alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022418EN.01004501.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/45

---

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Delta Sport Handelskontor v EUIPO — Lego (Building blocks from a toy building set)

(Case T-537/22)

(2022/C 418/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Delta Sport Handelskontor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter and L-E. Appel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lego A/S (Billund, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: European Union design No 1 664 368-0006

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2022 in Case R 1524/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and, if the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO intervenes, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, if the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO intervenes, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 63(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6367]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[CA-067-7122-6606]; CACA-35511


Imperial Project; Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
Availability; Correction; Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of November 1, 1996 (Vol. 61, p. 
56567), a notice was published [FR Doc. 96-27519]. This amends that 
notice. Because of expressed interest, the comment period, which 
previously ended on December 31, 1996, is reopened until March 24, 
1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Bureau of Land 
Management, El Centro Resource Area, 1661 South 4th Street, El Centro, 
CA 92243, Attention: Keith Shone.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Shone (619) 337-4412 or Tom Zale 
(619) 337-4420.

    Dated: February 28, 1997.
Terry A. Reed,
Area Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-6367 Filed 3-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         918,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,061,000
<PP&E>                                      78,882,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              24,543,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              66,800,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,263,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,082,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                66,800,000
<SALES>                                      5,876,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,993,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,061,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,663,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,634,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,634,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                214,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,420,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.40)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5716]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96-ANE-44]


Removal of Class D and E Airspace; South Weymouth, MA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes the Class D and Class E airspace areas at 
South Weymouth, MA due to the closure of the South Weymouth Naval Air 
Station (KNZW).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule was effective 0901 UTC, January 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Raymond Duda, Operations Branch, ANE-530.3, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-
5299; telephone (617) 238-7533; fax (617) 238-7596.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final with a 
request for comments in the Federal Register on December 19, 1996 (61 
FR 66908). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a 
non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no 
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that 
no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on January 30. No adverse comments were received, and 
thus this notice confirms that this final rule became effective on that 
date.

    Issued in Burlington, MA, on February 28, 1997.
David J. Hurley,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, New England Region.
[FR Doc. 97-5716 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### COM. v. LAMBERT, R.

1458 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/18/2017

CP-24-CR-0000363-2008 (Elk)

Affirmed
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 21
- 00630
- CV

In r e Hudson Design Development

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Hudson Design Development, Inc., (Hudson) sued 3204 C lawson, LLC, ( C lawson) for expenses incurred during a construction project . The trial court signed a default judgment in
favor of Hudson , stating that Clawson failed to appear and answer and awarding Hudson damages in the amount of $594,634.52 along with prejudgment in t erest and post

- judgment
interest

. More than one month later , Clawson filed a motion asking the trial court to determine
that the defaul t judgment occurred when Clawson received actual notice rather than the date the judgment w as signed and then grant a n e w trial

. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a , 320. A f ter holding a hearing , the trial court entered an order granting Claw son ’ s motion , vacating the default judgment entered previously , and restoring the case to the active court docket. Following that ruling, Hu d son filed this petition for writ of mandamus, asking this Court to order the trial court
to vacate its order

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. Having review ed the petition, Clawson ’ s response, and the record, we deny the petition for writ o f mandamus. See id. R. 52.8

.2 __________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, B aker, and Sm ith
Filed: December 31, 202 1
#### Becky NGUYEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-17027

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 22, 2018

Becky Nguyen, Pro Se

Tammy A. Brown, Michael William Foster, Attorney, Michael Wilbur, Foster Employment Law, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

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 ***

Becky Nguyen appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her diversity action alleging age and disability discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing (“FEHA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Deppe v. United Airlines,*217 F.3d 1262, 1264 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Nguyen failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s non-discriminatory reason for laying her off was pretextual. *See Guz v. Bechtel Nat'l Inc.,*24 Cal.4th 317, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089, 1113-14, 1118-19 (2000) (setting forth burden-shifting framework for analyzing claims of discrimination under the FEHA and noting that summary judgment for the employer is appropriate where, given the strength of the employer’s legitimate reasons, any countervailing circumstantial evidence is too weak to raise a rational inference that discrimination occurred); *see also Hersant v. Cal. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 57*Cal.App.4th 997, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 483, 487 (1997) (“[T]he ultimate issue [is] not whether the employer offered an unbelievable explanation for the adverse action but whether the employer acted for a discriminatory reason.”).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

***

 xhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except .as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1440-1441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-648]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Air Force


Active Duty Service Determination for Civilian or Contractual 
Groups

    On December 24, 1996, the Secretary of the Air Force determined 
that the service of the group known as ``All U.S. Civilians of the 
American Field Service, who served Overseas Operationally

[[Page 1441]]

From April 6, 1917, to January 1918, and November 10, 1941, to August 
1945'' shall not be considered ``active duty'' under the provisions of 
Public Law 95-202 for the purposes of all laws administered by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Patsy J. Conner,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-648 Filed 1-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10111-10112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5345]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service
[Dept. Circ. 570, 1996 Rev., Supp. No. 9]


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds; Redland Insurance 
Company

    A certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal Bonds 
is hereby issued to the following company under Sections 9304 to 9308, 
Title 31, of the United States Code. Federal bond-approving officers 
should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 
1996 Revision, on page 34304 to reflect this addition:
    Redland Insurance Company, BUSINESS ADDRESS: 222 South 15th Street, 
Suite 600 North, Omaha, NE, 68102. PHONE: (402) 344-8800. UNDERWRITING 
LIMITATION b/: $3,2240,000. SURETY LICENSES c/: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, DE, 
DC, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, 
NH, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, 
WI, WY. INCORPORATED IN: Iowa.
    Certificates of Authority expire on June 30 each year, unless 
revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent 
annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (31 CFR, Part 
223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1 
in Treasury Department Circular 570, with details as to underwriting 
limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety business and 
other information.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet 
(http:/

[[Page 10112]]

 /www.fms.treas.gov/c570.html) or through our computerized public 
bulletin board system (FMS Inside Line) at (202) 874-6887. A hard copy 
may be purchased from the Government Printing Office (GPO), 
Subscription Service Washington, DC, telephone (202) 512-1800. When 
ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock number: 048-
000-00499-7.
    Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Funds 
Management Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 
6F04, Hyattsville, MD 20782, telephone (202) 874-6507.

    Dated: February 13, 1997.
Charles F. Schwan III,
Director, Funds Management Division, Financial Management Service.
[FR Doc. 97-5345 Filed 3-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
# C_2022198EN.01005902.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/59

---

Action brought on 18 March 2022 — General Wire Spring v EUIPO (GENERAL PIPE CLEANERS)

(Case T-151/22)

(2022/C 198/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: General Wire Spring Co. (McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: E. Carrillo, lawyer)

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 GENERAL PIPE CLEANERS — Application for registration No 1 577 530

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2022 in Case R 1452/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the present action; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action;

| — | annul the contested decision the Firth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO insofar as it dismisses the appeal filed by the applicant before it and failed to partially annul the EUIPO’s decision in relation to the refusal of registration of EUTM (IR) application No. 1 577 530 GENERAL PIPE CLEANERS for the objected goods in classes 7 and 9. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision the Firth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO insofar as it dismisses the appeal filed by the applicant before it and failed to partially annul the EUIPO’s decision in relation to the refusal of registration of EUTM (IR) application No. 1 577 530 GENERAL PIPE CLEANERS for the objected goods in classes 7 and 9.

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.

---
#### COM. v. BIRDSELL, C.

2789 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/20/2017

CP-15-CR-0000799-2015 (Chester)

Affirmed
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6095]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Detailed Case Data Component (DCDC) of the National Child 
Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS).
    OMB No.: 0980-0256.
    Description: The Detailed Case Data Component of the National Child 
Abuse and Neglect Data System compiles automated case-level data on 
child maltreatment investigated by State child protective services 
agencies. Data are collected on reports of abuse and neglect, 
characteristics of victims, risk factors associated with victims and 
their families, and the development of policies and programs relating 
the child abuse and neglect at the National, State and local levels.
    Respondents: State, Local or Tribal Govt.
    Annual Burden Estimates:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of      Average burden                 
                 Instrument                      Number of      responses per      hours per       Total burden 
                                                respondents       respondent        response          hours     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed Case Data Component................              56                1              110            6,160 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,160.
    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be 
obtained by writing to The Administration for Children and Families, 
Office of Information Services, Division of Information Resource 
Management Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, 
Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer.
    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of 
this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best 
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of 
publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed 
information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office 
of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 725 17th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Ms. Wendy Taylor.

    Dated: March 6, 1997.
Bob Sargis,
IRM Staff.
[FR Doc. 97-6095 Filed 3-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
No. 12A145.

#### Kwasnik *v.*Maine.

Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Application for stay, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied.
Exhibit
10.9


 


JOINDER
AGREEMENT


 


The
undersigned, Demetrios Logothetis (the “Joining Party”), is executing and delivering this Joinder Agreement with respect
to the Stock Escrow Agreement, dated as of December 22, 2020, between the Viveon Health Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”)
and Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Co., (the “Transfer Agent”) and the other stockholders of the Company party thereto
(the “Escrow Agreement”).


 


All
capitalized terms used herein and not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Escrow Agreement.


 


Pursuant
to a Stock Transfer Agreement dated May 5, 2021, the Joining Party is acquiring 27,000 shares of common stock the Company (the “Transferred
Shares”) that are subject to the terms of the Escrow Agreement and that may only be transferred as specified in Section 4.3 of
the Escrow Agreement. By executing and delivering this Joinder Agreement, the Joining Party hereby agrees to become a party to, to be
bound by and to comply with all of the provisions of the Escrow Agreement as an Initial Securityholder with respect to Transferred Shares.
By executing and delivering this Joinder Agreement, the Joining Party agrees that, for all purposes of the Escrow Agreement, the undersigned
shall be included within the term “Initial Securityholder”.


 


Accordingly,
the Joining Party has executed and delivered this Joinder Agreement as of the fifth day of May 2021.


 


	 	Demetrios
    Logothetis

	 	Name:  	Demetrios Logothetis
     
	 	 



 


	Acknowledged, Consented to and Agreed To By: 	 
	 	 
	Viveon Health Acquisition Corp.	 
	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Jagi Gill                  	 
	Name: 	Jagi Gill	 
	Title:	CEO	 
	 	 
	CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY	 
	 	 
	By:	 	 
	Name: 	 	 
	Title:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

COUNTY OF EL PASO, TEXAS,

 Appellant,

v.

MONIQUE AGUILAR,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00082-CV

Appeal from the

327th District Court 

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2016-DCV-2806)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in that 

part of the judgment denying Appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction challenging Appellee’s claims 

for sex discrimination based on disparate treatment, insofar as that claim is based on disparate 

treatment as between Appellee and comparators Arenas or Montes, and in that part of the judgment 

denying Appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction challenging Appellee’s claim for retaliation for 

engaging in opposition to disparate treatment. We therefore reverse those parts of the trial court’s 

judgment and dismiss those claims for lack of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this 

Court. The remainder of the trial court’s judgment is affirmed as modified.

We further order that Appellant and its sureties, if any, and Appellee each pay one-half 

(1/2) the appellate costs, for which let execution issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.5. This decision 

shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### COM. v. KONETSCO, M.

2068 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/15/2017

CP-21-CR-0000046-2014 (Cumberland)

Affirmed