alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022222EN.01003001.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/30

---

Order of the General Court of 25 March 2022 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

(Case T-691/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Competition - Settlement procedure - Letter from the European Commission inviting an undertaking to express its interest in engaging in a settlement procedure - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Intermediary act - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 222/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alcogroup (Brussels, Belgium) and Alcodis (Brussels) (represented by: P. de Bandt, C. Binet and M. Nuytten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Berghe, T. Baumé and F. Jimeno Fernández, agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 27 October 2021, the applicants seek to have set aside the letter of the European Commission of 17 September 2021, by which the Commission invited the applicants to inform it, within two weeks, of their interest in engaging in a settlement procedure within the meaning of Article 10a of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles [101 and 102 TFEU] (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18), as amended, regarding a potential infringement of Article 101 TFEU that they may have committed with other undertakings.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.

---
EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 File No. 33-65189, No. 333-03291, No. 333-15665, No. 333-53151 and No.
333-63051) pertaining to the various employee and director stock option plans
and agreements of CT Holdings, Inc. of our report dated March 14, 2003, with
respect to the financial statements of CT Holdings, Inc. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 2002.



/s/ KBA Group LLP
Dallas, Texas
April 15, 2003


<PAGE>
EX-10.13





 Exhibit 10.13 

 
 



 
 January 1, 2020 
 Mariya
Pylypiv 
  

	Re:	 Amended and Restated Offer of Employment 



Dear Dr. Pylypiv: 
 It is my pleasure to invite you to join
the team at UpHealth Services, Inc. (the “Company”). Subject to your acceptance of this offer by execution of this letter agreement, this offer will replace your Offer of Employment letter dated November 5, 2019 and the following key
terms will apply to your employment with the Company. 
 Your Position: You will be the Vice Chairwoman, with the customary duties of this position.
You will be reporting to the Board of Directors. 
 Your Start Date: Your first day of employment with the Company will be January 1st, 2020 and your employment shall continue until the formation of a holding company (“Holdings”), at which time the Company intends to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Holdings and your
employment will continue upon the same terms with Holdings. 
 Your Salary: Your annualized salary will be $200,000.00 (“Base Salary”). You
will be eligible for periodic salary increases, but not decreases, as determined in the sole discretion of the Company’s Board of Directors. Your Base Salary will be reviewed annually. Your Base Salary will accrue until the completion of a
transaction that results in the Company, one of its affiliates or a successor entity becoming publicly traded or a subsidiary of a publicly traded company. 

Benefits: You will (i) be entitled to participate in all employee benefit plans which any senior executive officer of the Company is entitled to
participate in on the same terms as all other senior executive officers; (ii) receive and participate in all profit sharing, equity incentive plans, performance bonus plans, incentive compensation, 401(k) plans and pension benefits and
executive retirement and supplemental benefits which are available to any other senior executive officer of the Company on the same terms as all other senior executive officers; and (iii) receive health insurance programs, executive medical and
dental benefits, life insurance, disability plans, accidental death and dismemberment benefits plus such other benefits which are available to the senior executives of the Company on the same terms as all other senior executive officers. 

Insurance; Indemnification: While employed by the Company and thereafter while you could have any liability, you will be named as an insured party in
any liability insurance policy (including any director and officer liability policy and errors and omissions policy) maintained by the Company for its directors and/or senior executive officers. 












 We look forward to working with you in supporting the success and growth of our company. 

Sincerely, 
  

			
	Title:	 	Founder and Executive Chair
		
	Name:	 	Chirinjeev Kathuria
		
	Signed:	 	 /s/ Chirinjeev Kathuria


 Accepted and Agreed to on January 1, 2020. 

 

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Mariya Pylypiv



  
  Page
 2
 of 2
#### UNIVERSAL ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION CO. v. Michael LINER, Sr., Duffy Deroche, d/b/a Best Machine Works.

No. 53964.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 12, 1973.

In re: Universal Electric Construction Company applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Terrebonne. 281 So.2d 830.

Writ denied. On facts found, the result is correct.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15620]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. 
The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential 
trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant 
applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel, NHLBI R13 Conference Review.
    Date: August 2-3, 2018.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Stephanie J. Webb, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and 
Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7196, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-435-0291, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#097a7d6c79616867606c277e6c6b6b49676061276e667f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="13606776637b727d7a763d64767171537d7a7b3d747c65">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 17, 2018
Michelle D. Trout,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-15620 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leon Daley, Appellant.

[721 NYS2d 873]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Williams, J.), rendered September 3, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years and 3 to 6 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, there was legally sufficient evidence of the element of intent to sell to support the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Defendant’s intent to sell can be reasonably inferred from his possession of 32 separate packets of cocaine *(People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233, 245), especially when coupled with his possession of $941 in cash. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.
#### HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Alfred J. FLECHAS et al., Appellees.

No. GG-170.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 31, 1978.

Charles Cook Howell, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellant.

L. William Graham of Dell, Graham, Willcox, Barber, Ryals & Henderson, Gainesville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See *Miller Elec. Co. v. Employers’ Liability Assur. Corp.,*171 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); *Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. United Filigree Corp.,*298 So.2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CELERIS CORPORATION DATED DECEMBER 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       8,138,542
<SECURITIES>                                 7,083,851
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,688,712
<ALLOWANCES>                                   172,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,151,465
<PP&E>                                       1,012,986
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,164,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,959,675
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,398
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,173,378
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,164,451
<SALES>                                      5,782,487
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,782,487
<CGS>                                        4,027,819
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,067,863
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,113,937)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,113,937)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (10,539,051)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (12,652,988)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (3.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.96)


</TABLE>
# C_2022191EN.01002701.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Kerckhoff (apo-discounter.de)

(Case T-140/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark apo-discounter.de - Partial revocation - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use)

(2022/C 191/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apologistics GmbH (Markkleeberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hug, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Markus Kerckhoff (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 December 2020 (Case R 1439/2019-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Mr Kerckhoff and Apologistics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Apologistics GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Apologistics GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---
# C_2022084EN.01004001.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Lück v EUIPO — R. H. Investment (MALLE)

(Case T-188/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark MALLE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Ineffective nature of the single plea in law)

(2022/C 84/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Jörg Lück (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: L. Becker, 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: R. H. Investment UG (haftungsbeschränkt) (Erlangen, Germany) (represented by: M. Metzner and M. Scheiner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 December 2020 (Case R 1393/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between R. H. Investment and Mr Lück.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jörg Lück to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jörg Lück to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6298

DEVIN DENEIL DINKINS, Plaintiff – Appellant,

v. LAWRENCE DINKINS; SUMTER COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; AGENT CLEMONS, Defendants – Appellees,
and MAMIE ELLA SANDERS DINKINS, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (0:08-cv-00859-CMC)

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: June 1, 2009

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Devin Deneil Dinkins, Appellant Pro Se. John Derrick Clark, Sumter, South Carolina; James M. Davis, Jr., Joel Steve Hughes, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Tommy Evans, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2PER CURIAM: Devin Deneil Dinkins seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of

Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 24, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on February 17, 2009. * Because Dinkins failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. In light of this disposition, we grant the Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal and we deny Dinkins’ motion to subpoena memorandum and supporting documents

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

34 and for extension of time. 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.

DISMISSED
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1076

To provide for the implementation of special debt relief for the poorest,

most heavily-indebted countries, in the multilateral context of the Paris

Club, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 7, 1993

Mr. PELL (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To provide for the implementation of special debt relief for

the poorest, most heavily-indebted countries, in the multilateral context of the Paris Club, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Special Debt Relief

5 for the Poorest Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

7 To facilitate the reduction of the nonconcessional

8 debt owed to the United States by the poorest, most heav9 ily-indebted countries, in the multilateral context of the
2

S 1076 IS

1 Paris Club, and to promote economic reform and stability

2 that will lead to improvement in the lives of the people

3 of these countries.

4 SEC. 3. REDUCTION OF CERTAIN DEBT.

5 (a) AUTHORITY TO REDUCE DEBT.—

6 (1) AUTHORITY.—Notwithstanding any other

7 provision of law, the President may reduce amounts

8 of principal and interest owed to the United States,

9 or any agency of the United States, by any eligible

10 country as a result of—

11 (A) housing guarantees made pursuant to

12 title III of chapter 2, part I of the Foreign

13 Assistance Act of 1961; or

14 (B) loans or guarantees made pursuant to

15 the Arms Export Control Act; or

16 (C) loans or guarantees made pursuant to

17 the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945.

18 (2) APPROPRIATIONS REQUIREMENT.—The au19 thority provided by this section may be exercised

20 only in such amounts or to such extent as is pro21 vided in advance by appropriations Acts.

22 (3) CERTAIN PROHIBITIONS INAPPLICABLE.—A

23 reduction of debt pursuant to this section shall not

24 be considered assistance for purposes of any provi25 sion of law limiting assistance to a country.
3

S 1076 IS

1 (b) IMPLEMENTATION OF DEBT REDUCTION.—The

2 authority provided by this section may be exercised only

3 to implement multilateral official debt relief ad referen4 dum agreements commonly referred to as ‘‘Paris Club

5 Agreed Minutes’’.

6 (c) ELIGIBILITY FOR DEBT REDUCTION.—

7 (1) ELIGIBLE COUNTRIES.—The authority pro8 vided by this section may be exercised only with re9 spect to countries with heavy debt burdens that are

10 eligible to borrow from the International Develop11 ment Association, but not from the International

12 Bank for Reconstruction and Development, com13 monly referred to as ‘‘IDA-only’’ countries.

14 (2) ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS.—Consistent

15 with subsection (c)(1), the President shall determine

16 whether a country is eligible to receive benefits

17 under this section.

Æ
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 742 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that it is unconstitutional for the President of the United States to continue to provide 

deferred action for childhood arrivals in enforcement of the immigration 

laws. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Mr. OLSON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

it is unconstitutional for the President of the United 

States to continue to provide deferred action for childhood arrivals in enforcement of the immigration laws. 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that it is unconstitutional for the President 

3 of the United States to continue to provide deferred action 

4 for childhood arrivals in enforcement of the immigration 

5 laws. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS