alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023252EN.01004002.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Cipla Europe (Shape of an inhaler)

(Case T-477/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of an inhaler - Absolute ground for invalidity - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 252/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. de Haan and F. Verhoestraete, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Cipla Europe NV (Antwerp, Belgium)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 May 2021 (Case R 1835/2016-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 May 2021 (Case R 1835/2016-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 May 2021 (Case R 1835/2016-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                              TransMontaigne Inc.

                             List of Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            State/Country of      Ownership of
                      Name of Subsidiary                      Organization         Subsidiary       Trade Name
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                         <C>                   <C>               <C>
Bear Paw Energy Inc.                                            Colorado              100%          None
Bear Paw Processing Company (Canada) Ltd.                       Canada                100%          None
GOIN  Inc.                                                      Colorado              100%          None
K123 Corporation                                                Colorado              100%          None
Republic Natural Gas Company                                    Kansas                100%          None
TransMontaigne Canada Ltd.                                      Canada                100%          None
TransMontaigne Holding Inc.                                     Arkansas               65%          None
TransMontaigne Pipeline Inc.                                    Arkansas              100%          None
TransMontaigne Product Services Inc.                            Delaware              100%          None
TransMontaigne Product Services Midwest Inc.                    Arkansas              100%          None
TransMontaigne Terminaling Inc.                                 Arkansas              100%          Razorback Terminaling Co.
TransMontaigne Transportation Services Inc.                     Arkansas              100%          None
</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Tehran Muhammad, Petitioner, v Philip Coombe, Jr., as Acting Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[655 NYS2d 221]

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Although petitioner, an inmate at Collins Correctional Facility, has raised a number of issues in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the sole issue raised in his administrative appeal addressed the fact that the misbehavior report was not made by the correction officers who broke up the fight in which he was involved but, rather, was made by a correction officer who did not witness the incident and did not ascertain the facts by inquiring of those two correction officers. The failure of petitioner to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the remaining issues by raising those issues in his administrative appeal precludes him from raising them in this proceeding *(see, Young Men’s Christian Assn. v Rochester Pure Waters Dist.,*37 NY2d 371, 375; *Matter of Nelson v Coughlin,*188 AD2d 1071, *appeal*
      *994
      *dismissed*81 NY2d 834; *Matter of Bates v Coughlin,*145 AD2d 854, *lv denied*74 NY2d 602). Specifically, petitioner did not exhaust his administrative remedies on the issues of the denial of his request to call certain witnesses, the failure of one witness to testify in petitioner’s presence and the sufficiency of the evidence.

With respect to the misbehavior report, it is sufficient that the reporting correction officer ascertained the facts of the incident from the other inmate involved in the fight. The misbehavior report "shall be made by the employee who has observed the incident or who has ascertained the facts of the incident” (7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [b]). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
#### Hazele MILLER et al., Appellants, v. Eugene C. HEAD, a/k/a Gene Head et al., Appellees.

No. 72-506.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 2, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 10, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
DWAYNE CORDELL

PINESTRAW

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 1167

Opinion filed April 1, 2015.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

-- Original

Jurisdiction

.

Dwayne Cordell Pinestraw, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for R espondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the

merits.

WOLF, BENTON, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7034

DWIGHT DAVID LEWIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM CLOUD HICKLIN, IV, Attorney; UNKNOWN

COURT REPORTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-00-429-7)

Submitted: September 26, 2000 Decided: October 19, 2000

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwight David Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order did not address Lewis’

claim against the “Unknown Court Reporter,” the district court’s

reasoning is equally applicable to the court reporter. Consequently, there is no basis for further adjudication of this matter

unless Lewis can demonstrate the invalidity of his conviction. See

Insinga v. LaBella, 817 F.2d 1469, 1470 (11th Cir. 1987); see also

Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381, 386-87 (1978) (finding

appellate jurisdiction “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive

determination” of the action, provided no detriment to the parties). We therefore find that despite the district court’s oversight, we have jurisdiction over this appeal.

2

PER CURIAM:

Dwight David Lewis appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error.* Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. See Lewis v. Hicklin, No. CA-00-429-7 (W.D.

Va. July 17, 2000). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<CIK> 0000065350
<NAME> METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                  US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,558,908
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    195,139
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         222,851
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       585,545
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,562,443
<COMMON>                                        66,273
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      370,200
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            288,277    <F1>
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 724,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          100,000    <F2>
<PREFERRED>                                     12,056
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           576,925
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              81,600
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       22
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                         30
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                34,732
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,032,328
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,562,443
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      234,748
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            17,562
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     176,874
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     194,436
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         40,312
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                (159)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  40,153
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        15,423    <F3>
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,730
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        121
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   24,609
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        20,000    <F4>
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       43,254
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          21,566
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1> INCLUDES ACCUMULATED OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME OF $15,034.
<F2> REPRESENTS COMPANY-OBLIGATED MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE PREFERRED
<F2> SECURITIES.
<F3> INCLUDES DIVIDENDS ON COMPANY-OBLIGATED MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE
<F3> PREFERRED SECURITIES OF $2,250.
<F4> REPRESENTS COMMON STOCK DIVIDENDS PAID TO PARENT CORPORATION.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Leland ROBINSON v. Helen ROBINSON.

No. 49686.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 2, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1977.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Harrison County; William G. Hewes, Chancellor.

*1333Sekul, Hornsby & Wallace, Thomas L. Wallace, Biloxi, for appellant.

Levi, Wilson & Denham, Earl L. Denham, Ocean Springs, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ., and OSBORN GUY-TON IDOM, Commissioner.

AFFIRMED.
1

Filed 1/5/21 P. v. Bennett CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DARRIN DWAYNE BENNETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

E075071

(Super.Ct.No. FSB702182)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Colin J. Bilash, 

Judge. Affirmed.

Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers and Christopher P. 

Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2009, after initially being charged with murder, plaintiff and appellant Darrin 

Dwayne Bennett pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and admitted a gun 
2

enhancement. In 2019, he sought resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95

(section 1170.95), a statute recently enacted by Senate Bill No. 1437 (Senate Bill 1437). 

The trial court denied Bennett’s petition, finding that he was not eligible for relief 

because he was not convicted of murder. We affirm.

Senate Bill 1437 “amend[ed] the felony murder rule and the natural and probable 

consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not 

imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was 

not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to 

human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) Section 1170.95 “provides a 

procedure by which those convicted of murder can seek retroactive relief if the changes 

in the law would affect their previously sustained convictions.” (People v. Larios (2019) 

42 Cal.App.5th 956, 964.)

Bennett argues here that section 1170.95 should be interpreted to apply not only to 

those convicted of murder, but those like him, who were charged with murder but 

accepted a plea offer to a lesser included offense. Such claims have been rejected by a 

number of appellate courts, including this one. (See People v. Sanchez (2020) 48 

Cal.App.5th 914, 916 (Sanchez) [rejecting contention that section 1170.95 applies to 

defendant who pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter after being charged with murder, 

and collecting cases].) 
3

Bennett properly acknowledges this line of authority, contending only that it was 

wrongly decided and asking that we reach a different conclusion. We are not persuaded, 

and instead adopt the thoughtful analysis expressed by our colleagues in Sanchez.

DISPOSITION

We affirm the order denying Bennett’s section 1170.95 petition.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAPHAEL

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

SLOUGH

J.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARLON ERNESTO GARCIA, AKA Pedro Antonio Castro, AKA Pablo Escobar, AKA Marlon Ernest Garcia,

Petitioner,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 15

- 72020 Agency No. A205

- 719

- 962

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 13, 2018 **

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURG U IA, Circuit Judges.

Marlon Ernesto Garcia , a native and citizen of El Salvador , petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 72020

of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed b y 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency ’ s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d
1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for

review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Garcia’s request for humanitarian asylum
relief because he failed to raise it to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d
674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004).
In his opening brief, Garcia does not challenge the agency’s dispo sitive
denial of asylum as time

- barred. See Corro

- Barragan v. Holder , 718 F.3d 1174,
1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in
waiver). Thus, we deny the petition as to Garcia’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence sup ports the agency’s finding that Garcia failed to
establish past persecution. See Al

- Harbi v. INS , 242 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 2001)
(“ Punishment on account of desertion generally does not support refugee status,
unless it can be shown that such punishment is based on political opinion or
another statutorily

- protected ground. ”). Further, t he BIA did not err by declining
to consider Garcia’s arguments regarding the punishment for desertion in El

Salvador. See Matter of J

– Y

– C

– , 24 I. & N. Dec. 260, 261 n.1 (BIA 2007) (issues3 15

- 72020

not raised to the IJ are not properly before the BIA on appeal). Substantial

evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Garcia failed to establish it is
more likely than not he would be persecuted if returned to El Salvador. S ee Fakhry v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1057, 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence did not compel
a finding that it is more likely than not petitioner would be persecuted upon his
return to Senegal). Thus , Garcia’s withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITI ON FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
Exhibit 10.18.1

 

FIRST AMENDMENT OF

HUMACYTE, INC.

2005 STOCK OPTION PLAN


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT of Humacyte, Inc. 2005 Stock
Option Plan is dated as of March 31, 2008.


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Humacyte, Inc.
(the “Company”) has adopted and the shareholders of the Company have approved the Humacyte, Inc. 2005 Stock
Option Plan (the “Plan”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors determines that
it is in the best interest of the Company to amend the Plan in order to increase the number of shares of common stock issuable
pursuant to options granted under the Plan from Seven Hundred Ten Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Four (710,254) shares to Two Million
Two Hundred Ten Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Four (2,210,254) shares.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows:


 


1. The first sentence of Paragraph 5.1 of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and the following substituted in lieu thereof:


 


“Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 14.1,
the aggregate number of shares of Stock reserved and available for Awards or which may be used to provide a basis of measurement
for or to determine the value of an Award (such as with a Stock Appreciation Right or Performance Share Award) shall be Two Million
Two Hundred Ten Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Four (2,210,254), of which not more than one third may be granted as Awards of Restricted
Stock or unrestricted Stock Awards.”


 


2. Except as herein amended, the terms
and provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as originally adopted and approved.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hereby certifies
that this First Amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors as of March 31, 2008 and by the shareholders of the Company
as of August 26, 2008.


 


	 	 	 	HUMACYTE, INC.
	[CORPORATE SEAL]	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	By:	/s/ Geoffrey R. Erickson
	ATTEST:	 	 	Geoffrey R. Erickson

    President and CEO
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
                                         Shannon L.M. Dahl


        	 	 	 
	 	Secretary
-  Health Care      -  Maternal Health 
  -  About the Affordable Care Act (ACA)        -  Pre-Existing Conditions 
    -  Young Adult Coverage 
    -  Cancellation & Appeals 
    -  Benefit Limits 
    -  Preventive Care 
    -  Affordable Care Act (ACA) Anniversary 
  -  How to use your coverage to get care 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# Coverage to Care

## Congratulations on getting health coverage—it's an important first step to better health and well-being!

Coverage isn't only important when you are sick, it's helpful when you don't feel sick. This roadmap explains what health coverage is, and how to use it to get the primary care and preventive services to help you and your family live long, healthy lives.

English

## Start leading a healthier life today – read the roadmap to better care and a healthier you!

This roadmap explains what health coverage is and how to use it to get primary care and preventive services so that you and your family live long, healthy lives.

Read the roadmap from start to finish or jump to a specific step.

**Step 1:** Put your health first

**Step 2:** Understand your health coverage

**Step 3:** Know where to go for care

**Step 4:** Find a provider

**Step 5:** Make an appointment

**Step 6:** Be prepared for the visit

**Step 7:** Decide if the provider is right for you

**Step 8:** Next steps after your appointment

### Coverage to Care Resources Available

*From Coverage to Care (C2C)* has resources for your family members, loved ones, patients, and communities available in different languages below to help you on your journey from coverage to care.

Spanish / Español

Arabic / ال عرب ي

Chinese / 中文

Haitian Creole / Kreyòl Ayisyen

Korean / 한국어

Russian / Русский

Vietnamese / TIẾNG VIỆT

Tribal Version

Content last reviewed March 18, 2021
Exhibit
4.11


 


DESCRIPTION
OF SECURITIES


 


The
following description of certain terms of OncoCyte Corporation (“Oncocyte”) common stock is a summary and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to (i) Oncocyte’s Articles of Incorporation, as amended, (ii) Oncocyte’s Amended and
Restated Bylaw, and (iii) the California General Corporation Law.


 


Common
Stock


 


The
Oncocyte Articles of Incorporation currently authorize the issuance of up to 150,000,000 shares of common stock, no par value.
Each holder of record of common stock is entitled to one vote for each outstanding share owned, on every matter properly submitted
to the shareholders for their vote; provided, that if any shareholder entitled to vote at a meeting at which directors are to
be elected gives timely notice of their intention to cumulate votes in the election of directors, shareholders may cumulate votes
for the election of directors.


 


Subject
to the dividend rights of holders of any preferred stock that may be issued from time to time, holders of common stock are entitled
to any dividend declared by the Oncocyte Board of Directors out of funds legally available for that purpose.


 


Subject
to the prior payment of the applicable liquidation preference to holders of any preferred stock that may be issued from time to
time, holders of common stock are entitled to receive on a pro rata basis all remaining assets available for distribution to the
holders of common stock in the event of the liquidation, dissolution, or winding up of Oncocyte’s operations.


 


Holders
of common stock do not have any preemptive, subscription, redemption, or conversion rights. There are no redemption or sinking
fund provisions applicable to the common stock. The rights, powers, preferences and privileges of holders of Oncocyte common stock
will be subject to those of the holders of any shares of Oncocyte preferred stock that may be issued in the future.