alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010148EN.01002901.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2010 — Laboratorios Byly v OHIM — Ginis (BILLY’S Products)

(Case T-514/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BILLY’S Products - Earlier Community and national word marks BYLY and byly - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 148/51

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Byly SA (Barberà del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: L. Plaza Fernández-Villa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vasileios Ginis (Athens, Greece)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 469/2008-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Byly SA and Vasileios Ginis.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 September 2008 (Case R 469/2008-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 September 2008 (Case R 469/2008-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.

1

---
STATE OF DELAWARE
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

FIRST: That at a meeting  of the Board of Directors of INTERNATIONAL 
FOOD & BEVERAGE, INC. a resolution was duly adopted setting forth a 
proposed amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of said 
corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and calling a 
meeting of the stockholders of said corporation for consideration 
thereof. The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as 
follows:

RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation 
to be amended by changing the Article thereof numbered one so that, 
as amended said article shall be read as follows: changing the name 
of International Food & Beverage, Inc. to Internet Business s 
International, Inc.

SECOND: That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its board of 
Directors , a special meeting of the stockholders of said corporation 
was duly called and held upon notice in  accordance with Section 222 
of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware at which 
meeting the necessary number of shares as required by statue were 
voted in favor of the amendment.

THIRD: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the 
Provision of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State 
of Delaware.

FOURTH: That the capital of said cooperation shall not be reduced 
under or by reason caused this certificate to be signed by            
Albert Reda      , an Authorized Officer this  11th  day of February, 
1999.



					By: /s/ Albert Reda    
				Albert Reda
				Chief Executive Officer



STATE OF DELAWARE
SFCRETARY OF STATE
DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS
FILED 09:01 AM O2/17/1999
991061280 - Z159360
# C_2016016EN.01002701.xml

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Buczek Automotive v Commission

(Case T-1/08 INTP) (1)

1

((Procedure - Interpretation of a judgment))

(2016/C 016/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: J. Jurczyk, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: A. Jasser, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Application for interpretation of the judgment of 17 May 2011 in Buczek Automotive v Commission (T-1/08, ECR, EU:T:2011:216).

Buczek Automotive

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of 17 May 2011 in Buczek Automotive v Commission (T-1/08, ECR, EU:T:2011:216) is to be interpreted as meaning that Article 1 of Commission Decision 2008/344/EC of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for steel producer Technologie Buczek Group (OJ 2008 L 116, p. 20) is annulled with erga omnes effect; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of 17 May 2011 in Buczek Automotive v Commission (T-1/08, ECR, EU:T:2011:216) is to be interpreted as meaning that Article 1 of Commission Decision 2008/344/EC of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for steel producer Technologie Buczek Group (OJ 2008 L 116, p. 20) is annulled with erga omnes effect;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders that the original of this judgment be appended to the original of the judgment interpreted, in the margin of which reference shall be made to this judgment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders that the original of this judgment be appended to the original of the judgment interpreted, in the margin of which reference shall be made to this judgment.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANICAL OFFICER
                                   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 Voyager Petroleum, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cathy
A. Persin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350 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.



Date: October 6, 2008                         By:  /s/ Cathy A. Persin
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Cathy A. Persin
                                                 Principal Financial Officer
# Crawford - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Northwest Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development Commission Executive Director Jill Foys Email &#160;&#106;&#x69;&#108;&#x6c;&#102;&#x40;&#110;&#x6f;&#114;&#x74;&#104;&#x77;&#101;&#x73;&#116;&#x70;&#97;&#x2e;&#111;&#x72;&#103;The post Northwest Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
NO. 06-14-00138-CR

JAMIE LEE BLEDSOE, § IN THE SIXTH

VS. § COURT OF APPEALS

THE STATE OF TEXAS § TEXARKANA, TEXAS

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS APPELLANT’S ATTORNEY

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: NOW COMES Movant EBB B. MOBLEY, appointed attorney of record for JAMIE LEE BLEDSOE, Appellant herein , and files this Motion to Withdraw as Appellant’s Attorney, and in support thereof would show the Court as follows: § Movant was appointed as stand by counsel to represent Appellant JAMIE LEE BLEDSOE prior to a hearing in the trial court on the defendant’s Motion For New Trial. The motion was denied. Movant perfected appeal to this Court by timely filing a docketing statement, designation of record, CR-230, notice letter to the trial court reporter, CR-221, and notice of appeal, CR-226.

. § On review of the Clerk’s Record and the Reporter’s Record, Movant has concluded that this appeal is without merit and frivolous. Accordingly Movant has this day filed an Anders Brief summarizing the record and possible issues that could be raised. § Movant has provided JAMIE LEE BLEDSOE with a copy of this motion, the Anders Brief, the Clerk’s Record and the Reporter’s Record, by United States mail return receipt requested. ACCEPTED 06-14-00138-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/31/2014 12:18:13 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERKWHEREFORE, premises considere d, Movant pray s that his moti on to withdraw be g rante d.

Respectf ully submitt ed,
EBB B. MOB L EY Attorney at L aw 422 North Center

Street-L ower

L evel P. O. Box 2309 L ong view, TX 75606 Telephone : (903) 757-3331 Fa csimile: (903) 753-8289 ebbmob@aol.c om

/s/ EBB B. MOB L EY EBB B. MOB L EY Attorney for Appe llant State Ba r L icense # 14238000

CERTIFIC ATE OF SERVICE
A c o p y o f t h i s m o t i o n i s b e i n g p r o v i d e d t o T i m o t h y T

. C a r i k e r , A s s i s t a n tD i s t r i c tA t t o r n e y, 20 0 We st Ho us ton , Suite 20 6, Mars ha ll, Te xas 756 70 , on the 31 da y of De c e mbe r, 20 14 by

e ma il and to J amie L ee Bledsoe , I nmate 1945574, Wy nne Unit, 810 FM 2821, Huntsville, Texas 77349 by U.S. Mail.

/s/ EBB B. MOB L EY EBB B. M OBLE Y
#### Lorimer R. HERRICK, Jr., Petitioner, v. Robert R. RAINES, Respondent.

No. A-13060.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 20, 1961.

*176Lorimer R. Herrick, Jr., McAlester, petitioner, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BUSSEY, Judge.

This is an application for writ of mandamus by Lorimer R. Herrick Jr., an inmate of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, requesting that he be accorded a preliminary hearing in case no. A-13060, in the County Court of Tillman County before the honorable Haskell Hollimen, or that the charges there pending against him be dismissed.

The petitioner alleges that he has been within the jurisdiction of the County Court of Tillman County for a period of eight months and has not been accorded a preliminary hearing. The petitioner’s assertion that he has been within the jurisdiction of said county court is not born out by the record which reveals that on August S, 1960, petitioner was taken into custody by the authorities in Jay, Oklahoma, and transported to Lawton, Oklahoma, where he was charged with the offense of assisting a jail break and burglary in the second degree and that he remained there in custody until he was confined to the state penitentiary after having entered a plea of guilty to the charges above referred to.

Under such conditions there is no duty upon the committing magistrate before whom preliminary complaints are pending, for jurisdiction of the person is lacking. Inverarity v. Zumwalt, *97*Okl.Cr. 294, 262 P.2d 725; Jennings v. Raines, Okl.Cr., 353 P.2d 147.

Either the state or the accused may proceed in the district court of the county where charges were filed by way of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, making the magistrate and person having custody of the accused person parties defendant, and should such efforts fail, original proceedings may be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals.

It further appears from the response filed by the honorable Amos Stovall, county attorney in and for Tillman County, and the exhibits thereto attached, that he has secured a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum in the district court of Tillman County, returned the petitioner to said county for a preliminary hearing and has announced his intention to try said petitioner at the next regular docket of the district court of Tillman County. The question is therefore moot and the same is accordingly dismissed.

NIX, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Manugistics Group, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos.  33-67994, 33-67996, 33-67998,
33-89490, 33-89492, 33-98820 and 33-09481) of our reports dated March 28, 1997
(except Note 12 as to which the date is May 9, 1997), appearing in the Annual
Report on Form 10K of Manugistics Group, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year
ended February 28, 1997.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Washington, D.C.
May 23, 1997
# C_2022011EN.01000501.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘Manpower Lit’ v E.S., M.L., M.P., V.V., R.V.

(Case C-948/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Temporary work - Directive 2008/104/EC - Article 1 - Scope of application - Concepts of ‘public undertaking’ and ‘pursuit of an economic activity’ - EU agencies - The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) as a ‘user undertaking’, pursuant to Article 1(2) of that Directive - Article 5(1) - Principle of equal treatment - Basic working and employment conditions - Concept of ‘same job’ - Regulation (EC) No 1922/2006 - Article 335 TFEU - Principle of administrative autonomy of an EU institution - Article 336 TFEU - Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union)

(2022/C 11/06)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UAB ‘Manpower Lit’

Defendants: E.S., M.L., M.P., V.V., R.V.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1 of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary work must be interpreted as meaning that the scope of that directive covers the assignment by a temporary-work agency of persons who have concluded a contract of employment with that agency to the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) to perform work there; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1 of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary work must be interpreted as meaning that the scope of that directive covers the assignment by a temporary-work agency of persons who have concluded a contract of employment with that agency to the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) to perform work there;

| 2. | Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/104 must be interpreted as meaning that the job occupied by a temporary agency worker who is assigned to the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) may be regarded as constituting the ‘same post’ within the meaning of that provision, even if it is assumed that all the jobs for which the EIGE recruits workers directly involve tasks which can be performed only by persons subject to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/104 must be interpreted as meaning that the job occupied by a temporary agency worker who is assigned to the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) may be regarded as constituting the ‘same post’ within the meaning of that provision, even if it is assumed that all the jobs for which the EIGE recruits workers directly involve tasks which can be performed only by persons subject to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.

---
Shipments Transiting the United States

Spring Viremia of Carp (SVC)-susceptible fish species may be imported to the US under 

conditions of transit to a third country under slightly different conditions than permanent 

importation. An import permit is still needed, but such shipments do not need to be 

accompanied by an export health certificate, provided they meet the following conditions while 

in transit:

REQUIREMENT OPTIONS:

There are two options for moving SVC-susceptible fish for the purpose of transit through the 

United States to a third country. The two options are listed below; please utilize one of the two 

options.

I. Continuous Confinement

The SVC-susceptible fish are maintained under continuous confinement while in transit 

through the United States aboard an aircraft, ocean vessel, or other means of conveyance. 

OR

II. In-Transit Holding Facility

They are transferred during transit into a holding facility. The holding facility is provided 

by the carrier or its agent and has been approved by APHIS to prevent the spread within 

the United States of SVC, AND maintained under continuous confinement until loaded 

aboard a means of conveyance for transportation from the United States until departure.

Required Conditions for Holding Facilities:

• The holding facility must be sufficiently isolated to prevent direct or indirect contact of 

the live fish, fertilized eggs, or gametes it contains with any other SVC-susceptible 

species in the United States.

• The holding facility must be constructed to provide adequate protection against 

environmental conditions and so that it can be adequately cleaned, washed and 

disinfected.

• Provision must be made for disposal of fish carcasses, shipping water, waste, and any 

associated shipping materials in a manner that will prevent dissemination of disease.

• Provision must be made for adequate sources of feed and water and for attendants for the 

care and feeding of fish, fertilized eggs, or gametes in the facility.

• The holding facility must comply with all applicable local, State and Federal 

requirements for environmental quality.

• The holding facility must comply with any additional requirements that may be imposed 

by the APHIS Administrator for a particular shipment if necessary to prevent the 

dissemination of disease.
• Fish for import are moved in accordance with any additional conditions prescribed in the 

permit and determined by APHIS to be necessary to ensure that the live fish, fertilized 

eggs, or gametes do not introduce SVC into the United States.

Fish that do not meet these new entry requirements will be refused entry to the US. Importers 

will have the option of immediately re-exporting refused entry shipments, or the shipments will 

be destroyed and disposed of at their expense. 

ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES:

Please check the animal health regulations of the importing state of destination for possible 

additional regulations and requirements for the proposed import from the drop-down list 

provided here.
# C_2009069EN.01001603.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 23 October 2008 — Don Bosco Onroerend Goed BV; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-461/08)

(2009/C 69/29)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Don Bosco Onroerend Goed BV

Applicant:

Other Party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other Party:

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 13B(g) in conjunction with Article 4(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that tax is charged on the supply of a building which has been partly demolished with a view to the replacement of that building with a newly constructed building? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 13B(g) in conjunction with Article 4(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that tax is charged on the supply of a building which has been partly demolished with a view to the replacement of that building with a newly constructed building?

1

| 2. | Is it relevant to the answer to that question whether it is the vendor or the purchaser of the building who has given the order for demolition and is charged the cost thereof, and thus the supply is taxed only if the vendor has given the order for demolition and is charged the cost thereof? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it relevant to the answer to that question whether it is the vendor or the purchaser of the building who has given the order for demolition and is charged the cost thereof, and thus the supply is taxed only if the vendor has given the order for demolition and is charged the cost thereof?

| 3. | Is it relevant to the answer to the first question whether it is the vendor or the purchaser of the building who has drawn up the plans for the new building, and thus the supply is taxed only if the vendor has drawn up the plans for the new building? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it relevant to the answer to the first question whether it is the vendor or the purchaser of the building who has drawn up the plans for the new building, and thus the supply is taxed only if the vendor has drawn up the plans for the new building?

| 4. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is tax then levied on any supply occurring after the date on which the demolition work actually begins or after a later date, especially the date on which the demolition has made substantial progress? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is tax then levied on any supply occurring after the date on which the demolition work actually begins or after a later date, especially the date on which the demolition has made substantial progress?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

1

---