alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021320EN.01004801.xml

| 9.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/48

---

Action brought on 18 June 2021 — F I S I v EUIPO — Verband der Deutschen Daunen- und Federnindustrie (ECODOWN)

(Case T-338/21)

(2021/C 320/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: F I S I Fibre sintetiche SpA (Oggiono, Italy) (represented by: G. Cartella and B. Cartella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Verband der Deutschen Daunen- und Federnindustrie (Magonza, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘ECODOWN’ — European Union trade mark No 2 756 740

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2021 in Case R 216/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | consequently, rule on the merits confirming the validity of EU trade mark No 2 756 740 |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, rule on the merits confirming the validity of EU trade mark No 2 756 740

| — | order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO.

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;

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

—

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

| — | Incorrect consideration of the evidence submitted by the applicant regarding the distinctive character of the mark acquired through use. |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect consideration of the evidence submitted by the applicant regarding the distinctive character of the mark acquired through use.

---
#### COM. v. HERNANDEZ, B.

3143 EDA 2015

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/28/2017

MC-51-CR-0047176-2012 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed
# C_2022340EN.01001401.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/14

---

Appeal brought on 4 March 2022 by Magic Box Int. Toys SLU against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-549/20, Magic Box Int. Toys v EUIPO — KMA Concepts

(Case C-194/22 P)

(2022/C 340/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Magic Box Int. Toys SLU (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, KMA Concepts Ltd.

By order of 7 June 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal and ordered Magic Box Int. Toys to bear its own costs.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40899

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

RAUL JAVIER STEVENS,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-135-1

Before BARKSDALE, ELROD, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se, Raul Javier Stevens, who was convicted in 2005 of 

drug-related offenses, contests the denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 36 motion. He asserts: the district court’s discussion at sentencing 

concerning the appropriateness of a two-level role adjustment under 

Sentencing Guideline § 3B1.1(c) conflicted with its adoption of the presentence

investigation report, which recommended a three-level Guideline § 3B1.1(b) 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 31, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40899 Document: 00514704662 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2018
No. 17-40899

2

role adjustment, and the guidelines calculation and the imposed sentence were 

therefore in error; and, because the claimed oral pronouncement of his 

sentence conflicted with the written pronouncement of his sentence, the oral 

pronouncement controls and the “clerical error” can be corrected pursuant to 

Rule 36. (Our court rejects Stevens’ contention that we should reverse the 

judgment because the Government’s response to his Rule 36 motion was mailed 

to a prison facility where he was formerly housed.)

Rule 36 provides: “the court may at any time correct a clerical error in a 

judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record 

arising from oversight or omission”. Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. Stevens “has not 

shown that the [claimed] discrepancy between the orally imposed sentence and 

the written judgment is a clerical mistake or oversight which the district court 

may correct pursuant to Rule 36”. United States v. Slanina, 359 F.3d 356, 357–

58 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Mackay, 757 F.3d 

195, 200 (5th Cir. 2014) (noting Rule 36 is meant to correct only “mindless and 

mechanistic mistakes”). In any event, there is no conflict between the court’s 

oral and written pronouncements. The court, at sentencing and in the written 

judgment, imposed a sentence of 274 months’ imprisonment. (Stevens’ 

sentence was later reduced to 222 months’ imprisonment, pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (allowing the court to modify a sentence based on a 

sentencing range subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission)).

Moreover, the record and the reasons given by the district court for 

denying Stevens’ Rule 36 motion make clear that application of the three-level 

§ 3B1.1(b) adjustment was not the result of a clerical mistake or oversight. See 

United States v. Buendia-Rangel, 553 F.3d 378, 379 (5th Cir. 2008). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-40899 Document: 00514704662 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2018
---



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549



FORM 8-K



CURRENT REPORT



Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934



Date of Report (date of earliest
event reported): March 31, 2003



Equistar Chemicals, LP

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



|Delaware                        |  | 333-76473    |  | 76-0550481         
|------------------------------- |  | ------------ |  | -------------------
|(State or other jurisdiction of |  | (Commission  |  | (I.R.S. Employer   
|incorporation)                  |  | File Number) |  | Identification No.)



1221
McKinney Street

Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77010

(Address of principal executive offices and zip code)



Registrants telephone number, including area code: 713-652-7200



---



---



Item 5. Other Events and
Regulation FD Disclosure.



Equistar Chemicals, LP
(Equistar) has entered into a long-term propylene supply arrangement with Sunoco, Inc. (Sunoco) and sold its Bayport polypropylene manufacturing unit in Pasadena, Texas to Sunoco. The transactions are effective as of March
31, 2003.



Beginning April 1, 2003, Equistar will supply
propylene to Sunoco for a period of 15 years, and a majority of the propylene to be supplied will be provided under a cost-based formula.



Equistar sold its Bayport polypropylene unit to Sunoco, but retained ownership of its Bayport low-density polyethylene (LDPE) unit. Sunoco
will operate both units. Equistars Novolen®based polypropylene manufacturing plant in Morris, Illinois
and its interest in the Novolen Technology Holdings venture are not included in the transaction.



The total consideration to Equistar for the supply arrangements and asset sale is approximately $190 million, plus the value of the Bayport polypropylene inventory. The net proceeds received by
Equistar have initially been used to repay all $104 million of borrowings then-outstanding under Equistars revolving credit facility.



Equistar is a major producer of propylene and Sunoco is a growing, committed producer of polypropylene, said Dan F. Smith, Equistar CEO.
These transactions enable each company to focus on its particular area of expertise. Additionally, the cash received from these transactions will enable Equistar to enhance liquidity, which remains key among our financial priorities.



As a result of the transactions, the commitment under
Equistars revolving credit facility has been reduced by $96 million, to $354 million.





---



SIGNATURES



Pursuant to the requirements of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.



Equistar Chemicals, LPBy:

/s/ Gerald A. OBrienGerald A. OBrien Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary




Date: March 31,
2003
Exhibit 10.20


 


 


 


[DELTATHREE, INC. LETTERHEAD]







 





December 31, 2013


 


[________________]


[________________]


 


Dear [_____]:


 


You have elected to defer receipt of
certain amounts which will otherwise become payable to you by deltathree Inc. (the "Company") in the future, effective
on January 1, 2014, in connection with your service on the Board of Directors of the Company and certain Committees of that Board.
This letter sets forth the terms of the deferral facility.


 


 


		1.	This agreement shall cover half (50%) the amounts otherwise payable to you in cash by the Company in connection with your service
as a member of the Board of Directors of the Company, and chairmanship or membership fees otherwise payable in connection with
your service on certain Committees of that Board during the period covered by this agreement (the "Deferred Payments").
Deferred Payments shall not include stock-based compensation paid or payable to you or reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection
with your Company activities.



 


		2.	The Deferred Payment shall be paid to you in a lump sum, by December 31, 2014.



 


		3.	In the event of Change of Control, as defined under the deltathree 2009 stock incentive plan, the Deferred Payment shall be
paid to you in a lump sum within 30 days of such event taking place.



 


		4.	This agreement shall continue in full force and effect unless it shall be terminated, by you or by the Company, by either party
giving written notice, 30 days in advance of such termination. Notwithstanding the giving of such notice, amounts deferred prior
to the effective date of termination shall be paid at the time and in the manner set forth in paragraph 2 above.



 


Please indicate your acknowledgment
of an agreement to all of the foregoing by signing below.


 



    	 



    	 



    




 





Very truly yours,


 


deltathree, Inc.


by:


 


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


Name: Effi Baruch


Title: CEO & President


 


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO:


 


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


[________]


Date:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9761-9762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5220]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-407-011]


Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

February 26, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 21, 1997, Questar Pipeline Company, 
(Questar) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, Fifth Substitute Alternate Fifth Revised 
Sheet No. 5, and Third Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 6A, to be 
effective February 1, 1996.
    Questar states that the proposed tariff sheets respond to the 
Commission's February 6, 1997 letter order in Docket No. RP95-407-010.
    Questar states further that a copy of this filing has been served 
upon its customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah and the 
Wyoming Public Service Commission.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). All such 
protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the 
Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be

[[Page 9762]]

taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5220 Filed 3-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000511 21-JUN-2019 07:49 AM
No. 11-10370.

#### Soto-Quinones *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-550]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-216-000]


Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of GSR Revised Tariff Sheets

January 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 31, 1996, Southern Natural Gas Company 
(Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets with the proposed 
effective date of January 1, 1997:

    Tariff Sheets Applicable to Contesting Parties:

Twentieth Revised Sheet No. 14
Forty-Second Revised Sheet No. 15
Twentieth Revised Sheet No. 16
Forty-Second Revised Sheet No. 17
Twenty-Seventh Revised Sheet No. 29

    Southern states that it submits the revised tariff sheets to its 
FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, to reflect a change in 
its FT/FT-NN GSR Surcharge, resulting from a credit for interim firm 
transportation provided during December 1996 and an increase in GSR 
billing units effective January 1, 1997.
    Southern states that copies of the filing were served upon all 
parties listed on the official service list compiled by the Secretary 
in these proceedings.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such motions or protests must be 
filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's 
Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of Southern's 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-550 Filed 1-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 99.1

                               TALK VISUAL CORPORATION

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 Talk Visual Corporation (the "Company")  Quarterly Report
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Harley
L. Rollins,  Chief Executive  Offer and Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

         (1). The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: November 14, 2002         By:      /s/ HARLEY L. ROLLINS
                                         -------------------------------
                                             Harley L. Rollins
                                             Chief Executive Officer and
                                             Chief Financial Officer
(logo) Rialto

CAPITAL

 

 

**2018 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item1123)**

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the " Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as ofSeptember 1, 2014 by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee,Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent andCustodian and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC as Trust Advisor relating toMorgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2014-C18, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-C18 **(MSBAM 2014-C18)**

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the"Special Servicer")hereincertifies to the following:

 

1.       All servicing activities and performanceof such servicing activities under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.       A review of the servicing activities andperformance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2018to December 31, 2018 (the"Reporting Period")in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement hasbeen conducted under my supervision.

 

3.       To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligationsunder the terms of the Pooling andServicing Agreement,in all material respects for the Reporting Periodand if there has been a failure to fulfill any suchobligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specificallyidentified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, ManagingDirector 

 

Date: March 1, 2019
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

 

**2016 Annual Statement ofServicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of April 1,2015 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., asDepositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, RialtoCapital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc.as Trust Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as CertificateAdministrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and Wilmington Trust,National Association as Trustee relating to the Wells Fargo Commercial MortgageTrust 2015-NXS 1, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series2015-NXS1

**(WFCM 2015-NXSl**)

 

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the"Special Servicer") herein certifies to the following:

 

1. All servicing activitiesand performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2. A review of the servicingactivities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1,2016 to December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period") in accordance withthe Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in allmaterial respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure tofulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, Managing Director

Date:  March 1, 2017
Exhibit 10.13










American Restaurant Concepts, Inc.


Summary of Compensation Arrangement With Daniel Slone













The following is a summary of the compensation arrangement for Daniel Slone in connection with his appointment as the Chief Financial Officer of American Restaurant Concepts, Inc. effective August 19, 2013.










Annual Base Salary: $1.00
No. 11-10222.

#### Al-Ami’n *v.*Clarke, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
U.S. Deportment 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

April 7, 2015 

Ms. Suzanne Dickerson 

Parent of Ryan Dickerson 

5612 Darmondale 

San Antonio, TX 78261 

Dear Ms. Dickerson: 

800 Independence Ave .. S w 

Washington. D.C. 20591 

We offer an apology for not being able to follow up to your request; it is incomplete. This letter 

is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an extension of Exemption No. 

10750 from§ 121.311(b) ofTitle 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why 

we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Cannot Process Your Request 

The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). 

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us the following: 

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

above to reach us within 30 days. We have included a website where you can download 

sample letters that may help you with your request for an extension of your exemption --

http://kidsflysafe.com/instructions/cares-for-special-needs-flyers. We will consider the docket 

on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that 

§ 11.63( d) requires you to send your request at least 120 days before the proposed effective 

date of the exemption. Under normal circumstances, the exemption process may take up to 

120 days, therefore, you should plan accordingly. 
2IfWe Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. Again, we offer an apology and we look forward to hearing from you. 

Si ~~~ J .( 

c:· Y (A. ~ ...,. ------- 1 } / 

Valcz_9 (0-z:--neda 

rogram Analyst 

Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure