alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021182EN.01006001.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/60

---

Action brought on 5 March 2021 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Kerckhoff (apo-discounter.de)

(Case T-140/21)

(2021/C 182/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apologistics GmbH (Markkleeberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hug, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Markus Kerckhoff (Bergisch Gladbach, 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 figurative mark apo-discounter.de in red and yellow — European Union trade mark No 9 435 496

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 December 2020 in Case R 1439/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision to the extent that the European Trademark apo-discounter.de (No. 9 435 496) was declared invalid for the following services:
  Class 35 — Retail services in relation to pharmacy products, chemicals, household goods and goods for the health sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision to the extent that the European Trademark apo-discounter.de (No. 9 435 496) was declared invalid for the following services:

Class 35 — Retail services in relation to pharmacy products, chemicals, household goods and goods for the health sector;

| — | order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceeding. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceeding.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
I Recording Information

I Note-taking

Recording your evidence

:-

I What kinds of evidence do you collect?

I How do you preserve it?

I Observations and interviews

I Field notes

Summaries

I Physical evidence

The thing itself; chain; analysis

I Demonstrative evidence

Represents or summarizes

How to Remember?

I Document it!

I Field Notes

I Logs

V I Investigative

V (Narrative) Report

1
I Quick, efficient,

portable

Stye...

I Outhne form

I Numbered

1 2 column; 3 column

I Bullets

I Pictures, maps or

diagrams

N Key words or phrases

I Whole or partial

quotes

4.

When?

1. During interview

I After interview

I BOTH!

2
I Videotape

To quote or not to quote...

I It depends...

[Does a summary

statement sufficiently

and accurately capture

the statement?

I Isthe quote essenti&

to the violation?

I How much of the

quote do you need?

3
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5357]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96-176; RM-8851]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Greensboro, AL

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document allots Channel 256A to Greensboro, Alabama, as 
that community's first local aural transmission service, in response to 
a petition for rule making filed by Autaugaville Radio, Inc. See 61 FR 
47471, September 8, 1996. Coordinates used for Channel 256A at 
Greensboro, Alabama, are 32-47-22 and 87-34-39. With this action, the 
proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective April 14, 1997. The window period for filing 
applications for Channel 256A at Greensboro, Alabama, will open on 
April 14, 1997, and close on May 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180. Questions related to the window application filing process 
for Channel 256A at Greensboro, Alabama, should be addressed to the 
Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 96-176, adopted February 21, 1997, and 
released February 28, 1997. The full text of this Commission decision 
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-
3800.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154, 
as amended.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Alabama, is 
amended by adding Greensboro, Channel 256A.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-5357 Filed 3-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated condensed financial statements of American Restaurant Partners,
L.P. at March 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          499149
<SECURITIES>                                    144001
<RECEIVABLES>                                   641308
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     275216
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1367535
<PP&E>                                        29363973
<DEPRECIATION>                                12881423
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                21683635
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4570255
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (4196907)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  21683635
<SALES>                                        9226646
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               9226646
<CGS>                                          2430832
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8609679
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              553188
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  66106
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              66106
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     66106
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8229 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8229

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 7, 2020

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business 
                          and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to 
 issue a rule authorizing the Office of Hearings and Appeals to decide 
 appeals relating to the status of HUBZone business concerns, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Parity for HUBZone Appeals Act of 
2020''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR THE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS TO DECIDE 
              APPEALS RELATING TO QUALIFIED HUBZONE SMALL BUSINESS 
              CONCERNS.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Administrator of the Small Business Administration shall issue a 
rule authorizing the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the 
Administration to decide all appeals from formal protest determinations 
in connection with the status of a concern as qualified HUBZone small 
business concern (as such term is defined in section 31(b) of the Small 
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657a(b))).

            Passed the House of Representatives December 3, 2020.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8790 

To extend the wildfire and hurricane indemnity program to cover certain 

crop losses in calendar year 2020, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2020 

Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself, Mr. PANETTA, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. DEFAZIO, and Mr. NEWHOUSE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To extend the wildfire and hurricane indemnity program 

to cover certain crop losses in calendar year 2020, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘2020 WHIP+ Reau5 thorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CROP LOSSES OCCURRING IN CALENDAR YEAR 2020. 

7 Amounts appropriated by section 791(d) of division 

8 B of Public Law 116–94 shall also be made available for 

9 necessary expenses related to losses of crops (including 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8790 IH

1 smoke-tainted wine grapes) as a consequence of wildfires 

2 occurring in calendar year 2020 in the same manner as 

3 other crop losses under the heading ‘‘Department of Agri4 culture—Agricultural Programs—Processing, Research 

5 and Marketing—Office of the Secretary’’ in title I of the 

6 Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Re7 lief Act, 2019 (Public Law 116–20). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABRIEL ECKARD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

PATRICIA THOMAS, Deputy, Snohomish 

County Jail; CLINTON MOLL, Deputy, 

Snohomish County Jail, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

JAMIE KANE, Deputy, Snohomish County 

Jail, 

Defendant.

No. 20-35267 

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00104-RSM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 12, 2021**

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 15 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-35267 

Washington state prisoner Gabriel Eckard appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process 

violations arising from his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s ruling on cross-motions for 

summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 

F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants 

because Eckard failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 

defendants’ use of a restraint chair was not reasonably related to the legitimate 

objectives of maintaining jail safety and security. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 

520, 538-39 (1979) (“Absent a showing of an expressed intent to punish on the part 

of detention facility officials . . . if a particular condition or restriction of pretrial 

detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, 

without more, amount to punishment.” (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 12

                             EQUISTAR CHEMICALS, LP
                STATEMENT SETTING FORTH DETAIL FOR COMPUTATION OF
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                              (Millions of dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                   Year Ended December 31,
                                                                          -------------------------------------------
                                                                           2002     2001    2000      1999      1998
                                                                          ------   -----   ------    ------    ------
<S>                                                                       <C>      <C>      <C>       <C>       <C>
 Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes ........    $(246)   $(280)   $153      $ 32      $143
 Fixed charges:
      Interest expense, gross ........................................      205      192     185       182       156
      Portion of rentals representative of interest ..................       42       37      38        37        37
                                                                          -----    -----    ----      ----      ----
           Total fixed charges before capitalized interest ...........      247      229     223       219       193
      Capitalized interest ...........................................       --       --      --        --        --
                                                                          -----    -----    ----      ----      ----
           Total fixed charges including capitalized interest ........      247      229     223       219       193
                                                                          -----    -----    ----      ----      ----
 Earnings (losses) ...................................................    $   1    $ (51)   $376      $251      $336
 Ratio of earnings (losses) to fixed charges (a) .....................       --       --     1.7       1.1       1.7
                                                                          =====    =====    ====      ====      ====
</TABLE>


(a)  In 2002 and 2001, earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges by $246
     million and $280 million, respectively.
No. 11-10359.

#### Kirkpatrick *v.*Texas (four judgments).

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.
# C_2022002EN.01004401.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/44

---

Action brought on 28 October 2021 — aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik v EUIPO — aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik (aTmos)

(Case T-694/21)

(2022/C 2/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: F. Stangl and S. Pilgram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik GmbH (Riedstadt, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘aTmos’ — European Union trade mark No 12 285 649

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2021 in Case R 1844/2020-5

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 the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of the second sentence of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the second sentence of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
From: Peter Westlin/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Rochelle Bo yd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Paul Ottenstein <POttenstein@airtest.net>, Robin Segall/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Gary McAlister/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Parker.Barrett@epa.gov, Ron My ers/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jason Dewees/RTP/U SEPA/US@EPA, William Grimley/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, agnew.rachel@epa.gov, driscoll.tom@epa.gov, Jeff Ryan/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/03/2010 07:37 AM Subject: Re: Secondary

Aluminum Chip Dry ers and Delaq Furnaces ICR
Rochelle: Yes, the laboratory

may combine the three Method 0010 fractions extracted as per Method 3542 and anal yz e them as one using Method 8270C or D. You should issue this response to all of the sources and testing companies. Peter Westlin Measurement Policy

Group OAQPS, SPPD 919

- 541

- 1058

From: Paul Ottenstein <POttenstein@airtest.net> To: Rochelle Bo yd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/02/2010 03:43 PM Subject: Secondary

Aluminum Chip Dry ers and Delaq Furnaces ICR
Rochelle: On the 0010 anal yt ical for Delaq furnaces, what (if any) compositing is allowed? I know that 8270 likes three separate fractions, but we have combined fractions in other programs to lower detection limits (which will likely be important here), and save on anal yt ical costs. The lab (we h ave generall y used TestAmerica) has not had any problems combining analy tical fractions prior to analy sis. Thanks, Paul Ottenstein Technical Director Air Pollution Testing
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8686 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8686

To amend the CARES Act to require an extension of subsidies for certain 
                 loan payments, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 27, 2020

Mr. Carson of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the CARES Act to require an extension of subsidies for certain 
                 loan payments, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business COVID-19 Debt Relief 
Extension Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. SUBSIDY FOR CERTAIN LOAN PAYMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1112(c)(1) of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 
9011(c)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``6-month period'' each place it appears 
        and inserting ``12-month period''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (3) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``; and'' and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(D) with respect to a covered loan made on or 
                after the date of the enactment of the Small Business 
                COVID-19 Debt Relief Extension Act of 2020, for the 
                period ending on September 30, 2021, if the borrower of 
                such covered loan submits a request to the 
                Administrator on or before March 30, 2021.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply as if included in the enactment of section 1112 of the CARES Act 
(15 U.S.C. 9011).
                                 <all>
```
# C_2022073EN.01006102.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/61

---

Action brought on 22 December 2021 — Protectoplus v EUIPO (Li-SAFE)

(Case T-795/21)

(2022/C 73/76)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Protectoplus GmbH (Rensburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Li-SAFE’ — Application for registration No 18 288 094

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2021 in Case R 845/2021-1

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.

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.

---