alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020247EN.01000802.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Sammut v Parliament

(Case T-608/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Rights and obligations of officials - Publication of a matter dealing with the work of the European Union - Obligation to provide information in advance - Article 17a of the Staff Regulations - Staff report - Liability)

(2020/C 247/13)

Language of the case: Maltese

Parties

Applicant: Mark Anthony Sammut (Foetz, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Borg Olivier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Sammut and I. Lázaro Betancor, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, in essence, (i) annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 4 January 2018 in so far as it did not grant the applicant’s request that an assessment made in his staff report for 2016 be removed and (ii) compensation for the material and non-material damage that he allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Mark Anthony Sammut to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mark Anthony Sammut to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2 

 

RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS 

 

I, Robert T. McDowell, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Education Management Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 17, 2004
#### M & W, Inc. v. Pacific Guardian Life Ins. Co., Ltd.

19276

3/10/98

Granted
[747 NYS2d 268]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alex Santoriello, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

September 10, 2002

*See People v Santoriello,*180 Misc 2d 533.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Alex Santoriello,*appellant pro se. *Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney,*New York City *(Roña Feinberg*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction rendered January 23, 2001 affirmed, *59for the reasons stated in the decisions of Ellen M. Coin, J., at Criminal Court (180 Misc 2d 533).

Suarez, P.J., Davis and Schoenfeld, JJ., concur.
#### State v. Bolosan

18142

2/21/97

Vacated and Remanded
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           8,186
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,374
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,699
<PP&E>                                          15,013
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,010
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           114
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,303
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,396
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,145
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,101
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 165
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (634)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        31
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (665)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (665)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
#### Troy T. HASTINGS, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12494.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 25, 1957.

Troy T. Hastings, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff in error, Troy T. Hastings, defendant below, was charged by information in the District Court of Harmon County, Oklahoma, with the crime of grand larceny, 21 O.S.1951 § 1704, after prior conviction of a felony, 21 O.S.1951 § 51. Pie was tried by a jury, convicted, and his punishment assessed by the court at six years confinement in the State Penitentiary. Judgment and sentence were entered accordingly, from which this appeal has been perfected.

The crime alleged to have been committed by the defendant involved the theft of seven automobile and tractor radiators having a value in excess of twenty dollars. The evidence submitted is of a conflicting nature and as such presented a question for the sole determination of the jury. McCormick v. State, Okl.Cr., 279 P.2d 359; Gardner v. State, Okl.Cr., 278 P.2d 249.

This case was set for oral argument on September 4, 1957. No briefs have been filed and no appearance made in support thereof, and the same was accordingly submitted on the record. A painstaking examination of the entire record discloses no fundamental error on the face thereof. It has uniformly been held that under these conditions the judgment and sentence will be affirmed. Curtis v. State, 97.Okl.Cr. 199, 261 P.2d 476; Welborn v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 130, 240 P.2d 1130.

Affirmed.

POWELL and NIX, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEPTEMBER 30
10QSB FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          12,631
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 8,890
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     59,426
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           6,718
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             6,571
<LOANS>                                        235,513
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,457
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 335,441
<DEPOSITS>                                     270,750
<SHORT-TERM>                                    19,312
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,182
<LONG-TERM>                                     14,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,279
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,918
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  29,197
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 14,699
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,785
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   275
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                17,759
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,260
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,964
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,794
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,015
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,520
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,503
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,563
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,563
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,003
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.43
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,087
<LOANS-PAST>                                        25
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,715
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      343
<RECOVERIES>                                        70
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,457
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,457
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
# C_2019288EN.01004801.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Bodegas Altún v EUIPO — Codorníu (ANA DE ALTUN)

(Case T-334/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ANA DE ALTUN - Earlier national figurative mark ANNA - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 288/61)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Altún, SL (Baños de Ebro, Spain) (represented by: J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Codorníu, SA (Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain) (represented initially by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez and J. Güell Serra, lawyers, and subsequently by M. Ceballos Rodríguez and E. Stoyanov Edissonov, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 (Case R 173/2018-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Codorníu and Bodegas Altún.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 March 2018 (Case R 173/2018-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 March 2018 (Case R 173/2018-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Bodegas Altún, SL; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Bodegas Altún, SL;

| 3. | Orders Codorníu, SA to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Bodegas Altún. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Codorníu, SA to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Bodegas Altún.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5317-S5318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   INDIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT REFORM ACT

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Committee on 
Indian Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2090, and 
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

[[Page S5318]]

       A bill (S. 2090) to amend the Indian Law Enforcement Reform 
     Act to extend the period of time provided to the Indian Law 
     and Order Commission to produce a required report, and for 
     other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I further ask that the bill be read a 
third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, 
with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related 
to this measure be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (S. 2090) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, 
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

                                S. 2090

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

     SECTION 1. REPORT OF INDIAN LAW AND ORDER COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--Section 15(f) of the Indian Law 
     Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2812(f)) is amended in the 
     matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``2 years'' and 
     inserting ``3 years''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 15(e) of the Indian Law 
     Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2812(e)) is amended in the 
     matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``paragraph (1)'' 
     and inserting ``subsection (d)''.

                          ____________________
```
Exabyte Repayment Plan

Memorandum of Understanding





This Memorandum records mutual agreements reached as of this 4thday of March, 2003, between Exabyte Corporation, having a place of business at 1685 38th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301 U.S.A, ("Exabyte") and Panasonic Consumer Electronics Company having a place of business at One Panasonic Way, Secaucus, New Jersey 07094 U.S.A., ("Panasonic").

This Memorandum shall document agreements between Exabyte and Panasonic regarding special payment terms for the total amount of accounts payable owed by Exabyte to Panasonic as of December 31, 2002 ("12/31/02 Total Amount Payable"). Exabyte will repay the 12/31/02 Total Amount Payable in full and in such amounts and on such dates as defined in the attached payment schedule ("Repayment Schedule"). Exabyte will pay for new purchases made from Panasonic after 12/31/2002 according to the payment terms ("Payment Terms") defined in the attachment.

Except in the case of an event as defined below and to the extent that Exabyte is in compliance with the Payment Terms regarding any shipments received from Panasonic after 12/31/2002, Panasonic agrees to make a reasonable effort to comply with details of any and all purchase orders from Exabyte, and to continue shipments to Exabyte.

Upon the occurrences of any one or more of the following events, this Memorandum of Understanding shall be terminated and the entire unpaid balance of the 12/31/02 Total Amount Payable and all invoices with respect to new shipments after 12/31/2002 shall become immediately due and payable, provided however that direct equity investment by individual investors, institutional investors and/or strategic or corporate investors shall be excluded from any of the following events to the extent such investments are limited so that they do not effectively constitute a merger or consolidation:

i.       any failure by Exabyte to make a payment according to the Repayment Schedule when such payment is due;

ii.      any failure by Exabyte to comply with the Payment Terms with respect to payables owed to Panasonic by Exabyte for purchases 
                made and shipments received after December 31, 2002;

iii.     a merger, consolidation, or other corporate reorganization; termination of existence; insolvency; business failure, filing for any form 
                of bankruptcy relief; a bankruptcy petition filed against it or cessation of the conduct of any substantial part of Exabyte's current 
                normal business activity.

This Memorandum shall, when signed by Panasonic and Exabyte representatives, supercede and replace any formal or informal agreements, memorandums or proposals whether oral or written made by the parties in December, 2002 or January or February, 2003 with regard to the repayment of the 12/31/02 Total Amount Payable.





|By:________________________  | By:________________________           
|---------------------------- | --------------------------------------
|Date: ______________________ | Date: ______________________          
|Exabyte Corporation          | Panasonic Consumer Electronics Company
#### Gregory v. Tanaka

16837

10/03/94

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BLANCE SHEET AND CONSENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,078
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,885
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,484)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,423
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,060
<PP&E>                                         178,832
<DEPRECIATION>                                (80,222)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 168,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,292
<BONDS>                                         14,903
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           296
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,776
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   168,541
<SALES>                                         60,850
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,850
<CGS>                                           44,520
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   881
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 123
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,570
<INCOME-TAX>                                       644
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                926
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       926
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


</TABLE>