alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022284EN.01004102.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/41

---

Order of the General Court of 13 April 2022 — Alauzun and Others v Commission

(Case T-695/21) (1)

(Action for annulment and for failure to act - Public health - Medicinal products for human use - Conditional marketing authorisation for mRNA-technology vaccines - Lack of carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Delay - No invitation to act - Position taken - No interest in bringing proceedings - Lack of direct concern - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility - Request for the Court to issue directions - Lack of jurisdiction)

(2022/C 284/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Virginie Alauzun (Saint Cannat, France) and the 773 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: F. Di Vizio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and L. Haasbeek, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Articles 263, 265 and 266 TFEU, the applicants ask the General Court (i) to declare that the European Commission unlawfully failed to include carcinogenicity and genotoxicity testing in the preclinical phase during the procedure granting the conditional marketing authorisation to mRNA-technology vaccines, (ii) to order the Commission to include such testing in past and future EMA procedures and (iii) to request the EMA to communicate certain information relating to that testing.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by Moderna Biotech Spain SL. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by Moderna Biotech Spain SL.

| 3. | Ms Virginie Alauzun and the other applicants whose names are included in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Ms Virginie Alauzun and the other applicants whose names are included in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | Moderna Biotech Spain shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Moderna Biotech Spain shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022

---
#### Arthur K. HATHAWAY, Petitioner, v. Donald S. GENUNG, Sheriff, Pinellas County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 73-687.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 10, 1973.

Habeas corpus denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1047 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1047

 To convey certain real property located in Tongass National Forest to 
  Daniel J. Gross, Sr., and Douglas K. Gross, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 27 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

 Mr. Murkowski introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To convey certain real property located in Tongass National Forest to 
  Daniel J. Gross, Sr., and Douglas K. Gross, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE TO DANIEL AND DOUGLAS GROSS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall--
            (1) survey certain real property located in Tongass 
        National Forest and described in subsection (b); and
            (2) convey the property to Daniel J. Gross, Sr., and 
        Douglas K. Gross, of Wrangell, Alaska.
    (b) Description.--The real property referred to in subsection (a)--
            (1) consists of approximately 160.8 acres;
            (2) is located at Green Point on the Stikine River in 
        Alaska; and
            (3) has the legal description T61S R84E S31, NE \1/4\, NW 
        \1/4\ and NW \1/4\, NE \1/4\, Copper River Meridian.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment (the
 “Amendment”) is entered into by and between AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
and Sean D. Goodman (“Officer”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and Officer entered into an Employment Agreement dated October 6, 2020, but effective December 2, 2019 (the “Agreement”);
and


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and Officer now desire to amend the Agreement in the manner set forth herein.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein and in the Agreement and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby expressly acknowledged, the Agreement is amended as follows:


 


		A.	A new Section 3.6 is added to read as follows:



 


		3.6	Cash Retention Bonus. Officer will have the opportunity to earn a cash retention bonus in
the aggregate amount of $1,800,000, payable as follows, and conditioned upon Officer continuing to be actively employed by the
Company on a full-time basis as of the applicable retention vesting date:



 


	Retention Vesting Date:	 	Cash Payment:	 
	March 17, 2022	 	$	450,000	 
	March 17, 2023	 	$	450,000	 
	March 17, 2024	 	$	900,000	 



 


Each retention payment will be
paid in a single lump sum, less applicable tax and other withholdings, within three (3) days of the applicable retention vesting
date. If Officer’s employment with the Company ends, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, for any reason prior to an applicable
retention vesting date, Officer shall forfeit the retention payment.


 


		B.	In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain in effect.



 


EXECUTED this 19th
day of March 2021.


 


	AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC.	 	OFFICER
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Kevin M. Connor	 	/s/ Sean D. Goodman
	By: Kevin M. Connor	 	Sean D. Goodman
	Title: Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary	 	 



 







    	 	1
# C_2023071EN.01002202.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2022 — E. Breuninger v Commission

(Case T-525/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Framework system to establish a federal compensation scheme in Germany for losses caused by lockdown decisions - Decision not to raise any objections - Aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or other exceptional occurrences - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 71/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: E. Breuninger GmbH & Co. (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: R. Velte and W. Meilicke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Braga da Cruz and C. Kovács, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and P.-L. Krüger, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C (2021) 3999 final of 28 May 2021 on State aid SA.62784 (2021/N) — Germany COVID-19 — Federal Damage Compensation Scheme (OJ 2021 C 223, p. 25).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders E. Breuninger GmbH & Co to bear its own costs and those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders E. Breuninger GmbH & Co to bear its own costs and those of the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---
259 La. 879

#### Solomon LEWIS et al. v. Roseller De JEAN.

No. 51737.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 18, 1971.

In re: Solomon Lewis, Jasper Lewis, Ezola Lewis, Richard and Gaspard Lewis applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Allen. 251 So.2d 124.

Application denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-89928) pertaining to the ANADIGICS, Inc. Stock Option
Plan, 1994 Long-Term Incentive and Share Award Plan, 1995 Long-Term Incentive
Share Award Plan and Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-32533 and Form S-8 No. 333-63836) pertaining to the ANADIGICS,
Inc. 1997 Long-Term Incentive and Share Award Plan for Employees, the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-75040) pertaining to the ANADIGICS,
Inc. 5% Convertible Senior Notes due November 5, 2006, and the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-110538) pertaining to the registration by ANADIGICS,
Inc. of $75,000,000 of its securities, of our report dated January 26, 2004
(except for the fourth paragraph of Note 13, as to which the date is February 6,
2004), with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
ANADIGICS, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2003.



                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


MetroPark, New Jersey
March 12, 2004
Exhibit 32.1
 
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Hans Birkholz

Hans BirkholzChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)November 15, 2010
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 21



Subsidiaries of The Sands Regent



|Name                          |  | Entity Type               |  | Jurisdiction
|----------------------------- |  | ------------------------- |  | ------------
|Zante, Inc.                   |  | corporation               |  | Nevada      
|                              |  |                          
|Last Chance, Inc.             |  | corporation               |  | Nevada      
|                              |  |                          
|California Prospectors, Ltd.* |  | limited liability company |  | Nevada      

---

|(*) |  | Equity interest held directly by Last Chance, Inc.
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 21.1

EXAR CORPORATION

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|1. | Micro Power Systems, Inc. (a California corporation).
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------



|2. | Exar IC Canada Corporation (a Canadian corporation).
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------



|3. | Exar SARL (a French limited liability corporation).
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------



|4. | Exar GMBH(a German corporation).
|-- | --------------------------------



|5. | Exar Srl (an Italian corporation).
|-- | ----------------------------------



|6. | Exar Japan Corporation (a Japanese corporation).
|-- | ------------------------------------------------



|7. | Exar Korea Co. Ltd.(a Korean limited liability corporation).
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------



|8. | Exar Malaysia SDN BHD (a Malaysian limited liability corporation).
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------



|9. | Exar Ltd. (a United Kingdom limited liability corporation).
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------



|10. | Exar (Delaware) Corporation Beijing Representative Office.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------



|11. | Exar (Delaware) Corporation Shanghai Representative Office.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------



|12. | Exar (Delaware) Corporation Shenzhen Representative Office.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------



|13. | Exar (Delaware) Corporation Taiwan Representative Office.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------



|14. | Hybrid Acquisition Corp
|--- | -----------------------



|15. | Hifn Limited ( a United Kingdom limited liability corporation)
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------



|16. | Hifn Netherlands B.V. (a Netherlands corporation)
|--- | -------------------------------------------------



|17. | Hifn Japan K.K.(a branch of Hybrid Acquisition Corp)
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------



|18. | Hifn International (a Cayman Islands corporation)
|--- | -------------------------------------------------



|19. | Hifn (Hangzhou) Information Technologies Co., Ltd. (a Peoples Republic of China limited liability corporation)
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|20. | Hangzhou Ansai Information Technology Co., Ltd. (a Peoples Republic of China limited liability corporation)
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 11

                  SIERRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



                             YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        1996                 1995                 1994
                                                    ------------         ------------         ------------

<S>                                                 <C>                  <C>                  <C>
NET INCOME......................................... $31,143,000          $21,304,000          $34,443,000

EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE.......................... $1.76                $1.22                $2.20
                                                    =====                =====                =====

Weighted Average Number
of Common Shares................................... 17,726,000           17,414,000           15,678,000

                                                                         ********************
PRIMARY EARNINGS
PER COMMON AND COMMON
SHARE EQUIVALENTS.................................. $1.73                $1.20                $2.15
                                                    =====                =====                =====


Weighted Average Number
of Common and Common
equivalent shares.................................. 18,169,000           17,788,000           15,984,000

                                                                         ********************
FULLY DILUTED PRIMARY EARNINGS
PER COMMON AND COMMON
SHARE EQUIVALENTS.................................. $1.73                $1.19                $2.15
                                                    =====                =====                =====

Weighted Average Number of
Common and Common equivalent shares
assuming full dilution............................. 18,169,000           17,861,000           16,026,000
</TABLE>



Note:  Common  Equivalent  Shares  represent  the  incremental effect  of
       outstanding stock options and stock appreciation rights.


<PAGE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60591

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES KEITH JOHNSON, 

a/k/a Thunder Eagle Ghost Dancer,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:95CR049-B

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1997

Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

James Keith Johnson, a/k/a Thunder Eagle Ghost Dancer,

appeals his convictions for transportation of stolen money in

interstate commerce and money laundering. Johnson contends that

the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to

compulsory process by refusing to allow the testimony of two

witnesses, Danny Schertz and Terry Bell. 
No. 96-60591

- 2 -

The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding

the testimony of Schertz and Bell because the testimony would

have been cumulative and was not needed to assist Johnson in

receiving a fair trial under the circumstances of his case or to

assist in Johnson’s defense. See United States v. Gonzales, 79

F.3d 413, 424 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 183 (1996);

United States v. Davis, 639 F.2d 239, 244 (5th Cir. 1981). In

addition, Schertz’s and Bell’s testimonies would have been

irrelevant to the crimes for which Johnson was being tried. 

AFFIRMED.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A0 06 8 . J UDI TH F. HURT v . SPT REAL ESTATE SUB I I I , LLC.

Th i s cas e w as d o ck et ed o n Sep t em ber 3 , 2 0 1 5, an d ap p el l an t ’ s b ri ef an d

en u m erat i o n o f erro rs w ere d u e o n Sep t em b er 23 , 2 01 5

. On t h at d ay , ap p el l an t m o v ed

t h i s Co u rt fo r an ex t en s i o n o f t i m e t o fi l e h er b ri ef, wh i c h m o t i o n w as g ran t ed
,
ex t en d i n g h er ti m e t o fi l e u n t i l Oct o b e r 2 0 , 2 0 1 5

. Becau s e ap p el l an t d i d n o t fi l e a b ri ef an d en um erat io n o f erro rs b efo re t h e ex t en d e d d ead l i n e, t h i s ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED p u rs u an t t o Co u rt o f Ap peal s Ru l es 1 3 an d 2 3

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 03/10/2016 March 10, 2016
#### Arthur FALKNER and Syble June Falkner, his wife, Appellants, v. Honorable David GOODHART, Circuit Court Judge of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, General Division, Appellees.

No. 44558.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 19, 1973.

Rehearings Denied Jan. 15, 1974.

Motion to Dismiss is granted. 284 So.2d 251.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 83 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                   House Calendar No. 5
113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 83

                          [Report No. 113-10]

  Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 47) To reauthorize the 
                  Violence Against Women Act of 1994.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2013

    Mr. Nugent, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 47) To reauthorize the 
                  Violence Against Women Act of 1994.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (S. 47) to reauthorize the 
Violence Against Women Act of 1994. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as 
read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their respective designees; 
(2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text 
of Rules Committee Print 113-2, if offered by the Majority Leader or 
his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point 
of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to commit with or without 
instructions.
                                                   House Calendar No. 5

113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. RES. 83

                          [Report No. 113-10]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 47) To reauthorize the 
                  Violence Against Women Act of 1994.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           February 26, 2013

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
# C_2022432EN.01002902.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Refractory Intellectual Property v EUIPO (e-tech)

(Case T-737/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark e-tech - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 432/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Refractory Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

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

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 9 September 2021 (Case R 548/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Refractory Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Refractory Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---