alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008064EN.01005801.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/58

---

Action brought on 7 January 2008 — Kwang Yang Motor v OHIM — Honda Giken Kogyo (Representation of an internal-combustion engine)

(Case T-10/08)

(2008/C 64/93)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kwang Yang Motor Co. Ltd (Kaohsiung City, Taiwan) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 8 October 2007 served to the representatives of the applicant on 30 October 2007, in Case R 1337/2006-3; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 8 October 2007 served to the representatives of the applicant on 30 October 2007, in Case R 1337/2006-3;

| — | order the OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: Registered Community design for an ‘Internal-combustion engine’ — Community Design No 000 163 290 — 0001

Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community design:

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Co. Ltd

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design:

Design of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Registered US design in respect for an ‘internal-combustion engine’ — Patent No D 367 070

Design of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Invalidity Division: Rejected the application for invalidity in its entirety

Decision of the Invalidity Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Invalidity Division and declared the design invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community Designs.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2018134EN.01002401.xml

| 16.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/24

---

Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Venezuela v Council

(Case T-65/18)

(2018/C 134/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, insofar as its provisions concern the Applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, insofar as its provisions concern the Applicant; and

| — | order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the restrictive measures without previously informing the Applicant of its intention, and without previously hearing the position of the Applicant on the facts allegedly justifying the restrictive measures, the Council infringed the Applicant’s right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the restrictive measures without previously informing the Applicant of its intention, and without previously hearing the position of the Applicant on the facts allegedly justifying the restrictive measures, the Council infringed the Applicant’s right to be heard.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed its obligation to state the reasons and to provide sufficient evidence for the adoption of the restrictive measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed its obligation to state the reasons and to provide sufficient evidence for the adoption of the restrictive measures.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment as concerns the facts on which the restrictive measures are based. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment as concerns the facts on which the restrictive measures are based.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures constitute unlawful countermeasures under customary international law. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures constitute unlawful countermeasures under customary international law.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                 Exhibit 23.0

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference to the registration statement of
ELEK-TEK, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No.33-79758) of our report, which includes an
explanatory paragraph about the Company's ability to continue as a going
concern, dated March 26, 1997 except as to information presented in Notes 1 and
6 for which the date is April 22, 1997, on our audits of the financial
statements of ELEK-TEK, Inc. as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for the
three years in the period ended December 31, 1996, which report is included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


Chicago, Illinois
April 22, 1997
Relative Poverty Rates in Appalachia, 2007–2011

(County Rates as a Percentage of the U.S. Average)

A poverty rate is the ratio of the persons below the poverty level 

to the total number of persons for whom poverty status has been 

determined.The percent of the U.S. average is computed by 

dividing the county poverty rate by the national average and 

multiplying by 100. The map uses critical breaks such as the 

national average to organize the data into groups of common 

values. 

Map Created: March 2013

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey, 2007–2011

0 50 100 

Miles 

GEORGIA 

ALABAMA 

MISSISSIPPI 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

VIRGINIA 

WEST 

VIRGINIA 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA 

WISCONSIN 

MICHIGAN 

DE 

NJ PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

NEW YORK 

TENNESSEE

150.0% - 294.1%

100.1% - 149.9% 

75.1% - 100.0% 

29.1% - 75.0%

Percent of the U.S. Average 

(Critical Breaks Classification) 

U.S. average = 14.3%

Appalachian average = 16.1%
A poverty rate is the ratio of the persons below the poverty level 

to the total number of persons for whom poverty status has been 

determined. The map uses natural breaks in the distribution to 

organize the data into groups of common values. 

Map Created: August 2017

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey, 2011–2015

Poverty Rates in Appalachia, 2011–2015

(County Rates)

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

28.8% - 43.0%

21.9% - 28.7%

16.1% - 21.8%

6.9% - 16.0%

Poverty Rate

(Natural Breaks Classification)

U.S. average = 15.5%

Appalachian average = 17.1%
# C_2008197EN.01003301.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/33

---

Action brought on 11 June 2008 — Lemans v OHIM — Stephen Turner (ICON)

(Case T-218/08)

(2008/C 197/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lemans Corporation (Janesville, United States) (represented by: M. Cover, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stephen Turner (Luddington, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 March 2008 in case R 589/2007-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 March 2008 in case R 589/2007-2;

| — | declare that the opposition be dismissed and that Community trade mark concerned may proceed to registration; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the opposition be dismissed and that Community trade mark concerned may proceed to registration; and

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the appeals before the Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the appeals before the Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ICON’ for goods and services in classes 9, 18 and 25 — application No 2 197 366

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The national word mark ‘IKON’ for goods in class 9 — UK trade mark registration No 2 243 676

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the application in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the other party to the proceedings before it had locus standi to file the opposition.

Pleas in law:

locus standi

---
**Exhibit 31.2**

I, Bruce Wright, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Ultratech, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary 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 present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: 

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

b) Designed such internalcontrol over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

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

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent 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, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, 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 equivalentfunctions): 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol 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 other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: April 19, 2013
Map Created: August 2019

Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2017

Per Capita Market Income Rates in Appalachia, 2017

(County Rates)

Per capita market income is a measure of an area's total 

personal income, less transfer payments, divided by the resident 

population of the area. The map uses natural breaks in the 

distribution to organize the data into groups of common values. 

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

$11,128 - $20,643

$20,644 - $27,046

$27,047 - $36,297

$36,298 - $55,487

Per Capita Market Income

U.S. average = $42,861

Appalachian average = $31,311

(Natural Breaks Classification)
# C_2008285EN.01005601.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/56

---

Action brought on 6 August 2008 — Knöll v Europol

(Case F-69/08)

(2008/C 285/101)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Brigitte Knöll (Hochheim, Germany) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision of 4 October 2007, by which Europol informed the applicant that there was no possibility of offering her a permanent post.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision of 4 October 2007, by which the defendant informed the applicant that there was no possibility of offering her a permanent post, the decision of 29 April 2008 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision and the decision of 12 June 2008 which is part of the extension of that of 4 October 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 4 October 2007, by which the defendant informed the applicant that there was no possibility of offering her a permanent post, the decision of 29 April 2008 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision and the decision of 12 June 2008 which is part of the extension of that of 4 October 2007;

| — | Order Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Europol to pay the costs.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        RECOGNIZING CHET WALKER

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. FRED UPTON

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 11, 2012

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Chet Walker of 
Benton Harbor, Michigan, who was elected to both the Michigan Sports 
Hall of Fame and the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame on 
September 7, 2012.
  Mr. Walker began his career as the star of Benton Harbor High 
School's basketball team, leading the school to the Class A Boys' state 
finals in 1958. He then matriculated to Bradley College in Peoria, 
Illinois, where he became the school's all-time top scorer and 
rebounder, and was a two-time unanimous First Team All-America pick. 
Mr. Walker led the Bradley Braves to victory in the 1960 National 
Invitation Tournament and finished his college career with an 
outstanding 69-14 win-loss record.
  His success as a college athlete caught the attention of the NBA, and 
after graduation Mr. Walker was drafted by the Syracuse Nationals in 
the second round. Mr. Walker continued in his tradition of success, and 
was named to the first ever NBA All-Rookie Team. The rest of his 
professional basketball career proved to be exceptional: over the span 
of his 13 years, Mr. Walker scored 18,831 points and grabbed 7,314 
rebounds, had a free throw percentage of 79.6, was a seven-time All-
Star, and won the 1967 NBA championship with what is considered by many 
today to be the greatest basketball team of all time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize Mr. Walker's achievements and 
am glad that he is being properly respected for his contributions by 
the Michigan Sports Hall of Fame and the Naismith Basketball Hall of 
Fame. Chet Walker is one of the greatest to ever play the game and we 
are so proud in southwest Michigan.

                          ____________________
```
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

            Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp. and Subsidiaries
                       Computation of Earnings Per Share
          (Dollars and Share Data in Thousands, Except Per Share Data)

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                        As of and For the Years Ended December 31,
                                                        ------------------------------------------
                                                         2001             2000              1999
                                                        -------          -------           -------
<S>                                                     <C>              <C>               <C>
Weighted-Average Common Shares Outstanding               16,529           12,178            12,501

Weighted-Average Share Equivalents Outstanding              656            2,412             2,615
                                                        -------          -------           -------
Weighted-Average Shares and Share Equivalents
 Outstanding                                             17,185           14,590            15,116
                                                        =======          =======           =======

Net Income                                              $30,559          $30,770           $18,843
                                                        =======          =======           =======

Basic Earnings Per Share                                  $1.85            $2.53             $1.51
                                                          =====            =====             =====

Diluted Earnings Per Share                                $1.78            $2.11             $1.25
                                                          =====            =====             =====
</Table>
County Economic Status in Appalachia, Fiscal Year 2020

(Effective October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020)

The Appalachian Regional Commission uses an index-based county 

economic classification system to identify and monitor the economic 

status of Appalachian counties. See the reverse side for a description 

of each economic level.

Map Created: June 2019

Data Sources:

Unemployment data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, LAUS, 2015–2017

Income data: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2017

Poverty data: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2013–2017

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

Distressed (80)

At-Risk (110)

Transitional (217)

Competitive (10)

County Economic Levels

Attainment (3)
County Economic Status Classification System, FY 2020

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) uses an index-based county economic classification system to 

identify and monitor the economic status of Appalachian counties. The system involves the creation of a 

national index of county economic status through a comparison of each county’s averages for three economic 

indicators—three-year average unemployment rate, per capita market income, and poverty rate—with national 

averages. The resulting values are summed and averaged to create a composite index value for each county. 

Each county in the nation is then ranked, based on its composite index value, with higher values indicating 

higher levels of distress.

County Economic Levels

Each Appalachian county is classified into one of five economic status designations, based on its position in the 

national ranking. 

Distressed

Distressed counties are the most economically depressed counties. They rank in the worst 10 percent of the 

nation’s counties.

At-Risk

At-Risk counties are those at risk of becoming economically distressed. They rank between the worst 10 percent 

and 25 percent of the nation’s counties.

Transitional

Transitional counties are those transitioning between strong and weak economies. They make up the largest 

economic status designation. Transitional counties rank between the worst 25 percent and the best 25 percent of 

the nation’s counties.

Competitive

Competitive counties are those that are able to compete in the national economy but are not in the highest 10 

percent of the nation’s counties. Counties ranking between the best 10 percent and 25 percent of the nation’s 

counties are classified competitive.

Attainment

Attainment counties are the economically strongest counties. Counties ranking in the best 10 percent of the 

nation’s counties are classified attainment.

Attainment 

Counties

Best 10% of 

U.S. Counties

Competitive 

Counties

Best 10+ to 25% of 

U.S. Counties

At-Risk 

Counties

Worst 10+ to 25% 

of U.S. Counties

Distressed 

Counties

Worst 10%

 of U.S. 

Counties

ARC County Economic Status Designation by National Index Value Rank

Ranked Index Values 

of U.S. Counties

Transitional Counties

Higher Index Values Lower Index Values