alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019288EN.01004701.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — Marriott Worldwide v EUIPO — AC Milan (AC MILAN)

(Case T-28/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark AC MILAN - Earlier EU word marks AC and AC HOTELS BY MARRIOTT and earlier EU figurative mark AC HOTELS MARRIOTT - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Lack of enhanced distinctiveness of the mark AC - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 288/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marriott Worldwide Corp. (Bethesda, Maryland, United States) (represented by: A. Reid, Solicitor, and S. Baran, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented: initially by E. Markakis and D. Walicka, and subsequently by E. Markakis and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Associazione Calcio Milan SpA (AC Milan) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2017 (Case R 356/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Marriott Worldwide and AC Milan

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Marriott Worldwide Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Marriott Worldwide Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.

---
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO


AMENDED AND RESTATED WARRANTS TO PURCHASE
STOCK


  


This Amendment (this
“Amendment”) to Amended and Restated Warrants to Purchase Stock is made and entered into effective as of the
Expiration Date (as defined in this Amendment), by and between Enumeral Biomedical Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), and PacWest Bancorp (the “Holder”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise
defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in (a) that certain Amended and Restated Warrant to Purchase Stock issued
by the Company to Square 1 Bank on July 31, 2014 (the “First Warrant”) and (b) that certain Amended and Restated
Second Warrant to Purchase Stock issued by the Company to Square 1 Bank on July 31, 2014 (the “Second Warrant”,
and together with the First Warrant, each a “Warrant” and collectively, the “Warrants”).


 


WHEREAS,
the First Warrant entitles the Holder to purchase 54,245 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.73
per share, and the Second Warrant entitles the Holder to purchase 12,329 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise
price of $0.73 per share;


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and the Holder desire to amend each Warrant as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1.          Expiration
Date. “Expiration Date” as listed on the first page of each Warrant and as otherwise used in each Warrant
will mean December 12, 2016, as may be extended by the Company in its sole discretion.


 


2.          Exercise
Price. The “Initial Exercise Price” listed on the first page of each Warrant is hereby deleted and replaced
with “$0.125 per share”.


 


3.          Adjustments
for Diluting Issuances. Section 2.4 of each Warrant is hereby deleted in its entirety.


 


4.          Necessary
Acts. Each party to this Amendment hereby agrees to perform any further acts and to execute and deliver any further documents
that may be necessary or required to carry out the intent and provisions of this Amendment and the transactions contemplated hereby.


 


5.          Governing
Law. This Amendment will be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of North Carolina without regard to conflicts
of laws principles that would require the application of any other law.


 


6.          Continued
Validity. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, each Warrant shall remain in full force and effect.


  


[Signature Page Follows]


 




     


     


    

 


  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this Amendment to Amended and Restated Warrants to Purchase Stock as of the Expiration Date set forth above.





  




	ENUMERAL BIOMEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC.	 	PACWEST BANCORP
	 	 	 	 	 
	By: 	
        /s/ Matthew A. Ebert

        
	 	
        By:
	/s/ Jeff Krumpoch
	 	 	 	 	 
	Name: 	Matthew A. Ebert	 	Name:	Jeff Krumpoch
	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:	 General Counsel	 	Title: 	SVP/Corporate Controller
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.6


            DESCRIPTION OF RETIREMENT ACCOUNT MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS

         Emrise Corporation matches up to the lesser of $2,000 and 20% of
Randolph Foote's contributions to his 401(k) account. During 2004, 2003 and
2002, Emrise Corporation's matching contributions amounted to $1,965, $1,864 and
$1,604, respectively. This matching arrangement was generally made available to
all employees of Emrise Corporation and provides for the same method of
allocation of benefits between management and non-management participants.

          Also, XCEL Power Systems, Ltd. makes matching contributions of up to
6% of Graham Jefferies' salary to an executives' defined contribution plan.
Other employees of XCEL Power Systems, Ltd. may receive matching contributions
to a defined contribution plan of up to 4% of their salary. Amounts contributed
to the defined contribution plans are intended to used to purchase annuities
upon retirement. During 2004, 2003 and 2002, Mr. Jefferies received matching
contributions of $10,924, $10,320 and $9,000, respectively.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7014

JAMAR EDJUAN HICKMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNKNOWN; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:19-cv-00256-JAG-RCY)

Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: October 18, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamar Hickman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jamar Hickman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without 

prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district 

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hickman has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2019255EN.01001602.xml

| 29.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/16

---

Appeal brought on 27 December 2018 by Linak A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2018 in Case T-368/17: Linak v EUIPO — ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical

(Case C-820/18 P)

(2019/C 255/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Linak A/S (represented by: V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwältin, and J. Fuhrmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 19 June 2019 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The operating results information for the nine-month period combines the
six-month predecessor company period ended June 30, 1997 and the three-month
successor company period ended September 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,879
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,496
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,550
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,792
<PP&E>                                         515,732
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,518
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 588,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,132
<BONDS>                                        333,622
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     101,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   588,493
<SALES>                                        116,295
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               118,515
<CGS>                                           66,055
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,055
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,664
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,267
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,471)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,788)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,683)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,683)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Document Number: Revision: 

Previous Number:

Section/Area:

 Date:

Notes:

CVB Statement of Scope

CVB-SOP-5124 01

CVB-SOP

30 Jan 2023

CVB-Released
36 P.3d 813

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

September 20, 2001

23203

#### Cunningham v. State

Affirmed
Exhibit 99.2





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 Annual Report of Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael W. Rogers, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (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 result of operations of the Company.





By:
/S/    MICHAEL W. ROGERS


Chief Financial Officer


December 23, 2002
#### State v. Shand

20718

5/28/98

Affirmed, Vacated & Remanded
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Licensing Rule: Watering Standards

Last Modified: 

Print

This page provides a general overview of the watering standards covered under the

changes to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) that were published in the Federal

Register on May 13, 2020. The rule takes effect on November 9, 2020. These

changes aim to promote compliance, reduce licensing administrative burdens, and

strengthen safeguards to ensure humane care for animals covered under the AWA.

Summary of Changes to Watering Standards

Section §3.10 of the new AWA regulations outlines the watering requirements for

dogs and cats. Under the new requirements, dogs must have continuous access to

potable water at all times.

As a reminder, all water receptacles for dogs and cats must be kept clean and

sanitized and meet the cleaning standards listed under section §3.11(b).

Related Information

Licensing Rule
Licensing Rule: Veterinary Care for Dogs

Contact Us

If you have questions, please contact our office:

Animal Care Program

Email: animalcare@usda.gov

Phone: 970-494-7478

Fax: 970-494-7461

Mailing Address:

2150 Centre Ave.

Bldg. B, Mailstop 3W11

Fort Collins, CO 80526
#### IN RE: DEEPWATER HORIZON Lake Eugenie Land & Development, Incorporated; Bon Secour Fisheries, Incorporated; Fort Morgan Realty, Incorporated; LFBP 1, L.L.C., doing business as GW Fins; Panama City Beach Dolphin Tours & More, L.L.C.; Zekes Charter Fleet, L.L.C.; William Sellers; Kathleen Irwin; Ronald Lundy; Corliss Gallo; John Tesvich; Michael Guidry, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Henry Hutto; Brad Friloux; Jerry J. Kee, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. BP Exploration *&*Production, Incorporated; BP America Production Company; BP, P.L.C., Defendants-Appellees

No. 15-30377

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

FILED June 21, 2017

Stephen Jay Herman, Esq., Soren E. Gisleson, Esq., Herman Herman *&*Katz, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, James Parker-son Roy, Domengeaux Wright Roy Edwards *&*Colomb, L.L.C., Lafayette, LA, Samuel Issacharoff, New York University, School of Law, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Thomas George Hungar, General Counsel, Amir Cameron Tayrani, Miguel Angel *352Estrada, Scott Payne Martin, Theodore Olson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, L.L.P., Washington, DC, George Howard Brown, Esq., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, L.L.P., Palo Alto, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In its Petition for Panel Rehearing, BP asserts that the panel opinion rests upon an argument that was never raised. Specifically, BP asserts that Class Counsel never argued that Policy 495’s Industry-Specific Methodologies (“ISMs”) are inconsistent with the text of the BP Settlement Agreement. That is simply inaccurate. In fact, Class Counsel explicitly argued that Policy 495 “Departs from the Terms of the' Settlement Agreement” in its opening brief.1

The Petition for Panel Rehearing is DENIED.

1

. *See*Brief of Appellants at 23,
929 P.2d 115

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

16999

#### Nishimura v. Ontai

November 26, 1996

Order No. 96-30

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000879986
<NAME> CONCEPTRONIC, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          11,703
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,057,218
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,683,927
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,878,496
<PP&E>                                       1,388,189
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,280,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,588,256
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        17,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,280,720
<SALES>                                     11,632,499
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,632,499
<CGS>                                        8,544,706
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,544,706
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                89,666
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             137,232
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (125,743)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (125,743)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 624 

Directing the Committee on the Budget to hold a public hearing on the 

President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request with the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget as a witness. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2016 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Directing the Committee on the Budget to hold a public 

hearing on the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request with the Director of the Office of Management 

and Budget as a witness. 

Whereas the Committee on the Budget has held a hearing on 

the President’s budget request every year for 40 years; 

Whereas the Committee on the Budget has postponed the 

markup of the fiscal year 2017 Republican budget resolution; and 

Whereas the Committee on the Budget has ample time to 

hold a hearing on the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget 

request: Now, therefore, be it 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 624 IH 

1 Resolved, That the Committee on the Budget of the 

2 House of Representatives shall hold a public hearing on 

3 the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request with the 

4 Director of the Office of Management and Budget as a 

5 witness. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## MEMORANDUM

**DATE:** 12/1 /14 **FROM:** Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR– 2013
- 0602 **SUBJECT:** Discussion of the Clean Power Plan at the Carolinas Air Pollution Control Association Fall

Meeting
**SUMMARY :**  

### EPA Region 4 p rovided information on the Clean Power Plan to participants at Carolinas Air Pollution Control Association Fall Meeting 

### in Myrtle Beach, SC , on October 1 6 , 2014 . The Clea n Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was p roposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES :**  **EPA** Beverly Banister/EPA R4 Heather McTeer Toney/EPA R4 **External Stakeholders** Randall Taylor/URS Corporation Sheila Holman/North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Myra Reese/South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Approximately 420 other attendees
**ATTACHMENT**
##### 



DESCRIPTION OF
ZIX CORPORATION 2008 MANAGEMENT VARIABLE COMPENSATION
PLAN
           (A)
    
    If the team achieves the Target for a measurement, then 100% of the bonus
amount allocated to that measurement per the weighting established for that
measurement is earned.(B)
    
    If the team misses the Minimum for a measurement, then all of the bonus
amount allocated to that measurement per the weighting established for that
measurement is forfeited.(C)
    
    If the team achieves an amount for a measurement that is between the
Minimum and the Target, then the bonus amount allocated to that measurement per
the weighting established for that measurement is paid pro rata on a
linear basis, beginning at the Minimum and ending with the Target being 100%.
#### Jose A. SAGUILAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SID HARKLEROAD, Administrator of Marion Correctional Institution; Theodis Beck, Secretary of North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 05-6099.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 31, 2005.

Decided: Oct. 14, 2005.

Jose A. Saguilar, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Jose A. Saguilar, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); *see Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n. 7 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Saguilar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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*
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 804 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to allow independent, 

non-government television cameras to broadcast House floor proceedings. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 5, 2016 

Mr. BERA (for himself, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. PETERS, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Mrs. 

WATSON COLEMAN, and Ms. LEE) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

allow independent, non-government television cameras to 

broadcast House floor proceedings. 

1 Resolved, That clause 2(b) of rule V of the Rules of 

2 the House of Representatives is amended by inserting be3 fore the period at the end thereof the following: ‘‘and shall 

4 be permitted to record and broadcast at any time a Mem5 ber is present on the floor.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
21888

#### State v. Dereis

Affirmed
#### James v. James

15793, 15507

3/04/93

Denied