alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023235EN.01000301.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Essen — Germany) — DC v HJ

(Case C-97/22, (1) DC (Withdrawal after performance of the contract))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 14(4)(a)(i) and (5) - Right of withdrawal for off-premises contracts - Information requirements for the trader concerned - Failure of that trader to inform the consumer - Obligations of the consumer in the event of withdrawal - Withdrawal after the performance of the contract - Consequences)

(2023/C 235/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Essen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DC

Defendant: HJ

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(4)(a)(i) and (5) of 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,

must be interpreted as meaning that it exempts a consumer from any obligation to pay for performance provided pursuant to an off-premises contract, where the trader concerned did not provide him or her with the information referred to in Article 14(4)(a)(i) of that directive and that consumer exercised his or her right of withdrawal after the performance of that contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 19.4.2022.

---
# C_2023261EN.01001901.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — E. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

(Case C-322/22, (1) Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of sincere cooperation - Principle of effectiveness - Tax levied by a Member State in breach of EU law - Breach established following a ruling of the Court of Justice - Right to be paid interest on the overpayment - National legislation limiting the right to the payment of interest to the period running until the thirtieth day following the publication of the ruling of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union)

(2023/C 261/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: E.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

interested party: Rzecznik Małych i Średnich Przedsiębiorców

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of effectiveness, in conjunction with the principle of sincere cooperation, must be interpreted as precluding a piece of national legislation which, when a request for a refund of an overpayment of tax is submitted more than 30 days after the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of a ruling of the Court of Justice from which the finding that the tax at issue is contrary to EU law is derived, limits the running of the interest on the overpayment due to the taxable person concerned to the thirtieth day following that publication, or even excludes interest entirely in a situation where that overpayment was incurred by the taxable person after that thirtieth day.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.

---
-78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0

38.5 39.0 39.5



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/22 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 22 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
# C_2022037EN.01004701.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/47

---

Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Refractory Intellectual Property v EUIPO (e-tech)

(Case T-737/21)

(2022/C 37/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Refractory Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark e-tech — Application for registration No 18 274 481

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2021 in Case R 548/2021-4

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.

Plea in law

| — | 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.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 12.1

                              BJ Services Company

                      Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                            (dollars in thousands)

                           (As per S-K Item 503(d))


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       Nine Months Ended Pro Forma   Pro Forma
                                      Year Ended September 30,            June 30,       June 30,  September 30,
                              ---------------------------------------- ----------------- --------- -------------
                               1997    1998     1999    2000    2001    2001     2002      2002        2001
                              ------- ------- -------  ------- ------- -------  -------  --------- -------------
<S>                           <C>     <C>     <C>      <C>     <C>     <C>      <C>      <C>       <C>
Pre-tax income............... 154,368 172,054 (44,909) 175,283 529,181 377,308  203,945   179,798     538,361
Minority interest expense....     805   3,206   2,585    3,263   6,803   4,587    3,560     3,560       6,803
Interest factor on rent......   8,859  15,384  15,624   18,745  20,233  15,175   16,471    19,521      24,300
Interest expense(1)..........  30,715  25,685  31,365   19,968  13,282  12,109    5,005    12,306      26,193
                              ------- ------- -------  ------- ------- -------  -------   -------     -------
Earnings, as defined......... 194,747 216,329   4,665  217,259 569,499 409,179  228,981   215,185     595,657
                              ======= ======= =======  ======= ======= =======  =======   =======     =======
Rent expense.................  26,576  46,153  46,871   56,235  60,700  45,525   49,412    58,562      72,900
Interest factor on rent (1/3)   8,859  15,384  15,624   18,745  20,233  15,175   16,471    19,521      24,300
Minority interest expense....     805   3,206   2,585    3,263   6,803   4,587    3,560     3,560       6,803
Interest expense.............  30,715  25,685  31,365   19,968  13,282  12,109    5,005    12,306      26,193
                              ------- ------- -------  ------- ------- -------  -------   -------     -------
Fixed charges, as defined....  40,379  44,275  49,574   41,976  40,318  31,871   25,036    35,387      57,296
                              ======= ======= =======  ======= ======= =======  =======   =======     =======
Fixed charge ratio...........    4.82    4.89     .09     5.18   14.13   12.84     9.15      6.08       10.40
                              ======= ======= =======  ======= ======= =======  =======   =======     =======
</TABLE>

--------
(1) Includes amortization of debt issue costs.
No. 11-9797.

#### Miller *v.*Marshall.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari before judgment denied.
No. 11-9963.

#### Mendiola *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EX-10.5(c)



 Exhibit 10.5(c) 
 June 1, 2013 
 Campbell & Company, Inc. 
 2850 Quarry Lake Drive 
 Baltimore, MD 21209 
 Attn: Mr. Tom Lloyd 
  

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewals 

 Dear Mr. Lloyd:

 We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management
Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2014 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	 Potomac Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 CMF Campbell Master Fund L.P. 


 Please
acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Damian George at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any questions I can be reached at 212-296-1292.

  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By: 	 	 /s/ Damian George

		 	Damian George
		 	Chief Financial Officer & Director
	
	CAMPBELL & COMPANY, INC.
		
	By: 	 	 /s/ Thomas P. Lloyd



			
		
	Print Name:	 	 Thomas P. Lloyd


 DG/sr
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 3, 2019

No. 04-18-00834-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.H., A CHILD,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-20578

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due April 24, 2019. On that day, appellant filed a motion for 

extension of time, seeking an additional fourteen days to file his brief. After consideration, we 

GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER appellant to file his brief in this court on or before 

May 8, 2019.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of May, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
     I,Lawrence R. Litowitz, Interim Chief Financial Officer ofMayor’s Jewelers, Inc., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to this quarterly report on Form10-Q/A of Mayor’s Jewelers, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this annual report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: January 7, 2005 /s/ Lawrence R. Litowitz Lawrence R. LitowitzInterimChief Financial Officer
# C_2022119EN.01003001.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/30

---

Appeal brought on 20 January 2022 by Liam Jenkinson against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-602/15 RENV, Jenkinson v Council and Others

(Case C-46/22 P)

(2022/C 119/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Liam Jenkinson (represented by: N. de Montigny, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service, Eulex Kosovo

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | dispose of the case and grant the form of order sought by the applicant at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

dispose of the case and grant the form of order sought by the applicant at first instance;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

| — | order the respondents to pay all the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings and in each of the earlier proceedings (T-602/15; C-43/17 P; T-602/15 RENV). |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondents to pay all the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings and in each of the earlier proceedings (T-602/15; C-43/17 P; T-602/15 RENV).

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges misinterpretation of the claims and pleas put forward in that the General Court excluded from its review all principal claims based on a plea of illegality.

The second ground of appeal alleges a reduction of the factual and legal considerations set out by the applicant and therefore of the subject matter of the action in that the General Court exclusively analysed the applicant’s last post in the Eulex Kosovo Mission.

The third ground of appeal is directed against the judgment under appeal in so far as it rejected the first principal head of claim.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges misapplication of the principle of equal treatment between staff members of the Union and infringement of Article 336 TFEU, the General Court having reversed the intention of the EU legislature to offer minimum social security coverage to all employees. In the appellant’s view, the General Court also infringed the concept of the rule of law by excluding all non-contractual liability of the defendants.

The fifth ground of appeal is directed against the rejection, on grounds of inadmissibility, of the third head of claim put forward in the alternative at first instance. In any event, the appellant submits that the General Court should have raised of its own motion certain pleas involving matters of public policy and analysed the merits of the case.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Aldreias CAMPBELL Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-2491

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 2, 2018

Filed: February 9, 2018

Emily K. Nydle, Assistant United States Attorney, Lisa C. Williams, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Aldreias Campbell, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Aldreias Campbell challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed following his guilty plea to a drug charge. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court erred at sentencing by departing upward under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a), and that Campbell’s sentence is substantively unreasonable.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward, because it took into account the number and severity of Campbell’s un-seored convictions, and his likelihood to recidivate, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a); United States v. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); and that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as the court properly considered and individually assessed several 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en bane) (standard of review).

Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous *730issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and affirm.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa,
No. 11-10238.

#### Jones *v.*Bonevelle.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
|    |                                                                                                                   |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Company. |

|                                             |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                             |  |  |  |
| /S/    MALON WILKUS     |   |
| Name:                                       |    | Malon Wilkus |   |
| Title:                                      |    | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| Date:                                       |    | May 7, 2012 |   |
|                                        |   |
| /S/    JOHN R. ERICKSON |   |
| Name:                                       |    | John R. Erickson |   |
| Title:                                      |    | Chief Financial Officer |   |
| Date:                                       |    | May 7, 2012 |   |
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.6
                                                                     -----------

                                SECOND AMENDMENT
                         SOUTHWEST BANK OF TEXAS, N.A.
                              401(k) SAVINGS PLAN



     WHEREAS, Southwest Bank of Texas, N.A. (the "Bank) has previously adopted
and is presently maintaining the Southwest Bank of Texas, N.A. 401(k) Savings
Plan; and

     WHEREAS, the Southwest Bank of Texas, N.A. 401(k) Savings Plan reserves to
the Bank the right to amend its Plan at any time and to any lawful extent deemed
advisable by appropriate amendment; and

     WHEREAS, the Bank now desires to amend its Plan in order to clarify its
provisions regarding participation by rehired employees;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Southwest Bank of Texas, N.A. 401(k) Savings Plan is
hereby amended effective as of January 1, 1996, in the following particulars,
but only the following particulars; to wit:


     SECTION 2.04, CONCERNING PARTICIPATION UPON REEMPLOYMENT, IS AMENDED IN ITS
ENTIRETY TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

     2.04  PARTICIPATION UPON REEMPLOYMENT. A Participant whose employment with
           the Employer terminates will reenter the Plan as a Participant as of
           the first day of the calendar quarter following the date of his
           reemployment. An Employee who satisfies the Plan's eligibility
           conditions but who terminates employment with the Employer prior to
           becoming a Participant will become a Participant in the Plan on the
           later of the Plan Entry Date on which he would have entered the Plan
           had he not terminated employment or the date of his reemployment. Any
           Employee who terminates employment prior to satisfying the Plan's
           eligibility conditions becomes a Participant in accordance with the
           provisions of Section 2.01.
<PAGE>
 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed in six (6) original
counterparts by the undersigned Bank acting herein by and through its duly
authorized officers on this the 18th Day of March, 1997.


                              SOUTHWEST BANK OF TEXAS, N.A.



                              BY:      David C. Farries
                                 ----------------------------------
                                    Executive Vice President

ATTEST:

Cassandra Sweet
-------------------------
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 3, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00545

- CR

Dellie Boykin OXENDINE , Jr.

,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1334 2CR

Honorable Enrique Fernandez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The trial court’s certification states “ the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” We

therefore ORDER the trial court clerk, Jo Ann Cervantes, to file, within ten days of the date of

this order , an electronic clerk’s record containing the following documents:

1. All pre

- trial motions and the orders on those motions, if any;

2. all documents relating to the defendant’s plea bargain, including the

court’s admonishments, the defendant’s waiver and consent to stipulation

of testimony, and any other st ipulations;

3. the judgment;

4. all post

-

judgment motions and the orders on those motions, if any;

5. the notice(s) of appeal;

6. the trial court’s certification of defendant’s right of appeal;

7. the criminal docket sheet ; and

8

. the bill of costs.All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court. The clerk

of this court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial court

clerk, and the court reporter(s) responsible for preparing the re porter’s record in this appeal.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I ha ve hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 3rd day of October, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court