alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008107EN.01001202.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2008 — Trade mark case: ZVS Zeitungsvertrieb Stuttgart GmbH v President of the German Patent- und Markenamt

(Case C-43/08)

(2008/C 107/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

ZVS Zeitungsvertrieb Stuttgart GmbH and President of the German Patent- und Markenamt

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 3 of Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) require equal treatment, with regard to the registration of trade marks, of applicants in competition with one another in order to safeguard equality of opportunity in matters of competition? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 3 of Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) require equal treatment, with regard to the registration of trade marks, of applicants in competition with one another in order to safeguard equality of opportunity in matters of competition?

1

| 2. | If the answer is ‘yes’, is the national court required to investigate specific indications of unequal treatment which distorts competition and, in so doing, to take account, in its analysis, of earlier decisions of the competent authority in similar cases? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer is ‘yes’, is the national court required to investigate specific indications of unequal treatment which distorts competition and, in so doing, to take account, in its analysis, of earlier decisions of the competent authority in similar cases?

| 3. | If the answer is ‘yes’, is the national court required to take account of the prohibition of discrimination having the effect of distorting competition when interpreting and applying Article 3 of Directive 89/104 if it has established discrimination of that nature? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer is ‘yes’, is the national court required to take account of the prohibition of discrimination having the effect of distorting competition when interpreting and applying Article 3 of Directive 89/104 if it has established discrimination of that nature?

| 4. | If Questions 1 to 3 are answered in the negative, in order to prevent distortion of competition, must it be possible under national legislation for the national authority to be placed under an obligation to initiate, of its own motion, an action for the annulment of trade marks which have previously been wrongly registered? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Questions 1 to 3 are answered in the negative, in order to prevent distortion of competition, must it be possible under national legislation for the national authority to be placed under an obligation to initiate, of its own motion, an action for the annulment of trade marks which have previously been wrongly registered?

---

(1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**SALEEM SHABEZZ,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 96 EAL 2016** 

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

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**SALEEM SHABEZZ,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 98 EAL 2016** 

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 19th day of July, 2016, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is** 

GRANTED

**,** LIMITED TO **the issue set forth below. Allocatur is** DENIED **as to all**

**remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:**

**Does the Fourth Amendment entitle a defendant to supp ress the**  **fruits of a search where it is undisputed that he had n o privacy** 

**interest in the area searched?**
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

     FOREIGN AND ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE PENALTY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2012

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on 
suspending the rules and passing the bill (H.R. 6029) to amend title 
18, United States Code, to provide for increased penalties for foreign 
and economic espionage, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________
```
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B AR ON B EM ENT,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. JAM ES G. C OX a

nd GR EG SM ITH, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-17225 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00475-M M D-W GC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da M iranda M . Du, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 18, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B UR GESS, *** C hie f Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED APR 20 2017 M O LLYC. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Tim othy

M . B urge ss, Unite d State s C hie f Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ala ska , sitting by de signa t ion.B aron B e m e nt a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s e ntry of sum m a ry judgm e nt in favor of the Ne va d a

De pa rtm e n t of C orre c tions (NDOC ) on his c la im unde r se c tion 504 of the R e ha

bilita tion Ac t, 29 U.S.C . § 794. B e m e nt a lso a ppe a ls the distric t
c ourt’ s a l te rnat ive holding, dism issa l for fa ilure to sta

te a c la i m . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we re v e rse and re m and. The distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nting sum m ary judgm e n t on a

ground not
ra ise d in the Appe lle e s’ initia l m otion be c a use the distric t

c ourt did not give B e m e nt “ notic e and a

re a s ona ble tim e to re s pond.” Fe d. R . C iv. P. 56(f); se e also N orsev . C ity of Santa C

ruz , 629 F.3d 966, 972–73 (9th C ir. 2010) (e n ba nc ). B e m e nt wa s not re quire d to invokese c tion 504 by nam e in his c om

pla i nt. Se e J ohnson v . C

i ty of She lby , 135 S. C t. 346, 347 (2014) (pe r c uriam ). The distric t c ourt a l so e rre d in dismissing B e m e n t’ s se c tion 504 c l a im for fa ilure to sta

t e a c l a im without giving him

the opportunity

to a m e nd his c om

pla int. Abse nt a de te rm ination tha

t the c om pla int “ c ould not possibly be c ure d by

the
a lle gation of othe r fa c ts,” the distric t c ourt wa s re quire d to gra nt le ave to a

m e nd. Se e , e .g. , Doev . Unite d State s , 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th C ir. 1995). RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

2
# C_2009019EN.01002901.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/29

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 December 2008 — People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council

(Case T-284/08) (1)

1

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Actions for annulment - Rights of the defence - Judicial review)

(2009/C 19/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (Auvers-sur-Oise, France) (represented by: initially, J.-P. Spitzer, lawyer, and D. Vaughan QC, subsequently by J.-P. Spitzer, D. Vaughan QC and M.E. Demetriou, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially, G.J. Van Hegleson, M. Bishop and E. Finnegan, subsequently by M. Bishop and E. Finnegan, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A.L. During, Agents); and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Aalto and S. Boelaert, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC (OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21), so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC, in so far as it concerns the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC, in so far as it concerns the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran.

| 2. | Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran.

| 3. | Orders the French Republic and the Commission to pay their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic and the Commission to pay their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 236, 13.9.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4362 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4362

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for priority in the 
award of State home facility grants to nursing homes and domiciliaries 
 from States that the Secretary determines have a great or significant 
 need for beds and which are located at least 100 miles away from the 
                 nearest existing State home facility.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 9, 2017

 Mr. O'Halleran (for himself, Mr. Gallego, and Ms. Sinema) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for priority in the 
award of State home facility grants to nursing homes and domiciliaries 
 from States that the Secretary determines have a great or significant 
 need for beds and which are located at least 100 miles away from the 
                 nearest existing State home facility.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness for Rural Veterans Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PRIORITY FOR STATE HOME FACILITY 
              GRANTS.

    Section 8135(c)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (H) as 
        subparagraphs (E) through (I), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
        subparagraph (D):
            ``(D) An application for construction or acquisition of a 
        nursing home or domiciliary from a State that the Secretary 
        determines, in accordance with regulations under this 
        subchapter, has a great or significant need for beds and which 
        is located at least 100 miles away from the nearest existing 
        State home facility.''.
                                 <all>
```
----

**Exhibit 32.2**

**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 Quarterly Report of Tari Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operations of the Company.

Date:  August 14, 2008

/s/  Theodore Tsagkaris

------------------------------

Theodore Tsagkaris

Secretary, Treasurer & C.F.O.

(Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer)

----
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5689]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   RAISING TAXES ON MILITARY FAMILIES

  (Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute.)
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House 
unfortunately passed a tax bill that will raise taxes on 25 million 
families, including many military families. And that is, in a word, 
outrageous. We see strenuous objections from the majority to fairly tax 
the superwealthy; but we don't hear a peep about placing an extra tax 
burden on our middle class families, including members of our military 
whose families are actually struggling in this economy.
  Under the majority's tax bill, an E-1 sailor in the Navy with 2 
years' service with a spouse and three young children at home would see 
a tax increase of $1,096. A private in the U.S. Army in her first year 
of service who is married with an infant child would see a $273 tax 
increase.
  As the ranking member of the House Military Personnel Subcommittee, I 
want to know why we are asking those who have given so much for our 
country to give even more while we ask the wealthiest Americans to 
sacrifice nothing. Our military families deserve much better than that, 
and so do the American people.

                          ____________________
```