alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### COM. v. RETZLER, W.

408 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/15/2017

CP-09-SA-0000381-2016 (Bucks)

Appeal Dismissed
# C_2021289EN.01003901.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/39

---

Action brought on 17 May 2021 — Sturz v EUIPO — Clatronic International (STEAKER)

(Case T-261/21)

(2021/C 289/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Manfred Sturz (Schorndorf, Germany) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clatronic International GmbH (Kempen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘STEAKER’ — European Union trade mark No 16 707 465

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 March 2021 in Case R 214/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs;

| — | order any intervener to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order any intervener to bear its own costs;

| — | in the further alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Denial of right to be heard within the meaning of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Denial of right to be heard within the meaning of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Failure to carry out a full examination and distortion of facts and evidence pursuant to Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to carry out a full examination and distortion of facts and evidence pursuant to Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Misuse of power by the Board of Appeal in not admitting evidence. |
| --- | --- |

—

Misuse of power by the Board of Appeal in not admitting evidence.

---
# C_2021163EN.01004301.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/43

---

Action brought on 12 March 2021 — Gugler France v EUIPO — Gugler (GUGLER)

(Case T-147/21)

(2021/C 163/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gugler France (Les Auxons, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alexander Gugler (Maxdorf, Germany)

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: European Union figurative mark GUGLER — European Union trade mark No 3 324 902

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2020 in Case R 893/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | cancel the European Union trade mark no3 324 902 on the basis of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94; |
| --- | --- |

—

cancel the European Union trade mark no3 324 902 on the basis of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94;

| — | order EUIPO and/or Alexander Gugler to bear the costs involved in the proceedings before the EUIPO and before the General Court by Gugler France. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and/or Alexander Gugler to bear the costs involved in the proceedings before the EUIPO and before the General Court by Gugler France.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94.

---
#### Eric Alan SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, of Charlotte, NC; John Hayward; Mike Calzareeta; Doug Ford; Rayvon Irby, Defendants.

No. 17-2242

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 13, 2018

Decided: March 15, 2018

Eric Alan Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Richard James Morgan, MCNAIR LAW FIRM, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Alan Sanders seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order granting him an extension of time to file an opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and eollat-*299eral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan*Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Sanders seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Sanders’ pending motions and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial informatin extracted from Quarter Ended
September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               6
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        7
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    22
<PP&E>                                           7,934
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,803)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              279
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,299
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,606
<SALES>                                             16
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    17
<CGS>                                                1
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    68
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (52)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (52)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (52)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Walter MOSBY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4331

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 30, 2017

Decided: February 27, 2018

Charles Burnham, BURNHAM & GO-ROKHOV PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Stephen M. Schenning, Acting United States Attorney, Thomas M. Sullivan, Assistant United States. Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Steven Walter Mosby appeals his 46-month sentence for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (2012). Mosby claims on appeal that the district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for a loss amount exceeding $20,000, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(7)(B) (2016). As part of his plea *218agreement, Mosby signed a statement of facts indicating that the “approximate retail value” of the relevant stolen merchandise was $20,090. Although Mosby argues that this figure is too uncertain to sustain the challenged enhancement, we conclude that Mosby’s statement is sufficient evidence to support a factual finding that the loss exceeded $20,000, and the district court here did not clearly err in so finding. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) (2012) (providing standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10Q FOR
THE QUARTER END JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY SUCH FILINGS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             495
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,497
<ALLOWANCES>                                        47
<INVENTORY>                                      3,698
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,071
<PP&E>                                           4,730
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,320
<BONDS>                                          6,482
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            84
<OTHER-SE>                                        (801)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,086
<SALES>                                          6,706
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,018
<CGS>                                            4,287
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,213
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 693
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,175)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,175)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.38)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-51035

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARRIE LASHAY HOOPER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:10-CR-121-4

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Carrie Lashay Hooper has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Hooper has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 16, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-51035 Document: 00511573737 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2011
No. 10-51035

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 10-51035 Document: 00511573737 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2011
No. 11-8733.

#### Trujillo *v.*Tally et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
e63001672ex10_3.htm



AMENDMENT TO


AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT












AMENDMENT dated as of March 18, 2014 (this “Amendment”) to the AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT dated as of December 22, 2008 as subsequently amended (the “Employment Agreement”) by and between Chindex International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Lawrence Pemble (“Employee”).  Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment will have the same meaning as in the Employment Agreement.







WHEREAS, the Company and Employee have entered into the Employment Agreement and, effective commencing on the date hereof, desire to amend the Employment Agreement in the following respects;







NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:







1.      Section 1(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting “December 31, 2014” and replacing it with “December 31, 2015” so as to extend the term of the Employment Agreement to December 31, 2015.







2.      Except as provided above, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.







3.      This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which will constitute an original, and all of which together will constitute one and the same.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.








 




	 	 	 	 
	
 

	 /s/ Lawrence Pemble	 
	 	Lawrence Pemble	 





 


 


 






	 	CHINDEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ Robert Low	 
	 	 	Name:  Robert Low	 
	 	 	Title:   Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20451-20452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07377]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; RFA DK21-029: NIDDK 
Diabetes Research Center (P30 Clinical Trial Optional).
    Date: June 27-28, 2022.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Democracy II, 6707 
Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Najma S. Begum, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 
Room 7349, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 
594-8894, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6507000210080b250b0c01010e4b0b0c0d4b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c4a6a1a3b1a9aa84aaada0a0afeaaaadaceaa3abb2">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology

[[Page 20452]]

and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 1, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-07377 Filed 4-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### BRECHLIN v. BOARD OF PARDONS

20170758

Supreme Court of Utah.

11-14-2017

20170224, 402 P.3d 14

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied.
Exhibit 10.2


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO STOCKHOLDER PROTECTION RIGHTS AGREEMENT








AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO STOCKHOLDER PROTECTION RIGHTS AGREEMENT (as amended from time to time, this "Agreement"), dated as of March 21, 2014, between GSE Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company, a New York banking corporation, as Rights Agent (the "Rights Agent," which term shall include any successor Rights Agent hereunder).










WITNESSETH:










WHEREAS, the Company and the Rights Agent are parties to a Stockholder Protection Rights Agreement, dated as of March 21, 2011;







WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has authorized an amendment to the Agreement providing for the extension of the Expiration Time until March 21, 2016 (as described herein);







NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the respective agreements set forth herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:










	
1.

	
The term "Expiration Time" shall be amended to read as follows:












"Expiration Time shall mean the earliest of (i) the Exchange Time, (ii) the Redemption Time, (iii) the Close of Business on March 21, 2016, unless, for purposes of this clause (iii), extended by action of the Rights Plan Committee and the Board of Directors of the Company in accordance with Section 5.19 (in which case the applicable time shall be the time to which it has been so extended), and (iv) immediately prior to the effective time of a consolidation, merger or statutory share exchange that does not constitute a Flip-over Transaction or Event."








	2.	Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Stockholder Protection Rights Agreement, dated as of March 21, 2011.











	3.	This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and by each party hereto on a separate counterpart, both of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and both of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement.  Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page to this Agreement by facsimile or e-mail transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this agreement.











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














	
GSE SYSTEMS, INC.


	
 


	
By: /s/ Lawrence M. Gordon


	
Name: Lawrence M. Gordon


	
Title:   Senior Vice President


	
           and General Counsel


	
 


	
 


	
CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER &


	
TRUST COMPANY, as Rights Agent


	
 


	
By: /s/ Margaret Villani


	
Name: Margaret Villani


	
Title:   Vice President
No. 85-6508.

#### Frazar *v.*Lowe.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                              25
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      164
<ALLOWANCES>                                         7
<INVENTORY>                                        152
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   340
<PP&E>                                             350
<DEPRECIATION>                                     199
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     546
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              156
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         36
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       546
<SALES>                                            501
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   501
<CGS>                                              312
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     4
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   6
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     48
<INCOME-TAX>                                        18
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 30
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        30
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .85
        

</TABLE>