alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022463EN.01003701.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — bett1.de v EUIPO — XXXLutz Marken (Body-Star)

(Case T-599/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Body-Star - Earlier EU word mark Bodyguard - Relative ground for refusal - Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation)

(2022/C 463/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: bett1.de GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Brexl, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 July 2021 (Case R 1712/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2021 (Case R 1712/2020-2) as regards ‘mattresses; mattress toppers; beds; bed frames; slatted bases for beds; bedding, except linen; cushions; pillows; neck-supporting pillows; waterbeds, not for medical purposes; air mattresses’ in Class 20 and ‘bed throws; bed linen and blankets; ticks [mattress covers]; mattress covers; ticks (mattress and pillow coverings); sleeping bags’ in Class 24; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2021 (Case R 1712/2020-2) as regards ‘mattresses; mattress toppers; beds; bed frames; slatted bases for beds; bedding, except linen; cushions; pillows; neck-supporting pillows; waterbeds, not for medical purposes; air mattresses’ in Class 20 and ‘bed throws; bed linen and blankets; ticks [mattress covers]; mattress covers; ticks (mattress and pillow coverings); sleeping bags’ in Class 24;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.

---
#### Willie Lee EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-805.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 4, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 31.1


         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT




I, Mark A. Farber, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Evergreen Solar, Inc.;

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

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

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

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

(b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]

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

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

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

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

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


Date: August 12, 2003
                                                /s/ Mark A. Farber
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Mark A. Farber
                                                Chief Executive Officer
#### Emmet D. Page, Appellant, *v.*Paul Cohen, as Treasurer of Court Long Island, No. 34, Foresters of America, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

April, 1913.)

Statute of Frauds— what constitutes an employment under — what takes case out of.

Contracts — action to recover contract price — breach of — associations.

The election of one as a lodge physician for a year constitutes an employment, and the record thereof in the proceedings of the lodge takes the case out of the Statute of Frauds.

*238Where plaintiff, the lodge physician of defendant, was wrongfully removed during the year for which he was elected, he is entitled after the expiration of the year to recover the contract price of twenty-five cents a member, whether he sues for wages or for a breach of the contract of employment; and the exclusion of testimony of his readiness and willingness to perform and of the number of members on which his compensation was based is reversible error.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, boroug’h of Brooklyn, second district, dismissing the complaint at the close of the plaintiff’s case.

Emmet D. Page, for appellant.

Mann & Buxbaum, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The defendant conceded that the plaintiff was duly elected at the election of March 27, 1907, lodge physician for the period of one year. This election constituted an employment which was duly recorded by defendant in its lodge proceedings, and this •record took the case out of the Statute of Frauds. The form of the action was settled on the former appeal determined by this court in 76 Miscellaneous Reports, 567. Mr. Justice Jaycox, writing for the court, said: “ His (plaintiff’s) removal is null and void; therefore, he was court physician during all his term of employment. He was ready and willing to perform his duties as such. ” We think that an irrelevant issue was unduly forced upon the plaintiff, who protested over and over again that he stood upon his contract which, as we read it, entitled him to twenty-five cents per member of the defendant lodge for the last quarter of the year, the period now in suit. Whether treated as an action *239for wages or for breach of contract, the plaintiff on the case made was entitled to recover. There was no necessity for demanding that plaintiff elect on which ground he expected to recover. The period of his service having passed, and his compensation having been fixed by special contract, nothing remained to be ascertained except the number of members on which his compensation was based, and his readiness and willingness to perform, his evidence of which was erroneously excluded. All of the separate defenses have been disposed of on the former appeal except that the plaintiff had assigned his claim. This, if true, would defeat him.

Present: Garretson, Blackmar and Kapper, JJ.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
Exhibit 14

NEORX CORPORATION        CODE OF ETHICS  FOR SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICERS

Principles Governing Professional and Ethical Conduct

It is the policy of NeoRx Corporation (the "Company") that the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and
Controller (or persons performing similar functions) adhere to, advocate and promote the following principles:



Reporting and Treatment of Violations

Persons who become aware of suspected violations of this Code should report such suspected violations promptly to the Vice President, Legal, who will forward such
report to the Company's Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, directly to the Chair of the Audit Committee or, as detailed in the Company's whistleblower policy, to the independent third-party
that the Company has hired to receive anonymous complaints. To assist in the response to or investigation of the alleged violation, the report should contain as much specific information as possible
to allow for proper assessment of the nature, extent and urgency of the alleged violation. Without limiting the foregoing, the report should, to the extent possible, contain the following information:



The
Audit Committee shall have the power to monitor, investigate, make determinations and recommend action to the Board of Directors with respect to violations of this Code. In
determining whether a violation of this Code has occurred, the Board of Directors and Audit Committee may take into account:



---



Consequences of Violations

If a violation is substantiated, the Board of Directors, upon the recommendation of the Audit Committee, may impose such sanctions or take such actions as it
deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, the following:



Requests for Waivers and Changes in Code

A waiver of a provision of this Code shall be requested in writing whenever there is reasonable likelihood that a contemplated action will violate the Code. Any
waiver (including an implicit waiver) that constitutes a material departure from a provision of this Code shall be publicly disclosed on a timely basis, to the extent required by applicable rules and
regulations of the SEC. In addition, any amendments to this Code (other than technical, administrative or other non-substantive amendments) shall be publicly disclosed on a timely basis,
to the extent required by applicable rules and regulations of the SEC.

2

---

QuickLinks
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no

precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of wellsettled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on

the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 95-30187

Summary Calendar

_______________________

ERICO DAVIAS,

a/k/a Eric Davis,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN C. DURIO and

JOHN P. NAVARRE,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(93 CV 251)

_________________________________________________________________

August 16, 1995

Before DAVIS, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Erico Davias, now a New Hampshire state

prisoner, filed this § 1983 complaint for damages against the

former sheriff and a district judge of Allen Parish, Louisiana for

events dealing with his extradition to New Hampshire. Upon remand

of the case from this court, the appellees moved for summary
2

judgment, and Davias supplied no admissible controverting proof.

Based on the magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court

granted summary judgment for Sheriff Durio and Judge Navarre.

Davias has appealed but has raised no reversible error. We affirm.

Davias's only argument in his appellate brief is that the

defendants' summary judgment proof was altered on their behalf; and

he apparently attaches some new court records to his brief. These

efforts are wasted. Davias cited no facts supporting his

contention of altered evidence either to the trial court or this

court, and we will not consider vague allegations. The documents

he has attached appear regular on their face and simply lay the

groundwork for extradition to New Hampshire. We cannot fathom what

he sought to gain by offering them to this court.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for

each of the defendants. Davias alleged claims against Judge

Navarre that related to his official duties, for which he has

absolute immunity from § 1983 liability. Stump v. Sparkman, 435

U.S. 349, 357-60 (1978). Durios's summary judgment evidence stated

that he had no personal involvement with Davias or his extradition

proceeding. In this circumstance, there is no § 1983 supervisory

liability. Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303-04 (5th Cir.

1987).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                       2,658,394
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,205,109
<ALLOWANCES>                                   130,000
<INVENTORY>                                  8,283,515
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,309,043
<PP&E>                                      12,867,302
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,584,607
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,836,149
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,138,132
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        52,587
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,006,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,836,149
<SALES>                                     17,571,892
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,571,892
<CGS>                                       15,327,695
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,327,695
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (90,484)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               130,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              99,002
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                130,044
<INCOME-TAX>                                    48,988
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             81,056
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    81,056
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
EX-10.38





 Exhibit 10.38 

 

					
	 




	 	 Bioventus LLC

4721 Emperor Blvd., Suite 100
 Durham, NC 27703

USA
	  	 1-919-474-6700

1-800-396-4325

www.BioventusGlobal.com


 April 13, 2020 
 John
Nosenzo 
 Dear John, 
 In recognition of your current and
future contributions to Bioventus, I would like to provide you with the retention plan (“Plan”) outlined below. I recognize the next twenty-four months will have challenges and your continued focus on building and retaining a successful
commercial organization is critical to Bioventus. 
 Retention Plan: 
  

	 	•	 	 Two payments equal, in the aggregate, to $520,000, less applicable taxes, such amount to be paid as follows:



  

	 	•	 	 $260,000, paid in a single, lump sum payment, less applicable taxes, on May 4, 2021 



 

	 	•	 	 You must be actively employed on the payment date in order to receive payment; otherwise, the amount is
forfeited. 


  

	 	•	 	 Notwithstanding the prior sentence, if your position with Bioventus is terminated prior to the May 4, 2021
payment date for a reason that would qualify you for Severance Benefits under your offer letter signed on November 22, 2016 (the “Offer Letter”), you will receive the $260,000, paid in a single, lump sum payment, less applicable
taxes, within sixty (60) days following your termination of employment with Bioventus. This payment shall be in addition to your Severance Benefits as defined in your Offer Letter. 



 

	 	•	 	 $260,000, paid in a single, lump sum payment, less applicable taxes, on May 4, 2022 



 

	 	•	 	 You must be actively employed on the payment date in order to receive payment; otherwise, the amount is
forfeited. 


  

	 	•	 	 Notwithstanding the prior sentence, if your position with Bioventus is terminated after the May 4, 2021
payment date, but before the May 4, 2022 payment date for a reason that would qualify you for Severance Benefits under the Offer Letter, you will receive the $260,000, paid in a single, lump sum payment, less applicable taxes, within sixty
(60) days following your termination of employment with Bioventus. This payment shall be in addition to your Severance Benefits under your Offer Letter. 



Your ongoing support of our business is critical and I hope this retention plan demonstrates your value to the Bioventus Board of Managers. We look forward to
working with you as you help to drive the success of Bioventus. If you have any questions about the plan, please let me know. 
  

	
	Best regards,
	
	 /s/ William Hawkins

	William Hawkins
	Chair of the Bioventus Board
	
	 /s/ John Nosenzo
                    4/18/2020


 John Nosenzo 
 Accepted and
Understood
08/04/201 0 15:4 9 FA X 910243899 2 000 1 UNCLASSIFIE D DEPARTMJEN T O FDEFENS E AVIATIO N TACTIC S EVALUATIO N GROU P FOR T BRAGG , NORT H CAROLIN A 28307-500 0 4 Au g 201 0 MEMORANDU M FO RH Q FAA OFFIC EO FRULEMAKIN G FROM : AVTE GAIRSPAC E;5 ; SUBJECT ; Extensio n an dAiipor t additio n t o FA A Exemptio n 929 4 1 , O n behal f

o f th e Unite dState s Special Operation s Command , I reques t extensio n o f

FA A Exemptio n No . 9294 . Thi s exemptio n i s schedule dt o expir e o n Fe b 2 8 2011 . Gran t o f r-

j exemptio n No . 929 4 pertain s t o 105.17 , 105.1 9 (a ) an d(b) , Titl e 1 4 Cod e o f Federa l Regulations . ,^

5 Th e exemptio n allow s for parachut e operation s wit hn o ill\miination , throug hclouds , outside o f special us e airspace , at

an dbelo w 1,500 ' abov e groun dlevel , a t specifie dairports . I als o reques t that Warne r Robbin s AF B an dMood y AF B Georgi ab e adde dt o exemptio n No . 9294 . 2 . Pleas e direc t

an y question s t o MSg t

Cha dMcBe e a

t (910 ) 243-134 0 

# 'A/<0 - CHA D W . McBEE , MSgt , USA F NCOI C Combat

Airspac e Managemen t

UNCLASSIFIE D
From: McKaughan, Colleen

Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 5:13:22 PM
To: jgrady@calportland.com Cc: Nudd, Gregory; Webb, Thomas; Kelly, Shaheerah; ecm@azdeq.gov Subject: RE: New Court

- Ordered Deadline for Regional Haze FIP

Hi, Jay,

I should have changed the May 1st date to the 10th. Cal Portland has until May 10th to get us any information that you think would be helpful.

Colleen McKaughan

From: McKaughan, Colleen Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 5:04 PM
To: jgrady@calportland.com Cc: Nudd, Gregory; Webb, Thomas; Kelly, Shaheerah; ecm@azdeq.gov Subject: New Court

- Ordered Deadline for Regional Haze FIP



### Dear Jay,

I’m writing to let you know that the court

- ordered deadline for EPA to propose a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing regional haze in Arizona has been extended to September 6, 2013. Our deadline for final action on Arizona’s State Implementation P lan (SIP) remains July 15, 2013. The deadline for commenting on our December 20, 2012 proposed action on Arizona’s SIP is March 6, 2013.

If EPA finalizes disapproval of any aspect of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP, we are obligated to propose and later fin alize a FIP to address these disapproved portions. The deadlines for these proposed and final actions are set in a consent decree. The parties to the consent decree recently agreed to extend these deadlines and the United States District Court for the Dis trict of Columbia issued an order granting a motion to amend the consent decree to reflect these new deadlines. The new deadlines of September 6, 2013 for the proposed action and February 6, 2014 for the final action provide the agency more time for the te chnical work that will form the
basis of the FIP.

If you are planning to provide technical information that you think would be helpful to EPA in preparing our FIP proposal, please provide that information no later than May 1, 2013 . This will
allow us enou gh time to review and consider the information in preparing the proposal.

In the case of Kilns 1

- 4 at the CalPortland Cement Company in Rillito, Arizona, we are particularly interested in getting your feedback regarding the effectiveness of potential cont rols and the control costs estimated by our contractor, as well as information about whether the kilns employ existing inherent or add

- on controls for minimizing nitrogen oxide emissions.

If you have any questions, please let me know. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Colleen McKaughan
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7331

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

RALPH D. DAVIS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00254-TSE-1) 

Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Ralph D. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward J. McAndrew, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charles Philip Rosenberg, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Andrew McCormack, 

Special Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Ralph D. Davis appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motions seeking to obtain copies of Title III orders*

relevant to his criminal conviction, and for appointment of 

counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Davis, No. 1:07-cr-00254-TSE-1 

(E.D. Va. June 29, 2009). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

 * See 18 U.S.C. § 2510-2522 (2006).