>
```