alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021228EN.01003301.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/33

---

Action brought on 16 April 2021 — Dorit v EUIPO — Erwin Suter (DORIT)

(Case T-208/21)

(2021/C 228/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dorit-DFT Fleischereimaschinen GmbH (Ellwangen, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Erwin Suter AG, Maschinenfabrik Retus (Kölliken, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark DORIT — International registration No 878 792

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2021 in Case R 127/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the contested decision and allow the application for cancellation of the contested mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision and allow the application for cancellation of the contested mark;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO and, if appropriate, order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO and, if appropriate, order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5578]


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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Biological Sciences: Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 463, 
as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following 
meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Biological Sciences (1754).
    Date and Time: March 24-25, 1997; 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Place: Room 340, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Eve Ida Barak, Program Director for Cellular 
Organization, Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences, Room 
655, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230 Telephone: 
703/306-1442.
    Purpose of Advisory Panel: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning support for research in Molecular and Cellular 
Biosciences.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals submitted to the 
Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences in responses to 
Program Announcement number 93-130, as part of the selection process 
for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposal being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including: 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under (4) and (6) of 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c) Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: March 3, 1997.
Linda Allen-Benton,
Deputy Director, Division of Human Resource Management, Acting 
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-5578 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
# C_2023216EN.01002101.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 — KY v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-100/22 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 77 - Pension - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer of national pension rights to the pension scheme of the European Union institutions - Crediting of additional pensionable years - Article 2 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension calculation - Fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations - The ‘minimum subsistence figure’ rule - Request for reimbursement of the portion of the transferred pension rights not reflected in the EU pension amount - Unjust enrichment)

(2023/C 216/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: KY (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat, and N. Maes, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and A. Ysebaert, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders KY to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders KY to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.

---
Customer Service Hotline: 1

- 800

- 438

- 2474 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

- 2029

December 6, 2011

Honorable Michael Krancer, Secretary

Department of Environmental Protection

Rachel Carson State Office Building

P.O. Box 2063

Harrisburg, PA 17105

- 2063

Dear Secretary Krancer:

On July 21 , 2011, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to

the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Department of Environmental

Protection (PADEP) pertainin g to a 2011 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Limited Maintenance Plan for

the Central Business District of Allegheny County. This revision is requesting the approval of a

limited maintenance plan for a second ten

- year period through year 2022 for the CO national

ambi ent air qu ality standards. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and

technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Not ice of Proposed Rulemaking

.

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Mr. Greg ory Becoat,

at (215) 814

- 2036, the principal contact for this rulemaking.

Sincerely,

/s/

Diana Esher, Director

Air Protection Div ision

cc: Ms. Joyce Epps, PADEP

Ms. Arlene Shulman, PADEP

Mr. Jame s Thompson, ACHD
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             206
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   206
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,521
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       481,078
<OTHER-SE>                                   (492,393)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       206
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,595)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,595)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)



</TABLE>
No. D-2682.

#### In re Discipline of Quinn.

Brian S. Quinn, of Havertown, Pa., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
No. 11-1549.

#### Toland *v.*Futagi.

Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8757 

To amend title 18, United States Code, by increasing the maximum term 

of imprisonment for the offense of rioting, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2020 

Mr. BUCK (for himself, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. 

STEUBE, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. BUDD, Mr. 

RIGGLEMAN, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. POSEY, Mr. GOSAR, 

Mr. ROUZER, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. MURPHY of North Carolina, Mr. 

PERRY, and Mr. CRAWFORD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, by increasing the 

maximum term of imprisonment for the offense of rioting, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Blocking Rioters and 

5 Insurrectionists from our Cities to Keep us Safe Act of 

6 2020’’ or as the ‘‘BRICKS Act of 2020’’. 


dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8757 IH

1 SEC. 2. MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR RIOTING INCREASED. 

2 Section 2101(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 

3 amended— 

4 (1) by striking ‘‘five years’’ and inserting ‘‘10 

5 years’’; 

6 (2) by striking the period after ‘‘or both’’ and 

7 inserting the following: ‘‘; or’’; and 

8 (3) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘If seri9 ous bodily injury (as such term is defined in section 

10 2246) results from the acts committed in violation 

11 of this section or if such acts include the use, at12 tempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weap13 on, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title 

14 or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both; and 

15 if death results from the acts committed in violation 

16 of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or 

17 an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or 

18 an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or 

19 an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or 

20 imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or 

21 both.’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with BILLS
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-21-00019-CV 

 

IN RE SILVER HAYS, RELATOR 

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

 

April 1, 2021 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Pending before the court is a petition for writ of mandamus. It involves whether 

the Honorable Delwin McGee, County Court at Law for Moore County, Texas (trial court)

abused his discretion in disqualifying counsel for Silver Hays, said counsel being Briar L. 

Wilcox. Hays contended it did, and Wilcox petitioned for mandamus relief on her behalf 

to confirm that belief. Since the original petition was filed, the trial judge who signed the 

disqualification order recused himself. Thereafter, the Honorable John B. Board was 

assigned to preside over the cause. That resulted in our abating the cause to afford the 

newly assigned judge opportunity to reconsider the order of disqualification, an 

opportunity of which our Supreme Court approved in In re Blevins, 480 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. 
2

2013) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Reconsideration occurred, and the request to 

disqualify was denied and the prior order granting same was vacated. Disqualification 

being denied, the original order underlying this mandamus proceeding and the argument 

surrounding its propriety are moot. Consequently, we dismiss the petition for writ of 

mandamus as moot.

Per Curiam
#### Benjamin Jacob STRATTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, d/b/a Catheryn K. Clemens, Michael L. McGinty, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-2446

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 13, 2018

Decided: March 15, 2018

Benjamin Jacob Stratton, Appellant Pro Se. Sherry A. Fox, THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Jacob Stratton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Stratton v. Commonwealth of Va.,*No. 4:17-cv-00046-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va. Nov. 27, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
No. 11-10376.

#### Leftwich *v.*Frazier, Warden.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry HAILEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7105

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 28, 2018

Decided: March 13, 2018

Larry Hailey, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Brian James Samuels, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appel-lee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry Hailey seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of *281the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessmént of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hailey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Hailey’s request to place this appeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in *Sessions v. Dimaya,*No. 15-1498 (argued Oct. 2, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8536 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to delay the reporting of medical 

debt by consumer reporting agencies, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 6, 2020 

Mr. GALLAGHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to delay the reporting of medical debt by consumer reporting agencies, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Medical Debt Re5 porting Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPORTING OF MEDICAL DEBT TO CONSUMER RE7 PORTING AGENCIES. 

8 The Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et 

9 seq.) is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8536 IH

1 (1) in section 603, by adding at the end the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(bb) MEDICAL DEBT.—The term ‘medical debt’ 

4 means a debt arising from the receipt of medical services, 

5 products, or devices.’’; 

6 (2) in section 605(a), by adding at the end the 

7 following: 

8 ‘‘(9) Any information relating to a medical debt if— 

9 ‘‘(A) the debt has not been placed for collection, 

10 charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar 

11 action; 

12 ‘‘(B) the date on which the debt was placed for 

13 collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to 

14 any similar action antedates the report by less than 

15 one year; or 

16 ‘‘(C) the debt was fully paid or settled before 

17 the end of the one-year period beginning on the date 

18 described in subparagraph (A).’’; and 

19 (3) in section 623, by adding at the end the fol20 lowing: 

21 ‘‘(f) ADDITIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR MED22 ICAL DEBT.—Before a person furnishes information relat23 ing to a medical debt of a consumer to a consumer report24 ing agency, such person shall— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8536 IH

1 ‘‘(1) notify the consumer that no consumer re2 porting agency may make a consumer report con3 taining any information relating to a medical debt 

4 if— 

5 ‘‘(A) the debt has not been placed for col6 lection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to 

7 any similar action; or 

8 ‘‘(B) the date on which the debt was 

9 placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, 

10 or subjected to any similar action antedates the 

11 report by less than one year; and 

12 ‘‘(2) ensure that the consumer has been pro13 vided with a detailed accounting of such medical 

14 debt.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      27,738,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,500,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            18,650,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                121,007,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     141,606,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       141,823,000
<LOANS>                                    276,591,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,563,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             485,462,000
<DEPOSITS>                                 431,713,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,153,000
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,978,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  49,618,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             485,462,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             18,080,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            6,714,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                             1,302,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            26,096,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           8,293,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       17,794,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  340,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             15,119,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,534,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   6,534,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,519,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.46
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,185,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                 1,119,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,411,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  319,000
<RECOVERIES>                                   131,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,563,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,563,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### IN the INTEREST OF; Y.-S.H.A.S.-D., a Minor

1317 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/18/2017

CP-51-DP-0001222-2015 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed