alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
E.O. 12866 Review 2060-AQ-42 email 122810.txt

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Dave Guinnup/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/28/2010 10:16 AM

Subject: RE: Part of E.O. 12866 Review: OMB request for Supplementary Information pertaiing to Primary Lead RTR: RIN 2060-AQ42

Thanks Sharon! It'd be great if we could get the Appendices that are referenced in the risk assessment. We also look forward to seeing the actual to allowable emissions memo.

-----Original Message----- From: Nizich.Sharon@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Nizich.Sharon@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 7:55 AM To: Higgins, Cortney Cc: Guinnup.Dave@epamail.epa.gov; Stewart.Michael@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Re: Supplementary Information for RTR -- Primary Lead Smelting

Hello CortneyI believe the demo analysis is in the risk assessment that was sent to you last week, but I'm cc'ing Dave so he can send the other pieces that are pertinent. I hope to have the actual to allowable emissions memo to you tomorrow. THANKS.

(See attached file: Primary Lead Risk report 12-21-10clean.docx)

Sharon V. Nizich Metals and Minerals Group Sector Policies and Programs Division OAQPS - US EPA RTP NC 27711 919/541-2825

Page 1E.O. 12866 Review 2060-AQ-42 email 122810.txt

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve Fruh/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Ann Johnson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/22/2010 03:46 PM

Subject: Supplementary Information for RTR -- Primary Lead Smelting

Hi Sharon and Steve, We’ve received the RTR Primary Lead Smelting Preamble and Reg Text. Thanks! Can you send over these documents cited in the preamble (should be 4 or 5):

- Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Primary Lead Smelting Source Category (p 44) - Risk and Technology Review – Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Primary Lead Smelting Operations. (p. 61) o Is this the same as the following? If not, can you send this as well?: The methodology and the results of the demographic analyses for this source category are included in the technical report available in the docket for this action. (p. 63) - Actual to Allowable Emissions Memo (p. 135) - In EO 12898 Section (EJ), discussion of 2 approaches to inhalation risk estimates that are laid out in memos (p. 135) -- we’ll need to see both

Thanks, Cortney 202.395.7856

Page 2
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Larry WALKER v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53896.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 12, 1973.

In re: Larry Walker applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and other remedial writs.

Writ refused. There is no merit in the application.
#### In re Petition of POST-NEWSWEEK STATIONS, FLORIDA, INC., for change in code of judicial conduct.

No. 46835.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 5, 1978.

On consideration of the Motion for Rehearing [of Fla.App., 358 So.2d 1360] and Alternative Motion for Expedited Proceedings filed by Petitioner, POST-NEWSWEEK STATIONS, FLORIDA, INC., and the Petition for Rehearing filed by SUNBEAM TELEVISION CORPORATION,

IT IS ORDERED by the Court that said Motion and Petition be and the same are hereby denied.

ENGLAND, C. J., and OVERTON, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.

SUNDBERG, J., concurs specially with an opinion with which ENGLAND, C. J., concurs.

*1196BOYD, J., dissents with an opinion.

ADKINS, J., dissents.

SUNDBERG, Justice,

concurring specialty-

Because of a palpable violation of Florida Appellate Rule 3.14 b. providing that petitions for rehearing “must set forth concisely, and without argument, the alleged omissions, oversights, causes or grounds on which it is based” and pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.14 d. providing for the striking of such petition in the event of a substantial violation of any material provisions of the rule, I would strike the applications for rehearing. See *Williams v. State,*113 So.2d 833 (Fla.1959); *Texas Co. v. Davidson,*76 Fla. 475, 80 So. 558 (1919), and *State v. Green,*105 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958).

ENGLAND, C. J., concurs.

BOYD, Justice,

dissenting.

I would grant the petition for rehearing. This Court should continue the prior order permitting use of cameras in court until conclusion of the matter by the Court.
#### William S. HOWELL, a/k/a William Schroeder, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42247.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 30, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 259 So.2d 516.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
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 MURGUIA, 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, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-72020 

of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 dispositive 

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 supports 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, the 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) (issues 
3 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. See 

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.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

RYAN DUBOISE,

Appellant

v.

KIMBERLY SMITH, KERI MOORE AND 

BOB RUMCIK,

Appellees

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 7 EAP 2020

Appeal from the Order entered on 

December 16, 2019, exited on 

December 17, 2019, in the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 465 MD 

2019.

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: August 18, 2020

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2020, the order of the Commonwealth Court 

is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 99.1

FIRST INVESTORS FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of First Investors Financial Services Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended July 31, 2002 (the "Report"),
I, Tommy A. Moore, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:



|Dated: November 29, 2002 |  | /s/TOMMY A. MOORE, JR.Tommy A. Moore, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------

The
above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q/A or
as a separate disclosure document.

---

QuickLinks
251 La. 750

#### Edwin A. SCOTT v. LOUISIANA MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY et al.

No. 49058.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1968.

In re: Edwin A. Scott and Bituminous Casualty Corporation applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of LaSalle. 204 So.2d 597.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.
##### 



EXHIBIT 7

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Barrick Gold Corporation (the Company) is filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 40-F for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the Report).

I, Jamie C. Sokalsky, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to
section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:



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

Date: May 16, 2003

A signed original 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.

/s/ JAMIE C. SOKALSKY
Name: Jamie C. Sokalsky
Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Order entered February 14, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01401
- CR ELIZABETH CLEMONS, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 Dallas County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. F10
- 73435
- Y 

### O RDER
We GRANT Official Court Reporter Sharon Hazlewood’s February 10, 2013 request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. The reporter’s record shall be due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ LANA M YERS JUSTICE
Docket Number: FAA-2013-0367
men Tartan annie tks Maeae pSpimanasess ad stent” Woe Bsa Ne Wen WES espns Vos daha tT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCHE—BUREAU OF TH CENSUS ee As Pe B.No.. &. 7.28. Bheet Nv,
LAO PAENAS ROE we ae One sameness: CNMONT POTION ca aa aed IAD SIXTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1940

Township of other : ivttiermtod ty sie Hr

division Of COUNEY ......-..n-veeenererecesn- osname BLOCK NOW a aceaeesaeevees EMORHCWHLOE anne in anaes aca POPULATION SCHEDULE tire Oviz :

5 16—114706 +S OS & OSE OH 66 24 DE & ~ + + 6 S6SSSSS 666 46468406 %

LOCATION | HOUSEHOLD DATA NAME RESIDENCE, APRIL 1, 1935 PERSONS 14 YEARS OLD AND OVER—EMPLOYMENT STATUS

OCCUPATION, INDUSTRY, AND CLASS OF WORKER

£ Name of each person whose usual place If born in the United States, og, ply fm diong A in the sume house se ot present, enter in . blic ¢ work, assigned to public k, h
« | of.secidence on Apel! 1, 1940, wes ia ; cre Sate, error, ph T= oak cone {Te wet "6a ta bento etipetion, nae ad ow OT

this household. possession. , Py) : 4 8 parwon seeking work (""Yes” in Col $3): (x) If he has previous
‘ tse

is BE SURE TO INCLUDE: re oa  Birtplace Eo] meted a) Let Te, ort J |e _etperiance, eae pe reer orend tears Sle, EXT eee

ee ee

aT a Ht yeerage tntucny ot besinan, 0

6 opines rae) wild

ia} ip ut | = sr Oa

eheent from household Riv wd on oy nee

tS = aptortgalroney nge "tahews’” Act baa W
SL T7 iis 'eas'beos atten s fect name " oe t ubh i

Pecae, < read

mle seschehetinhlateednagsltanl

ist i < tual

1" Valac of beze. Z ewned, of monthly

an
—

~~.

BR

t ~ it
.
‘ .
_ 4 ‘

PIS TREE | TES Oe

BRIS REEE: \RRANES)

CP 8 |
Cer sts se
Ss
BES RRRRESRERSES

- =
" . -
,
re

SiR RS RRL
PRE RELL

< .
a
r
%
‘

&
RIS
.
’
Ny _ ‘ on
s ° 4 - ~ >
. ’ . ~
' . *
t ~~
: ’
; '
~*~
; ~
|
~

Historic census records are maintained and released by
the National Archives and Records Administration,
not the U.S. Census Bureau.

i

:
:

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly
available records like the one shown here.

RDS i oT Pt fT | tO st oT | RT TF ft fT te
j
n
; .
’
‘ ;
.
e

o
4
i
4 ’
i,

mn, |!

8 3 ja fs is fe fe is fe fs Is I

ONE Sm

~ ‘
‘
~
~~”

SUPPLEMEX TARY
QUESTIONS

Por Persons Enumerated on Lines 55 and 68 USUAL OCCUPATION, INDUSTRY, AND CLASS OF WORKER

as his usual cocupation and at which he is
and at which he is physically ableto work. Enter alec usual indus-

Has this woman been married os

more than ence! (Yes or No)

Col. 10, COLOR OB RACE: ‘ Col, 14. HIGHEST GRADE OF SCHOOL COMPLETED: nn aT — D po AVE sect ina sont OCule, 80 and 47, CLASS OF WOBKER: Cel. 4. Wan MILITARY SERVICE:
’
“= ¥

fd
ret, heel, worker
WHO cacccsccee W re | % 2 MORO. coscsacacsscscssasceseccaecazeceseess 9 E ; a Hoe on uy Be bod private wrk =: rw ‘i it —
valas rrectercs Mag Windt....cececee thie 2 zz Roem tr bay wey. 2fcrtar2rcr wis A ‘ shSe to ten desea ts we * te
NOTES August 198. TS February 10 cecccoen WIS -A : ’

Other raves, spell Heptom ber 1980 ai? = March 1940... wis College, lst to 4th year........... O-1, 0-8, 0-8, 0-4 miata

out in full. (De not include children born on or after April 1, 1960.) College, tth or subsequent year peor
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HABERSHAM BANCORP FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 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>                                       5,798,796
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             8,300,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             3,495,540
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 46,340,012
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      15,610,563
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        15,888,697
<LOANS>                                    281,897,970
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,709,570
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             384,069,334
<DEPOSITS>                                 280,453,299
<SHORT-TERM>                                53,950,230
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         14,751,878
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,700,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,448,267
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,765,660
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             384,069,334
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             25,088,953
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            3,369,231
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               500,504
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            28,958,688
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          12,911,922
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          15,090,553
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       13,868,135
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  692,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              76,614
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             26,213,949  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,712,155
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,712,155
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,057,901
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .83
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.08
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,009,258
<LOANS-PAST>                                 1,013,009
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               849,963
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,336,079
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  461,778 
<RECOVERIES>                                   142,769
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,709,570
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,709,570
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
[No. 256-41407-3.

Division Three.

July 20, 1971.]

#### Thomas Keen, *Appellant,*v. The Department of Labor and Industries *et al., Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Walla Walla County, No. 54077, Albert N. Bradford, J., entered May 25,1967. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Birner Dental Management
Services, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the “Company”), for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), the undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant
to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his
knowledge:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 or 78o(d));
      and





2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      for the period covered by the
Report.





Date:
                
                August
      13, 2010By:
                
                /s/ Frederic W.J. BirnerName:
                
                Frederic
      W.J. BirnerTitle:
                
                Chief
      Executive OfficerBy:
                
                /s/ Dennis N. GentyName:
                
                Dennis
      N. GentyTitle:
                
                Chief
      Financial Officer
#### Melvin BROWN, Joan Anderson and George Baier, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 69-143, 69-144.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 10, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 4, 1970.

Rehearing as to Baier Granted Nov. 4, 1970.

Thomas J. Hanlon and Henry Gonzalez, Tampa, for appellants.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

The court below did not fully and sufficiently instruct the jury as to the burden of proof placed upon the State on the issue of scienter or knowledge of the appellant Baier as to the presence of the marijuana and *his ability to maintain control over it.*Mr. Baier was merely a visitor in the home of the other two appellants and had no proprietary interest whatsoever in the premises on which the marijuana was located.

In Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 117, it was held at page 120:

> “If the premises on which the drugs are found is not in the exclusive but only in the joint possession of the accused, knowledge of the drugs’ presence on the premises and the ability to maintain control over them by the accused will not be inferred but must be established by proof.”

There is a conflict in the record as to whether or not appellant Baier had any knowledge whatsoever of the marijuana growing in the backyard' of the premises. Appellant Baier, being strictly a visitor on the premises and having no proprietary interest whatsoever in them, was entitled under the Frank case, *supra,*to a full, complete and sufficient instruction on the issue of scienter and his ability to maintain control over the marijuana, which was *508not afforded to him under the instruction given by the trial court.

For the reasons stated above the judgment and sentence of appellant Baier is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.

HOBSON, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.

MANN, J., dissents.
#### MERRITT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. Winton Joseph JOINER et al., Respondents.

No. 43701.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 23, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 19, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

McCAIN, J., dissents.
**Exhibit
      32-1**


****


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of MangoSoft, Inc. and Subsidiary (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2008, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Dale Vincent, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





By:
            
            /s/
                Dale VincentChief Executive Officer (principal executive and financial officer)November
                14, 2008




This
      certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to
      the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
      purpose.
# C_2023035EN.01006202.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/62

---

Order of the General Court of 22 November 2022 — Fieldpoint (Cyprus) v EUIPO (HYPERLIGHTEYEWEAR)

(Case T-801/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark HYPERLIGHTEYEWEAR - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Equal treatment - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2023/C 35/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fieldpoint (Cyprus) LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: P. Rath and S. Gebele, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite and T. Klee, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 October 2021 (Case R 1165/2021-2).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Fieldpoint (Cyprus) LTD shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Fieldpoint (Cyprus) LTD shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---