alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020061EN.01002701.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Currency One v EUIPO — Cinkciarz.pl (CINKCIARZ)

(Case T-501/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark CINKCIARZ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Pejorative term relating to the goods or services at issue)

(2020/C 61/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Currency One S.A. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: P. Szmidt and B. Jóźwiak, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 June 2018 (Case R 2598/2017-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Currency One and Cinkciarz.pl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Currency One S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Currency One S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o.

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.

---
EXHIBIT 10.12



Mr. Bill Callahan                                                 March 23, 1999
620 Northwood Drive
Iowa City, Iowa 52245


Re: Termination of Employment


This letter sets forth the Terms & Conditions relating to your termination of
employment with XATA Corporation.


NOTICE DATE: February 17, 1999


EFFECTIVE DATE: April 16, 1999


         During the period February 17, through April 16, 1999, you will receive
your Current base pay along with the normal company benefits.

         The disbursement of accrued personal time will be made within ten (10)
working Days of the return in good working condition, where applicable, of all
Company property.


NON-DISCLOSURE, CONFIDENTIALITY AND COVENANT NOT TO HIRE:

         For a period of twelve (12) months, you agree to abide by the terms and
conditions Set forth in the XATA Corporation Employee Agreement.




Edward T. Michalek
Chief Executive Officer
XATA Corporation
20614

#### State v. Enos

Affirmed
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-22518, 333-12567 and 33-72926 of MicroTel International, Inc. on Form S-8 of
our report dated August 31, 1994 (November 18, 1994 as to paragraphs two through
four in Note 2), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MicroTel
International, Inc. (formerly CXR Corporation) for the year ended December 31,
1996.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Jose, California
March 26, 1996
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*ELTON ARLINE

(AC 17665)

Foti, Hermessy and Daly, Js.

Argued February 23

officially released August 15, 2000

*415*Neal Cone,*assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

*Timothy J. Sugrue,*senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were *John A. Connelly,*state’s attorney, and *Gail P. Hardy,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

*Opinion*

DALY, J.

The defendant, Elton Arline, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of possession of narcotics with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his request to poll the jury upon return of the verdict. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts are relevant to this appeal. The defendant was arrested on November 29, 1996, and charged with possession of narcotics with intent to sell.1 The jury returned a verdict of guilty. After the foreman announced the jury’s verdict, the defense counsel requested that the jury be polled. The court denied this request, instead instructing the courtroom clerk to read to the jury the verdict as recorded. The jury responded, “Yes,” to the question, “So say you one, so say you all?” which the clerk asked after reading the verdict. Defense counsel then renewed his request that the jurors be polled individually. The court again denied the request, noting that each of the jurors gave assent to the clerk’s question. Later that day, before the jury had been dis*416charged, the defense counsel again renewed the request that the jurors be polled individually.2 The trial court again denied this request.3 This appeal followed.

On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his repeated requests to have the jury polled. We need look no further than *State*v. *Pare,*253 Conn. 611, 755 A.2d 180 (2000), which was decided after briefs were filed and oral argument was presented in this case. In short, *Pare*holds that “a violation of a party’s timely polling request requires automatic reversal of the judgment.” Id., 639. The defendant requested a poll of the jury in this case, and the trial court declined to do so. We follow *State*v. *Pare,*supra, 639, and conclude that the trial court’s failure to poll requires automatic reversal.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

1

 There was also a part B information filed, charging the defendant with previously having been convicted of the crime of possession of narcotics with intent to sell. Following the defendant’s conviction on the underlying charge, the state entered a nolle on the part B information.

2

 The jury had not been discharged due to the possible need for it to hear evidence on the part B charge.

3

 The court stated: “As I read the Practice Book, counsel, I’m sure you read it the same way, the key word is ‘may.’ That’s discretionary. It was clear that the jury assented when asked by the clerk, ‘So say you one, so say you all?’ ”
# C_2020095EN.01002701.xml

| 23.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 2020 — Dalasa v EUIPO — Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin (charantea)

(Case T-733/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark charantea - Earlier EU figurative mark CHARITÉ - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 95/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dalasa Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: I. Hödl, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Gliedkörperschaft Öffentlichen Rechts (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Wulff and K. Schmidt-Hern, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2018 (Case R 540/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Charité and Dalasa.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 October 2018 (Case R 540/2018-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 October 2018 (Case R 540/2018-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dalasa Handelsgesellschaft mbH in the proceedings before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dalasa Handelsgesellschaft mbH in the proceedings before the General Court;

| 3. | Orders Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Gliedkörperschaft Öffentlichen Rechts to bear the costs that it has incurred during the proceedings before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Gliedkörperschaft Öffentlichen Rechts to bear the costs that it has incurred during the proceedings before the General Court;

| 4. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10388 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MELVIN CHATMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94-CR-60-1-E

- - - - - - - - - - June 2, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, AND DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Melvin Chatman ap peals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Chatman argues that his sen tence exceeds the statutory maximum

sentence of five years under 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3) because the sentencing court imposed a three-year term of supervised release. Chatman is not entitled to relief under § 3582(c)(2). See United
States v. G onzalez-Balderas , 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir. 1997). Further, the three-year term of supervised release does not extend Chatman’s sentence of imprisonment beyond the five-year statutoryNo. 98-10388 -2- maximum sentence. S ee United States v. Butler , 895 F.2d 1016, 1018 (5th Cir. 1989) (supervised release t erm does not extend a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum sentence).
Chatman’s appea l is without arguable merit and is thus DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Chatman is advised that future frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. Chatman is further advised to review any pending appeals to ensure that they are not frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
OKLAHOMA 

DEPARTMfNT Of ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

STEVEN A. THOMPSON BRAD HENRY

Executive Director OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 	 Governor

April 9, 2008 

Georgia Pacific Corporation 


Attn: Mr. Steve Landers 


490 I Chandler Road 


Muskogee, OK 74403-4909 


Subject: 	 Best Avail&ble Retrofit Technology (BART) Waiver 


Muskogee Mill' .. 


Dear Mr. Landers:. 

. 	 . . 

The Oklahoma Departmen(ofEnvironmental Quality (ODEQ) received a BART waiver 

request for the referenced site on March 30, 2007. 

After the technical review, the ODEQ is approving a waiver for the Muskogee Mill. This 

waiver is based 01l faGility BARTsources which are not expected to c;ause or contribute 

to visibility impaqts'at Class lareas based on submitted inodeling and ,~rop9sed changes 

as detailed in the applic~tion. . 

The active Title V perinit will now be modified to include requirements that the facility 

comply With the propos~d changes/limits. in the; ~pplication within five years of the 

Regional Haze SIP approval by EPA.·AlsC) tobeinclllded, will he a requirement that the 

facility modify the operating penhit to incorporate the proposed method of compliance 

with Appendix Y to' Part 51,' V~ . Enforceable Limits. The operating permit shall be 

modified no later than 6 months prior to the SIP approval. 

While ODEQ has approved the waiver, the waiver is subject to EPA and public comment 

during the Regional Haze Sta~e Implementation Program (SIP) approval process. 

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If we may be of further service, please \ '-. . .-' ....._, . 


contact Phillip Fielder (405) 702-4100. 
 ------- --- --,---' 

707 NORTH ROBINSON, P.O. BOX 1677, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKlAHOMA 73101-1677 

printed on recycled paper with soy ink 

o
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 622 

Encouraging people in the United States to recognize March 2, 2016, as 

Read Across America Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2016 

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois (for himself and Mrs. DAVIS of California) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce 

RESOLUTION 

Encouraging people in the United States to recognize March 

2, 2016, as Read Across America Day. 

Whereas reading is a basic requirement for quality education 

and professional success, and is a source of pleasure 

throughout life; 

Whereas the people of the United States must be able to read 

if the United States is to remain competitive in the global 

economy; 

Whereas Congress has placed great emphasis on reading 

intervention and providing additional resources for reading assistance, including through the programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) and through annual appropriations for library and literacy programs; and 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 622 IH 

Whereas more than 50 national organizations concerned 

about reading and education have joined with the National Education Association (NEA) to use March 2 to 

celebrate reading and the birth of Theodor Geisel, also 

known as Dr. Seuss: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) honors Theodor Geisel, also known as Dr. 

3 Seuss, for his success in encouraging children to dis4 cover the joy of reading; 

5 (2) honors the 18th anniversary of Read Across 

6 America Day; 

7 (3) encourages parents to read with their chil8 dren for at least 30 minutes on Read Across Amer9 ica Day in honor of the commitment of the House 

10 of Representatives to building a Nation of readers; 

11 and 

12 (4) encourages the people of the United States 

13 to observe Read Across America Day with appro14 priate ceremonies and activities. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
#### The State, ex rel. Luckhaupt, *v.*McClelland, Judge.

(No. 31578

Decided February 9, 1949.)

*18
      *Mr. David T. Keating,*for relator.

*Mr. Troy A. Feibel,*for respondent.

By the Court.

In addition to the admission in the-affidavit that an appeal had been taken from the Probate Court to the Court of Appeals, counsel for relator in oral argument in this court admitted such procedure had been pursued.

The affidavit of relator admits that the Probate-Court exercised discretion. The writ of mandamus will issue to compel the exercise of judicial discretion-but not to control it. *State, ex rel. Dunphy,*v. *Graham, Judge,*146 Ohio St., 547, 67 N. E. (2d), 321, and cases-cited therein.

The writ of mandamus will not issue as a substitute-for an appeal. *Shelby*v. *Hoffman,*7 Ohio St., 450; *State, ex rel. Cook, Supt.,*v. *Court of Common Pleas,*144 Ohio St., 461, 59 N. E. (2d), 376; *State, ex rel. Stein,*v. *Sohngen, Dir.,*147 Ohio St., 359, 71 N. E. (2d), 483; 25 Ohio Jurisprudence, 1013, Section 34.

The motion to strike from the files is sustained and the petition is dismissed on authority of *State, ex rel. Smith,*v. *Young, Judge,*137 Ohio St., 319, 29 N. E. (2d), 564.

*Petition dismissed.*

Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and' Taft, JJ., concur.

Weygandt, C. J.,

concurs in the judgment and in the-*per cu,riam*opinion for the additional reason that, as-frequently and consistently observed by this court, Section 12285, General Code, defining the function of' the writ of mandamus, restates the common-law rule and prohibits use of the writ for the purpose of con-trolling judicial discretion.
DISMISSED ; Opinion Filed June 26, 2019.

In T he 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00769

- CV

CHRISTOPHER EDGAR, B RYAN EDGAR, GAR RY EDGAR, KYLE BEBEE , JUSTIN

TR A I L, AND CLEAR FORK WI RELINE , LLC , Appellant s V.

INTEGRITY WIRELINE A ND OILFIELD SERVICES , LLC, INTEGRITY WIR ELINE HOLDINGS, LLC, STEVE N SMATHERS, AND JAME S E. SOWELL , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. DC

- 17

- 14239



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Carlyle
Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss th is appeal. The parties inform the

Court that they have reached a settlement . Acco rdingly, we grant the parties’ motion and dismiss

the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a).

180769F.P05 /Cory L. Carlyle/
CORY L. CARLYLE
JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

CHRISTOPHER EDGAR, BRYAN EDGAR, GARRY EDGAR, KYLE BEBEE, JUSTIN TRAIL, AND CLEAR FORK WIRELINE LLC, Appellants

No. 05

- 18

- 00769

- CV V.

INTEGRITY WIRELINE AND OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, INTEGRITY WIRELINE HOLDINGS, LLC, STEVEN SMATHERS, AND JAMES E. SOWELL, Appellees On Appeal fro m the 162nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 17

- 14239. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. Justices Myers and Molberg participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that appellees INTEGRITY WIRELINE AND OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, INTEGRITY WIRELINE HOLDINGS, LLC, STEVEN SMATHERS, AND JAMES E. SOWELL recover their costs of this appeal from appellants CHRISTOPHER EDGAR, BRYAN EDGAR, GARRY EDGAR, KYLE BEBEE, JUSTIN TRIAL, AND CLEAR FORK WIRELINE
LLC.

Judgment entered this 26th day of June, 2019.
FIRST
AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT


 


THIS
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT (“First Amendment”) is entered into on November 8, 2017 (the “Effective
Date”) by and between BIOTIME, INC., a California corporation, having its principal place of business at 1010 Atlantic Avenue,
Suite 102, Alameda, CA 94501 (“BioTime”), and AGEX THERAPEUTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation, having
its principal place of business at 1010 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 102, Alameda, CA 94501 (“AgeX”).


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS,
the parties previously entered into a License Agreement (“Agreement”) on 17 August 2017 and now wish to clarify the
rights granted thereunder; and


 


NOW
THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants, conditions and undertakings hereinafter set forth, the parties hereby agree
as follows:


 


1. Section
1.3 of the Agreement shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety by:


 
  “AgeX Cellular Product” means any HyStem Product that contains a Therapeutic Cell.


 


2. Capitalized
terms used herein have the same meaning given to them in the Agreement.


 


3. Other
than expressly amended herein, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.


 


4. This
First Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts.


 


[SIGNATURE
PAGE TO FOLLOW]


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, BioTime and AgeX have executed this Agreement by their respective officers hereunto duly authorized, on the day
and year hereinafter written.


 


	AGEX
    THERAPEUTICS, INC.	 	BIOTIME,
    INC.
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
    Michael D. West	 	By:	/s/
    Aditya P. Mohanty
	 	Michael
    D. West	 		Aditya P. Mohanty
	Title:	Chief
    Executive Officer	 	Title:	Co-Chief
    Executive Officer


 


[SIGNATURE
PAGE TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE HYSTEM SUBLICENSE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JOHN LEWIS GERHOLT, SR.,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 435 WAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 17th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.**
# C_2018427EN.01007702.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/77

---

Order of the General Court of 4 September 2018 — Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International v EUIPO — Wessanen Benelux (BonNatura)

(Case T-194/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2018/C 427/104)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: S. Brandstätter, M. Kinkeldey and J. Rosenhäger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Sesma Merino and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Wessanen Benelux BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2013 (Case R 949/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Wessanen Benelux and Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

---
#### Cornellus P. MOORE, d.b.a. Con Moore’s Distillery, v. A. V. ANDERSON, District Supervisor, 13th Supervisory District, Alcohol Tax Unit, Bureau of Internal Revenue.

No. 4184.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 7, 1950.

William E. Doyle and Joseph M. McDonald, Denver, Colo., for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for review dismissed December 7, 1950, on motion of petitioner.