alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008079EN.01001902.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/19

---

Appeal brought on 22 January 2008 by Enercon GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 November 2007 in Case T-71/06 Enercon GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-20/08 P)

(2008/C 79/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Enercon GmbH (represented by: R. Böhm and U. Sander, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2007 (Case T-71/06); |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2007 (Case T-71/06);

| — | uphold the forms of order sought at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the forms of order sought at first instance;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of both instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of both instances.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By its first ground of appeal the appellant claims that there has been an infringement of the duty to give reasons under Article 73 of the Community Trade Mark Regulation. Neither in the decision of the Board of Appeal nor in the judgment under appeal of the Court of First Instance were any findings set out or explanations given regarding the shapes which OHIM or the Court of First Instance recognised as being common on the market and in what ways the shape applied for would have to differ from common shapes on the market to be found to be distinctive. In the absence of such findings or explanations it is not conceivable how OHIM or the Court of First Instance could have come to the conclusion that the shape applied for was not distinctive.

By its second ground of appeal the appellant alleges that Article 7(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation has been infringed by an assessment of distinctiveness which, in the absence of a statement of the factual basis for its decision, could only have come about as a result of a distortion by the Court of First Instance of the facts presented to it, a matter open to review by the Court of Justice. Contrary to the view of the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal, the appellant claims that the shape applied for is distinctive since it is significantly different from the normal shapes found on the market and is not merely a variant of such shapes. Among the relevant public the shape applied for can be recognised and indeed is recognisable as an indication of origin irrespective of its use and without further enquiries or thought.

---
Order entered February 21, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 12 - 01269 - CV CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant V. TEXAS EZPAWN, L.P. D /B/A EZMONEY LOAN SERVICES, Appellee On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court Dall as County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 12 - 03373 - A 

### O RDER Appellee’s unopposed motion for leave to file supplemental brief is GRANTED

. The supplemental brief, which was filed on February 20, 2013, is deemed timely filed.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTI CE
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PEDRO LOPEZ, 

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00239-CR

Appeal from the

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20130D05658)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s fourth motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until May 26, 2017. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Louis Elias Lopez, Jr., Appellant’s attorney, 

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before May 26, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of April, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
# C_2023024EN.01001401.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/14

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — DA v Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration (Romatsa) and Others and FC and Others v Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration (Romatsa) and Others

(Case C-333/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Articles 107 and 108 TFEU - Bilateral Investment Treaty - Arbitration clause - Romania - Arbitral award granting payment of damages - European Commission decision declaring that payment to be State aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Enforcement of an arbitral award before a court of a Member State other than the Member State to which the decision is addressed - Infringement of EU law - Article 19 TEU - Articles 267 and 344 TFEU - Autonomy of EU law)

(2023/C 24/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: DA and FC, European Food SA, Starmill SRL, Multipack SRL

Defendants: Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration (Romatsa), Romania, European Commission, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol), FC, European Food SA, Starmill SRL, Multipack SRL and Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration (Romatsa), Romania, DA, European Commission, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol)

Operative part of the order

EU law, in particular Articles 267 and 344 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State ruling on the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State Aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania — Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013, is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not in any case proceed with its enforcement in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain the payment of damages which it awarded them.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.

---
### Long, Sandra (FAA) From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Subject: Ad a ms, Barba ra ( FAA) Thursday, Jan u a ry 08, 2015 12 :0 5 PM L ong, Sandra ( F AA) F W : A L PA Pe t i t ion E xemption



### From : Comstock, Kev i n, Engineering 

### & Air Safety [ mai lto:Kev i n.Comstock @a l pa . org ] 

### Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 9:56AM 

### To: Adams, Barba ra 

### (FAA) 

### Subject: RE : ALPA Petition Exem ption Barbara, Please withdraw our pet i tion for exe m ption- docket number 

### 201 4

-082 1. Than ks , 

### Ke v in Com st ock S

r . Tra in ing & Qua lif ication S pecialist Air Li n e Pil ots Assoc i ation, I nternationa l (703) 689 - 4176 (800) 42 4-2470
FILED

July 30, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

SERIE M. BLAND, ) HAMILTON CIRCUIT

)

Plaintiff/Appellant )

v. ) NO. 03A01-9801-CV-00024

)

DAVID COWAN, TENNESSEE ) HON. L. MARIE WILLIAMS,

EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, ) JUDGE

 and HAMILTON COUNTY )

EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, )

)

Defendants/Appellants ) AFFIRMED

Mitchell A. Byrd, Chattanooga, for Appellant

William E. Godbold, III, Chattanooga, for Appellee David Cowan

Charles Hampton White, Nashville, for Appellees Tennessee Education 

Association and Hamilton County Education Association

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

INMAN, Senior Judge

The plaintiff is a non-tenured teacher in the Hamilton County School

system. 

She was employed at the Brown Middle School for the school year 1993-

94. At the end of the 1994-95 school year she was transferred to Red Bank

Middle School because of a decrease in enrollment at Brown. She was one of

seven science teachers at Red Bank when the 1995-96 school year began on

August 28, 1995.

About a week later, Mr. Cowan, principal of Red Bank, announced that

because of a decrease in enrollment, the school would lose teachers.

On September 8, 1995, the plaintiff was informed that she was being

transferred to Soddy-Daisy Middle School, along with two other teachers.
1

Affirm ance W ithout O pinion - M emor andum Opinio n. (b) The Court, w ith the con currenc e of all

judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum

opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum

opinion it shall be designated “MEMORA NDUM OPINION ,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited or

relied on fo r any reas on in a su bseque nt unrelate d case. [A s amen ded by order filed April 22 , 1992.]

2

She reported to duty at Soddy-Daisy on September 11, 1995 and was

assigned to teach five seventh grade classes. She did not report for duty on

September 13, 1995, later stating that she was having some emotional problems

because of the situation and sought psychiatric help.

She thereafter filed a grievance over the transfer, which the Board of

Education decided adversely to her. In this action she complains that the

Tennessee Education Association [“TEA”] and the Hamilton County Education

Association [“HCEA”] owed her the duty of providing counsel pursuant to a

collective bargaining agreement then in effect, and that the agreement provided

that she was entitled to five days notice of the transfer in contrast to the three

days which were accorded to her. She seeks damages for the alleged wrongful

transfer.

The case was dismissed on motion for summary judgment.

We find that the case is peculiarly appropriate for disposition pursuant to

Rule 10, Rules of the Court of Appeals.1 

Pursuant to this Rule, the judgment is affirmed at the costs of the

Appellant. 

_______________________________

William H. Inman, Senior Judge

CONCUR:

_______________________________

Houston M. Goddard, Presiding Judge

_______________________________

Don T. McMurray, Judge
October 29, 2015

Dear Mr. Jonathan Wilhelm:

This letter is to inform y ou that the following informati on is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 2315). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture a nd Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove clos ed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information desc ribed above by 11/12/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the doc ket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712.

Sincerely,
/s/
Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
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 Annual Report of Covalent Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth M. Borow, M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            
|                                                            
|/S/    KENNETH M. BOROW, M.D.                               
|Kenneth M. Borow, M.D. President and Chief Executive Officer

March 29, 2006

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                            2,590,364 
<SECURITIES>                                              0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0 
<INVENTORY>                                               0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          0 
<PP&E>                                          587,438,358 
<DEPRECIATION>                                   48,227,760 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  552,347,608 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     0 
<BONDS>                                                   0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0 
<PREFERRED>                                               0 
<COMMON>                                        388,131,512 
<OTHER-SE>                                     (48,960,016) 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    552,347,608 
<SALES>                                                   0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 93,637,948 
<CGS>                                                     0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    58,236,673 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               12,587,897 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  23,210,642 
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              23,210,642 
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0 
<CHANGES>                                                 0 
<NET-INCOME>                                     23,210,642 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .62 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .62 
        


</TABLE>
#### Graf v. Administrative Director of the Court

17569

12/15/94

Reversed and Remanded
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Second Amendment”) is made this 15th day of December, 2016, effective as of
January 1, 2017 (the “Effective Date”), by and between PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and CARLOS A. RUISANCHEZ, an individual (“Executive”), with respect to the
following facts and circumstances: 
 RECITALS 

The Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement on October 13, 2014 (the “Employment Agreement”), with Executive
having a base salary of Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000) per year. 
 On December 16, 2014, effective as of January 1,
2015, the Company and Executive entered into that certain First Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “First Amendment” and, together with the Employment Agreement, the “Agreement”). 

Effective as of January 1, 2017, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Agreement to increase Executive’s base salary to
Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($880,000) per year. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and
agreements set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 AMENDMENT 

1. Effective as of January 1, 2017, Article 3, Section 3.1 of the Agreement (Base Salary) is hereby deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following new Article 3, Section 3.1: 
 “3.1 Base Salary. In consideration for Executive’s services
hereunder, the Company shall pay Executive an annual base salary at the rate of Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($880,000.00) per year effective as of January 1, 2017 through the end of the Term; payable in accordance with the
Company’s regular payroll schedule from time to time (less any deductions required for Social Security, state, federal and local withholding taxes, and any other authorized or mandated similar withholdings).” 

2. Except as modified herein, all other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the
terms of the Agreement and this Second Amendment, the terms of this Second Amendment shall apply. No modification may be made to the Agreement or this Second Amendment except in writing and signed by both the Company and Executive. 

  
 - 1 - 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Second Amendment to be duly as of the
date first written above. 
  

							
	EXECUTIVE	  		  	PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
				
	 /s/ Carlos A. Ruisanchez
	  		  	By:	 	 /s/ Anthony M. Sanfilippo

	Carlos A. Ruisanchez	  		  		 	Anthony M. Sanfilippo,
		  		  		 	Chief Executive Officer


  
 - 2 -
# C_2021110EN.01001102.xml

| 29.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — DQ v Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre de l’Action and des Comptes publics

(Case C-903/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Civil service - Transfer of retirement pension rights - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 11 of Annex VIII - Officials and temporary staff reinstated in their national administration of origin after a period of non-active status and the performance of duties in an EU institution)

(2021/C 110/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DQ

Defendant: Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre de l’Action and des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the transfer of the actuarial equivalent of retirement pension rights may be requested both by officials and members of the contract staff who enter a national administration for the first time after having been employed in an EU institution and by those who return to a national administration after having performed duties in an EU institution in the context of a period of non-active status or leave on personal grounds.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---
Regulatory Technical References

E.H. Pechan, “Control Measure Development Support Anal ys is for the Ozone Transport Commission Model Rules”, March 31, 2001.
OTC 2006. Identification and Evaluation of Candidate Control Measures: Draft Technical Support D ocument. Prepared b y MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., Herndon, Virginia for the Ozone Transport Commission. August 4, 2006
**Exhibit 10.28**

 

**THIRDAMENDMENT**

**OFTHE**

**SKY FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. 2004 RESTRICTED STOCKPLAN**

 

**WHEREAS,** this corporation maintains the Sky Financial Group, Inc. 2004 Restricted Stock Plan (the “Plan”); and 

 

**WHEREAS,** the Company previously has amended the Plan and the Company’s Board of Directors has determined thatfurther amendment of the Plan is necessary and desirable. 

 

**NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED** that, pursuant to the power reserved to the Company by Article VI of the Plan, the Plan,as previously amended, be and is hereby further amended, effective as of the date of adoption, in the following particulars: 

 

1.        By adding the following new sentence to Section 3.1 of the Plan immediately afterthe last sentence of such section: 

 

“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board may delegate authority to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer to grant a specified number of Awards of Restricted Stock and/or RSUs (as determined by the Board from time to time andduring such time periods determined by the Board) to existing or prospective Employees (other than those individuals who are subject to Section 16(a) of the 1934 Act at the time of the grant) as the Chief Executive Officer determinesappropriate without further action from the Board.” 

 

2.        By adding the following new Section 7.8 to the Plan immediately after Section 7.7 thereof: 

 

**“SECTION 7.8. COMPLIANCE WITH RULE16b-3.**

 

With respect topersons subject to Section 16 of the 1934 Act, transactions under this Plan are intended to comply with all applicable conditions of Rule 16b-3 or its successors under the 1934 Act. To the extent that any provision of this Plan or action by theBoard or the Committee fails to do so, it shall be deemed 

null and void to the extent permitted by law and deemed advisable by the Committee and the Board.” 

 

*        *        * 

 

I, W. Granger Souder, Jr., Secretary of Sky Financial Group, Inc., hereby certify that the foregoing is a correct copy of resolutions dulyadopted by the Board of Directors of said corporation on December 14, 2005, and that the resolutions have not been changed or repealed. 

 
  
/s/ W. Granger Souder, Jr.
  
Secretary as Aforesaid

(Corporate Seal)

 

- 2 -
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Amaru, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the
"Report"), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for
the periods reflected therein.



/s/ Colin Binny
-------------------------------------
President, CEO & CFO
August 14, 2007