alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021062EN.01004501.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/45

---

Action brought on 5 January 2021 — Emmentaler Switzerland v EUIPO (EMMENTALER)

(Case T-2/21)

(2021/C 62/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Emmentaler Switzerland (Berne, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark EMMENTALER — International registration designating the European Union No 1 378 524

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2020 in Case R 2402/2019-2

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, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 74(2) 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)(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.

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________
No. 96-40815 Summary Calendar

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STANLEY RENARD TILLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(6:96-CR-3-1)

_________________________________________________________________ February 4, 1997 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, AND BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Stanley Renard Tilley appeals the sente nce he received

pursuant to a plea of guilty for possession with intent to

distribute cocaine base. He contends that the district court

e rroneously rejected his contention that the Government acquired
knowledge of certain currency pursuant to a cooperation agreement.

We do not find clear err or. S ee United States v. Fitzgerald , 89- 2 -

F. 3d 218, 223 (5th Cir.), c ert. denied ,

___ U.S. ___, 117 S. Ct.

446 (1996).

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             971
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,128
<PP&E>                                          71,953
<DEPRECIATION>                                (29,274)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,097
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (20,402)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,226
<SALES>                                          8,698
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,059
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,081
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,632)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,480)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,480)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,480)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.44)


</TABLE>
# C_2022084EN.01004002.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/40

---

Action brought on 27 October 2021 — NO v Commission

(Case T-708/21)

(2022/C 84/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NO (represented by: E. Smartt, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Commission failed to act, in breach of its obligations under Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in that it did not define its position in response to the applicant’s complaints on, inter alia, State Aid by Ireland; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Commission failed to act, in breach of its obligations under Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in that it did not define its position in response to the applicant’s complaints on, inter alia, State Aid by Ireland;

| — | order the Commission to bear its costs, and; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its costs, and;

| — | order the applicant’s costs to be reimbursed. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant’s costs to be reimbursed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:

In accordance with Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union the Commission was obliged to define its position in response to the applicant’s complaints on, inter alia, State Aid by Ireland, on or before the expiry of a reasonable period since the applicant’s complaints. In connection with the failure to act within a reasonable period, the applicant called on the Commission to act, by letter of 28 June 2021. In reply to the applicant’s call to act, the Commission failed to define its position within the prescribed period following the applicant’s call to act.

Considering that under these circumstances the Commission’s failure to define its position is beyond dispute, the applicant brought the present action for failure to act under Article 265 TFEU.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8870 

To repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 4, 2020 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. PERRY, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. WEBER of Texas, 

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Mrs. LESKO, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. KING of Iowa, 

Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. STEUBE, and Mr. GRIFFITH) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION 

4 ACT OF 1993. 

5 The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 

6 U.S.C. 20501 et seq.) is repealed. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                    PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
Nos. 33-50199, 33-51309, 333-02763, 333-44991 and 333-76020 of Public Service
Electric and Gas Company on Form S-3 of our report dated February 15, 2002,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Public Service Electric and
Gas Company for the year ended December 31, 2001.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Parsippany, New Jersey
March 7, 2002
2022 EAVS Data Brief: Virginia EAVS Jurisdictions:

133 

 Voter Registration 

Active Reg. Voters as of Nov. 8, 20221 

5,736,016 

Reg. Forms Received2* 

3,382,438 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3* 

519,512 

Voters Removed from Reg. Rolls4* 

837,061 

Source of Registration Applications5 

Motor Vehicle Dept. 83.6% 

Online 8.4% 

Other 3.9% 

Mail, Email, Fax 2.5% 

In Person 1.5% 

 Voting and Turnout 

Voters Participating By Mode6 

7 Turnout 

48.4% In-Person 

Election Day 

2,033,530 

66.1% 

Mail 

289,428 

9.4% 

In-Person 

Early 

711,206 

23.1% 

Other 

40,598 

1.3% 

Total Voting Locations8: 2,535 

Total Poll Workers9: 19,922 

Election Technology 

Percentage of Jurisdictions Using...10 

100.0% 

Ballot 

Marking 

Devices 

100.0% 

Scanners 

89.5% 

Electronic 

Poll 

Books 

0.0% 

DREs w/o

VVPAT 

0.0% 

DREs with 

VVPAT 

0.0% 

Hand 

Counting 

 Mail Ballots 

• 360,659 mail ballots transmitted11 

• 81.0% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters12 

• 99.1% of returned mail ballots counted13 

• 0.9% of returned mail ballots rejected14 

• Did not conduct all-mail election15 

• Allowed drop boxes16 

• Allowed ballot curing17 

 Election Audits18 

-- Access audit 

-- Ballot design audit 

Ballot reconciliation -- audit 

Compliance/ -- procedural audit 

-- Eligibility audit 

-- Legal audit 

Logic and accuracy ✔ testing 

Post-election ✔ tabulation audit 

-- Other 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov 

/research-and-data/datasets-codebooks-and-surveys. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available,” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2020 

general election to close of 

registration for 2022 general 

election. 

1 A1b of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 A9a of EAVS. 

5 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a/A3a. 

In Person is A4b/A3a. Online is 

A4c/A3a. Motor Vehicle Dept. is 

A4d/A3a. Other is the sum of 

A4e–A4l/A3a. May not sum to 

100% because of missing data. 

6 In-Person Election Day is F1b. 

Mail is F1d+F1g. In-Person Early 

is F1f. Other is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

7 F1a of EAVS divided by citizen 

voting age population (CVAP). 

8 D2a of EAVS. 

9 D7a of EAVS. 

10 F3a–f, F5a–F9a of EAVS; 

number of jurisdictions that 

responded “Yes” divided by

number of jurisdictions in 

state/territory. 

11 C1a of EAVS. 

12 C1b/C1a of EAVS. 

13 C8a/C1b of EAVS. 

14 C9a/C1b of EAVS. 

15 Q17 and Q17a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

17 Q20 of Policy Survey. 

18 Q36 of Policy Survey. See 

survey questionnaire for full 

definitions of each type of 

audit.
#### COM. v. PARKS, D.

3497 EDA 2015

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/27/2017

CP-51-CR-0012472-2013

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
United States Election Assistance Commission

Certificate of Accreditation

Pro V&V, Inc.

Huntsville, Alabama

is recognized by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission for the testing of voting systems to the 

2005 and 2015 Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG 1.0 & 1.1) under the criteria set 

forth in the EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program and Laboratory Accreditation 

Program. Pro V&V is also recognized as having successfully completed assessments by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program for conformance to the requirements of ISO/

IEC 17025 and the criteria set forth in NIST Handbooks 150 and 150-22. 

Original Accreditation Issued on: 2/24/2015

Accreditation remains effective until revoked 

by a vote of the EAC pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 

20971(c)(2). 

Date: 2/1/21

Mona Harrington 

Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission

EAC Lab Code: 1501
United States Election Assistance Commission 

Certificate of Accreditation 

Pro V&V, Inc. 

Huntsville, Alabama 

is recognized by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission for the testing of voting systems to the 

2005 Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines under the criteria set forth in the EAC Voting System 

Testing and Certification Program and Laboratory Accreditation Program. Pro V&V is also 

recognized as having successfully completed assessments by the National Voluntary Laboratory 

Accreditation Program for conformance to the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 and the criteria 

set forth in NIST Handbooks 150 and 150-22. 

Effective Through 

February 24, 2017

Date: 2/24/15 

Acting Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

EAC Lab Code: 1501
No. 11-10568.

#### Avalos Cerpas *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                        CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Tutogen Medical Inc., a Florida corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 (the "Form 10-Q")
of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form
10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

                            Dated: February 13, 2007

                            /s/ Guy L. Mayer
                            ------------------------
                            Guy L. Mayer
                            Chief Executive Officer


                            Dated: February 13, 2007

                            /s/ L. Robert Johnston, Jr.
                            ------------------------
                            L. Robert Johnston, Jr.
                            Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>
         THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
         UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
         1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
         STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                                 <C>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS                     9-MOS
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999               JAN-01-1998
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1999               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                              6,529,000                 9,692,000
<SECURITIES>                        0                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                       19,892,000                14,685,000
<ALLOWANCES>                        0                         0
<INVENTORY>                         9,832,000                 7,023,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    38,962,000                33,703,000
<PP&E>                              8,716,000                 5,756,000
<DEPRECIATION>                      0                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      53,469,000                44,907,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               16,176,000                13,453,000
<BONDS>                             0                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0                         0
<PREFERRED>                         0                         0
<COMMON>                            54,000                    54,000
<OTHER-SE>                          33,073,000                28,563,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        53,469,000                44,907,000
<SALES>                             57,872,000                48,297,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    57,872,000                48,297,000
<CGS>                               34,139,000                29,166,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       52,115,000                43,601,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    622,000                   (140,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  143,000                   263,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     5,278,000                 5,099,000
<INCOME-TAX>                        1,855,000                 1,835,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 0                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                      0                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0                         0
<CHANGES>                           0                         0
<NET-INCOME>                        3,423,000                 3,264,000
<EPS-BASIC>                       .63                       .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                       .63                       .59


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME, THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND THE NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-04-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-02-1997
<CASH>                                          25,227
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,440
<INVENTORY>                                     75,165
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,578
<PP&E>                                          51,042
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,412
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,671
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,312
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                     122,356
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,671
<SALES>                                         53,309
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,309
<CGS>                                           41,365
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,365
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,956<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (579)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        64
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (643)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (643)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.02)
<FN>
<F1>OTHER EXPENSES CONSIST OF ALL OPERATING COSTS AND EXCLUDES INTEREST,
NON-OPERATING INCOME AND INCOME TAXES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40827

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE SANCHEZ-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

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

January 24, 2003

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jose Sanchez-Garcia (Sanchez) appeals the sentence following

his guilty-plea conviction for being found in the United States

after a prior deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and

(b). He argues that the district court erred in going beyond the

statute of conviction and the charging instrument to determine

that a 16-level increase in his offense level was warranted under

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii). He contends that the reasoning

from our decisions interpreting the “career offender” guidelines,

U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2, should be applied, which limit

consideration to the conduct charged in the indictment, rather
No. 02-40827

-2-

than the underlying conduct of the offense. See, United States

v. Gaitan, 954 F.2d 1005, 1009-11 (5th Cir. 1992); United States

v. Fitzhugh, 954 F.2d 253, 254-55 (5th Cir. 1992). 

Our holdings in Gaitan and Fitzhugh were based on specific

language contained in the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2,

limiting the sentencing court’s inquiry to the conduct alleged in

the indictment in determining whether the enhancement applies. 

Neither U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 nor its commentary contains such

limiting language. Furthermore, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 instructs that

when determining the defendant’s “specific offense

characteristics” under Chapter Two of the Guidelines, “[c]onduct

that is not formally charged or is not an element of the offense

of conviction may enter into the determination of the applicable

guideline sentencing range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, comment.

(backg’d). We conclude, therefore, that the district court did

not misapply U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii).

Sanchez also contends that the sentence-enhancing provisions

contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are facially unconstitutional in

light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Sanchez

acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the

issue for further review. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-624

In Re: SAMUEL HENDERSON, JR.,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-96-38-V)

Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 31, 1997

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Henderson, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Henderson, Jr., brought this mandamus petition seeking

an order directing the district court to render a decision on his

motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. Subsequently, the district court entered an

order granting Henderson's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Because his

mandamus petition is now moot, we deny the petition. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not significantly aid in the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED