alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10479-10480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5697]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 961107312-7012-02; I.D. 022897D]


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Species in 
the Rock Sole/Flathead Sole/``Other Flatfish'' Fishery Category by 
Vessels Using Trawl Gear in Bycatch Limitation Zone 1

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is closing directed fishing for species in the rock sole/
flathead sole/``other flatfish'' fishery category by vessels using 
trawl gear in Bycatch Limitation Zone 1 (Zone 1) of the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to 
prevent exceeding the 1997 bycatch allowance of C. bairdi Tanner crab 
apportioned to the trawl rock sole/flathead sole/``other flatfish'' 
fishery category in Zone 1.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 4, 1997, 
until 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Smoker, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive 
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management 
Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 
under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by regulations 
implementing the FMP at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 
679.
    The bycatch allowance of red king crab for the BSAI trawl rock 
sole/flathead sole/``other flatfish'' fishery category, which is 
defined at Sec. 679.21(e)(3)(iv)(B)(2), was established by the Final 
1997 Harvest Specifications of Groundfish (62 FR 7168, February 18, 
1997) as 394,736 animals.
    In accordance with Sec. 679.21(e)(7)(ii), the Administrator, Alaska 
Region, NMFS, has determined that the 1997 bycatch allowance of C. 
bairdi Tanner crab apportioned to the trawl rock sole/flathead sole/
``other flatfish'' fishery in

[[Page 10480]]

Zone 1 has been caught. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed 
fishing for species in the rock sole/flathead sole/``other flatfish'' 
fishery category by vessels using trawl gear in Zone 1.
    Maximum retainable bycatch amounts for applicable gear types may be 
found in the regulations at Sec. 679.20(e) and (f).

Classification

    This action is required by 50 CFR 679.21 and is exempt from review 
under E.O. 12866.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 3, 1997.
Bruce Morehead,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 97-5697 Filed 3-4-97; 3:06 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Exhibit 99.1

          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 Quarterly Report of ChrisKen Partners Cash Income
Fund L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for
the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John F. Kennedy, Chief
Executive Officer of ChrisKen Income Properties, Inc., the managing general
partner 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 my knowledge
and based on my review of the Report:


     1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




                                 By:   ChrisKen Income Properties, Inc.
                                       Managing General Partner


                                       By:   /s/ John F. Kennedy
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             John F. Kennedy
                                             Chief Executive Officer

                                 August 14, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ChrisKen Partners Cash Income Fund L.P. and will be retained by
ChrisKen Partners Cash Income Fund L.P. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2023112EN.01002302.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 16 December 2022 — WD v Allane SE

(Case C-766/22)

(2023/C 112/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WD

Defendant: Allane SE

Questions referred

| 1. | Do mileage-dependent leasing contracts entered into with a consumer in respect of a motor vehicle for a term of 24 months constitute ‘car rental services’, meaning that they fall within the scope of the exception from the right of withdrawal under distance marketing law as set out in Article 16(l) of Directive 2011/83/EU? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do mileage-dependent leasing contracts entered into with a consumer in respect of a motor vehicle for a term of 24 months constitute ‘car rental services’, meaning that they fall within the scope of the exception from the right of withdrawal under distance marketing law as set out in Article 16(l) of Directive 2011/83/EU? (1)

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
  Do mileage-dependent leasing contracts entered into with a consumer in respect of a motor vehicle constitute contracts for financial services within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2002/65/EC, (2) which was reproduced by Article 2(12) of Directive 2011/83? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

Do mileage-dependent leasing contracts entered into with a consumer in respect of a motor vehicle constitute contracts for financial services within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2002/65/EC, (2) which was reproduced by Article 2(12) of Directive 2011/83?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).

(2)  Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16).

---
#### Susan Mae POLK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary LATTIMORE, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15787

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 23, 2018

Susan Mae Polk, Pro Se

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Susan Mae Polk appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42' U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with federal pleading rules, *Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co.,*651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court dismissed Polk’s claims because Polk failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. All but one were properly dismissed. *See Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

However, in her fourth amended complaint, Polk alleged that, on or about July 23, 2008, defendant Baron put a “snitch jacket” on Polk, resulting in an attack on Polk by her cellmate. *See Valandingham v. Bojorquez,*866 F.2d 1135, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 1989) (prisoner’s allegation that officials labeled him a snitch with the intent of having prisoner killed supported a cause of action under § 1983). Because it is not clear from the record whether the district court considered this claim, we vacate the judgment in part and remand for further proceedings on this claim only, including leave to amend this claim if appropriate. *See Weilburg v. Shapiro,*488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9750-9751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5263]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 011597A]


Pacific Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of California, Oregon, 
Washington, Alaska and in the Columbia River Basin

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of intent; scoping meeting; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of January 27, 1997, NMFS announced 
its intent to hold scoping meetings, prepare Environmental Assessments 
(EAs) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on ocean and in-river 
fisheries that may result in the incidental take of Pacific salmonids 
currently listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species 
Act. NMFS will hold an additional scoping meeting in Alaska and is also 
extending the comment period on the EIS and EAs.

DATES: Written comments will be accepted through March 21, 1997. The 
scoping meeting will be held on March 6, 1997, 1:30-3:30 p.m., Sitka, 
AK.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests to be included on a mailing 
list of persons interested in the EIS should be sent to Joseph R. Blum, 
Office of Protected Resources, Endangered Species Division (PR3), 
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver 
Spring, MD 20910.

[[Page 9751]]

    The scoping meeting for Alaska will be held at the Swan Lake Senior 
Center, 402 Lake Street, Sitka, AK 99835.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph R. Blum (301) 713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Background and rationale for this action were provided in the 
notice of intent (62 FR 3873, January 27, 1997) and are not repeated 
here.

Special Accommodations

    Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Tamra Faris (907) 586-7228 at least 3 days before 
the meeting date.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. et. seq.

    Dated: February 26, 1997.
Gary C. Matlock,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-5263 Filed 3-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  on Form S-3 (File Nos.  33-26818 and  333-65053)  and Form S-8 (File
Nos. 33-27396,  333-23393,  333-41113 and 333-41157) of Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
of our report dated  February 10, 2000 relating to the financial  statements and
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 13, 2000
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-153-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A1 29 4 . J USTI SS v . THE STATE.

Th i s i s a p ro s e ap p eal fro m t h e den i al o f Os car J u s t i s s ’ s m o t io n t o wi t h d raw

h i s g u i l t y p l ea t o ch i l d m ol es t at i o n ch arg es

. T he ap peal was d ock et ed o n M arch 2 3,

2 0 1 6

, su ch t h at J u s ti s s ’ s i n i t i a l b ri ef was d u e o n Ap ri l 1 3, 2 0 16

. Co u rt o f Ap p eal s

Ru l e 1 3

. On t h a t d a y, th i s Co u rt ord ered J u s t is s t o fi l e an i n i t ial b ri ef, warn i n g t h at

fai l u re t o d o s o

, “ ab s en t an ex ten s io n u p o n m o t i o n f o r g o o d cau s e s ho wn ,” wo u ld

res u l t i n t h e d i s m i s s al o f t h e ap p eal “ i n st an t er wi th o u t fu rt h er n o t i ce.”

As o f M ay 2

, 2 0 1 6

, J u s t is s h as n ei t h er fi l ed an i n i t i al b ri ef n o r m o v ed fo r an

ex t en s i o n t o d o s o

. Th i s ap p eal i s t h erefo re DISM ISSED. See Ro wl a n d v. S t a t e

, 2 6 4

G a

. 8 7 2 (4 5 2 SE2 d 75 6) (1 9 95 ); Rees e v. S t a t e

, 2 1 6 Ga. Ap p

. 7 73 (4 5 6 SE2 d 2 7 1 )

(1 9 9 5).

W e al s o i n s t ru ct J us t is s as fo l l o ws : Yo u r ap p eal h as b een DISM ISSED b ecau s e

y o u fai l ed to fi l e a bri ef an d en u m erat i o n o f erro rs

. If y o u h av e d e c i d e d yo u d o n ot

w a n t t o ap p eal

, y o u need n o t d o an y t h i n g m o re. Ho wev er, i f y o u d o s t il l wan t t o

ap p eal

, y o u m ay hav e t h e ri g h t t o an OUT-OF-TIM E APPEAL

-- b u t YOU M UST

TAKE ACTION t o ex erci s e t h at ri g h t b y m o v i n g fo r an o u t-o f-t i m e ap p eal i n t h e t ri al

co u rt

. If y o u r m o ti o n fo r an o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal i s g ran t ed

, t h e t ri a l c o u rt s h o u ld

ap p oi n t an at t o rn ey fo r y o u i f y o u w an t o n e an d can n o t p ay fo r o n e. If y ou r m o t i o n

fo r an o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal i s d en i ed

, y ou m ay ap p e a l t h at d en ial t o t h i s co u rt wi t h in

t h i rt y (3 0 ) d ay s o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s io n . See Rees e , 2 16 Ga. Ap p . at 7 75

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 05/05/2016 May 05, 2016
# C_2023054EN.01001501.xml

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/15

---

Appeal brought on 19 August 2022 by Vtesse Harlow Ltd against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2022 in Case T-64/22, Vtesse Harlow v Commission

(Case C-559/22 P)

(2023/C 54/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Vtesse Harlow Ltd (represented by: H. Mercer KC)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 19 December 2022, The Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded and that Vtesse Harlow Ltd shall bear its own costs.

---
# C_2023261EN.01003202.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Roxtec and Wallmax v EUIPO — Wallmax and Roxtec (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles)

(Joined Cases T-218/22 and 219/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative trade mark representing a blue square containing eight concentric black circles - absolute ground of invalidity - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 261/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant in Case T-218/22: Roxtec AB (Karlskrona, Sweden) (represented by: J. Olsson and J. Adamsson, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-219/22: Wallmax Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Ferrari, L. Goglia and G. Rapaccini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court in Case T-218/22: Wallmax (Milan) (represented by: F. Ferrari, L. Goglia and C. Rapaccini, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court in Case T-219/22: Roxtec (Karlskrona) (represented by: J. Olsson and J. Adamsson, lawyers)

Re:

By their actions based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant in Case T-218/22 and the applicant in Case T-219/22 seek annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 February 2022 (Case R 1093/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Roxtec AB, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Wallmax Srl to bear their own costs in Case T-218/22; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Roxtec AB, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Wallmax Srl to bear their own costs in Case T-218/22;

| 3. | Orders Wallmax to pay the costs in Case T-219/22. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Wallmax to pay the costs in Case T-219/22.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 14

- 00385

- CR Chico Warn

- Her DYKE , Appellant

v. The State of The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014CR106 5 Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 23, 2014
DIS MISSED
Pursua nt to a plea

- bargain agreement, appellant pled nolo contendere to assault and was sentenced to four years in prison in accordance with the terms of his plea

- bargain agreement. On May 14 , 2014, the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea

- bargain cas e, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). After appellant filed a notice of appeal, the trial court clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to this court. See id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See id. 25.2(d).04

- 14

- 00385

- CR “In a plea bargain case . . . a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the pro secutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave appellant permission to appeal. See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea

- bargain case and that appellant does not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the

recor d.” Id. 25.2(d). We, therefore, warned appellant that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), unless an amended trial court cert ification showing that appellant had the right to appeal was made part of the app ellate record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order). No such amended trial court certification has been filed. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2

-
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

 38

 40

 42

 44

★▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

06/16

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 16 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
#### Jason RAZIEN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MICRO FOCUS (US), INCORPORATED; Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-50724 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 23, 2018

Kaushik Rambhotla, Esq., Rambhotla Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Thomas Martin Fulkerson, Esq., Fulk-erson Lotz, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Micro Focus (US), Incorporated

Darren Glenn Gibson, Salvador Davila, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jason Razien appeals the dismissal of his Title VII complaint. The court has carefully considered this appeal in light of the briefs, complaint, and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we find no error of law or reversible error of fact. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the same reasons articulated by that court.

*

 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.
# C_2022326EN.01000303.xml

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/3

---

Appeal brought on 8 April 2022 by Ignacio Carrasco SL against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2022 in Case T-209/21, Ignacio Carrasco SL v EUIPO, Santos Carrasco Manzano SA

(Case C-247/22 P)

(2022/C 326/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Ignacio Carrasco SL (represented by: J .L. Donoso Romero, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Santos Carrasco Manzano SA

By order of 14 July 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Ignacio Carrasco SL to bear its own costs.

---