alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SERVE D MAY 20,201 1 ^ ^'ARTMEN T O F .nhiSPORWIO N U.S
. DEPARTMEN

T O FTRANSPORTATION .I'J. l OPERATION S OFFICE O

FHEARINGS WASHINGTON , DC ?0; ! iiA Y 2 3 A =| : 5 3 I N TH E MATTE RO F HIG H PURITY RESOURCES , INC
. FA A DOCKE

T NO
. [TO B E ASSIGNED ] (Civil Penalt

y Action) FDM S NO
. FAA-2011-029 7
NOTIC E O FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofor

e designate da s Cas e No
. 2010SW700275 ) ha s bee n assignedt o Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar

dC , Goodwin
. Al

l futur e pleading s an

d othe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e servedon th e Judge , th e FA A Hearing Docket , an

dth e othe r person s on th e attachedServic e List
.

Roimie A
. Yode

r Chie f Administrativ e La:w J Attachmen t - Servic e Lis tFDM S No
. FAA-2011-029 7 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 ^ ON E COP Y Robert M
. Scheehl , Presiden t Hig h Purit y Resources , Inc. , Responden t P.O
. Bo x 179 0 Peralta , N M 8704 2 TEL : 505-866-881 6 FAX : 505-217-208 0 Eri c E
. Anderson , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Southwes t

Regio n 260 1 Meacha mBlvd. , Roo m66 3 Fort Worth , T X 76137-000 7 TEL : (817)222-507 8 FAX : (817 ) 222-594 5 o r 509 2 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue, S
. W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building — Suit e 2W1000, Washington

, D C 20591 , Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-.430
.
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1004 

AN ACT 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to encourage the 

nationwide observance of two minutes of silence each 

Veterans Day. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 1004 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Day Moment 

3 of Silence Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. OBSERVANCE OF VETERANS DAY. 

5 (a) TWO MINUTES OF SILENCE.—Chapter 1 of title 

6 36, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following new section: 

8 ‘‘§ 145. Veterans Day 

9 ‘‘The President shall issue each year a proclamation 

10 calling on the people of the United States to observe two 

11 minutes of silence on Veterans Day in honor of the service 

12 and sacrifice of veterans throughout the history of the Na13 tion, beginning at— 

14 ‘‘(1) 3:11 p.m. Atlantic standard time; 

15 ‘‘(2) 2:11 p.m. eastern standard time; 

16 ‘‘(3) 1:11 p.m. central standard time; 

17 ‘‘(4) 12:11 p.m. mountain standard time; 

18 ‘‘(5) 11:11 a.m. Pacific standard time; 

19 ‘‘(6) 10:11 a.m. Alaska standard time; and 

20 ‘‘(7) 9:11 a.m. Hawaii-Aleutian standard 

21 time.’’. 
3 

†S 1004 ES

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

2 for chapter 1 of title 36, United States Code, is amended 

3 by adding at the end the following new item: 

‘‘145. Veterans Day.’’. 

Passed the Senate November 9, 2015. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1004 

AN ACT 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to encoursilence each Veterans Day. age the nationwide observance of two minutes of
vnce-ex102_56.htm



EXHIBIT 10.2

 

 

Amendment No. 1 to Offer Letter

 

 

 

This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) is an amendment to the Offer Letter by Vince, LLC (“Vince”), dated June 30, 2016, as accepted by Mark Engebretson (the “Offer Letter”).  

 

The first paragraph under the heading “Working at Our LA Office” in the Offer Letter is deleted in its entirety and is replaced by the following:

 

“To support your employment in Los Angeles, the Company will pay $48,000 per year (the “Housing Stipend”) to be used for purposes of rent and other housing related expenses, provided to you in a manner as agreed to by you and the Company from time to time in writing.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the Housing Stipend is used for rent, it shall be provided in monthly installments, and any such monthly installment shall not in any event exceed $4,000 per month.

 

If your employment is terminated, voluntarily by you or involuntarily by Vince for cause, within one year of your start date, you will be required to repay the entire amount of the Housing Stipend you used hereunder through the date of your termination.”

 

This Amendment shall amend, modify and supersede, to the extent of any inconsistencies, the provisions of the Offer Letter.  Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Offer Letter shall remain in full force and effect as previously drafted.

 

 

 

 


		
	
/s/ Melissa Wallace
	
September 12, 2016

	
Melissa Wallace
	
Date

	
Senior Vice President, Human Resources
	
 




 

 

 

I agree to the terms as outlined above.

 

 


		
	
/s/ Mark Engebretson
	
October 25, 2016

	
Mark Engebretson
	
Date
# C_2019432EN.01004701.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters)

(Case T-559/18) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a medical plaster - Disclosure of the earlier designs - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2019/C 432/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Atos Medical GmbH (Troisdorf, Germany) (represented by: K. Middelhoff, G. Schoenen and S. Biermann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: F. Kramer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2018 (Case R 2215/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Atos Medical and Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Atos Medical GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Atos Medical GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---
# C_2018301EN.01004401.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/44

---

Action brought on 10 July 2018 — Geske v EUIPO (SATISFYERMEN)

(Case T-427/18)

(2018/C 301/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: André Geske (Lübbecke, Germany) (represented by: R. Albrecht, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU figurative mark SATISFYERMEN — Application No 16 886 541

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 in Case R 2603/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

---
#### Jean Dider Mbokoso LOKAYI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-1157.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 14, 2005.

Decided: Oct. 14, 2005.

Steven A. Morley, Morley Surin & Griffin, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Brian E. Bentley, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent.

Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

*446PER CURIAM:

Jean Dider Mbokoso Lokayi, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find no abuse of discretion. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005); *INS v. Doherty,*502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re: Lokayi,*No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 13, 2005). 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
#### Randle v. State

17139

3/24/97

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            8444
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            3168
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  8643
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      25106
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           53993
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             55302
<LOANS>                                         186576
<ALLOWANCE>                                       2173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  291522
<DEPOSITS>                                      242852
<SHORT-TERM>                                      7577
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                981
<LONG-TERM>                                      10626
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         16540
<OTHER-SE>                                       12945
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  291522
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   8964
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 2342
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   216
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 11522
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                5168
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5645
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             5877
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      196
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   3345
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2998
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        2998
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2202
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .84
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.26
<LOANS-NON>                                        512
<LOANS-PAST>                                       709
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  2349
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      389
<RECOVERIES>                                        17
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 2173
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              1630
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            543
        

</TABLE>
September 1, 2016 

Mr. Stephen Gowdy 

Gowdy Brothers Aerospace, LLC 

Consultant for NaturChem Inc. 

8170 Old Carriage Court North 

Shakopee, MN 55379 

Re: FAA-2015-8149 

Dear Mr. Gowdy: 

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already. 

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1047 

To require the Secretary of Energy to review rulemaking proceedings of 

other Federal agencies for the potential to cause an adverse effect on 

the cost, time, or difficulty of complying with energy efficiency regulations, guidelines, or standards. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 22, 2015 

Mr. ALEXANDER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Energy to review rulemaking 

proceedings of other Federal agencies for the potential 

to cause an adverse effect on the cost, time, or difficulty 

of complying with energy efficiency regulations, guidelines, or standards. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REVIEW OF RULEMAKING. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Energy (referred 

5 to in this Act as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall review the rule6 making proceedings of other Federal agencies that are 

7 pending on or after the date of enactment of this Act for 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1047 IS

1 the potential to cause an adverse effect on the cost (wheth2 er short-term or long-term), time, or difficulty of com3 plying with current or proposed energy efficiency regula4 tions, guidelines, or standards of the Department of En5 ergy. 

6 (b) CONSULTATION.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall consult 

8 with the head of each relevant Federal agency to 

9 identify any areas of conflict or overlap between a 

10 proposed or final regulation, guideline, or standard 

11 of the Department of Energy and a proposed or 

12 final regulation, guideline, or standard of that rel13 evant Federal agency. 

14 (2) PUBLIC INPUT.—The Secretary shall seek 

15 public input on any conflicts or overlaps identified 

16 under paragraph (1). 

17 (c) RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT.—For cases in which 

18 a conflicting or overlapping proposed regulation, guideline, 

19 or standard has been identified under subsection (b), prior 

20 to finalizing the rulemaking, the Secretary shall work with 

21 the head of the relevant Federal agency and the public, 

22 including small businesses, to resolve the conflict or over23 lap, in order to ensure that the regulatory conflict or overVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 May 05, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1047.IS S1047

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1047 IS

1 lap does not pose an undue compliance burden on the reg2 ulated persons. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### State v. Harmon

17907

12/23/94

Affirmed
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 3, 2014

NO. 03-13-00616-CV

Vista Medical Center Hospital, Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation; and

Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Appellees

APPEAL FROM 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD 

REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART --

OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the district court on May 30, 2013. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in 

the district court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court reverses the portion of the district court’s 

judgment awarding monetary relief to Texas Mutual Insurance Company and renders judgment 

that Texas Mutual take nothing on that claim. We remand Texas Mutual’s remaining alternative 

constitutional and statutory claims to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our 

opinion. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court 

below.
#### Karaya v. Karaya

19095

7/18/97

Affirmed in part, Vacated and Remanded in part
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
    This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Financial Position at October 31, 1999 and the Statement of
Operations for the six-month period ended October 31, 1999 and is in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000880121
<NAME>                        Market America, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      39,405,120
<SECURITIES>                                 4,490,791
<RECEIVABLES>                                  526,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,128,486
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            46,836,503
<PP&E>                                       5,190,950
<DEPRECIATION>                                 818,972
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,568,523
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,809,800
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           199
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,758,524
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,568,523
<SALES>                                     65,622,913
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            65,622,913
<CGS>                                       16,633,591
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,633,591
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            35,842,578
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,224
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,619,465
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,524,740
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         13,146,744
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,094,725
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46



</TABLE>
# C_2018408EN.01005901.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/59

---

Action brought on 21 September 2018 — YP v Commission

(Case T-563/18)

(2018/C 408/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: YP (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission decision of 13 November 2017 not to promote her to grade AD 14; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision of 13 November 2017 not to promote her to grade AD 14;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the presumption of innocence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the presumption of innocence.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(3) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(3) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

---