alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023189EN.01000502.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/5 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Openbaar Ministerie, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën v Profit Europe NV, Gosselin Forwarding Services NV (Case C-719/22, Openbaar Ministerie and Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën) (2023/C 189/07) Language of the case: Dutch Referring court Hof van beroep te Antwerpen Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: Openbaar Ministerie, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën Defendants: Profit Europe NV, Gosselin Forwarding Services NV Question referred Do Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012 ( 1 ) and Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 ( 2 ) violate Articles 1, 5, 6 and 9 of Basic Regulation 1225/2009, ( 3 ) in so far as they subject imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of spheroidal graphite cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China to anti-dumping duties upon import, when neither the complaint for the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding nor the notice of initiation of the anti-dumping measure identified such goods as the product concerned, no evidence of dumping, injury and a causal link was produced and the European Commission did not in any way investigate their normal value, export price, possible margin of dumping, possible injury, the extent of the injury, the impact of other known factors on the injury, the causal link between dumping and injury and the need to subject those goods (threaded tube or pipe cast fittings) to anti-dumping duties in the interest of the Union? ( 1 )  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012 of 14 November 2012 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand (OJ 2012 L 318, p. 10). ( 2 )  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand and terminating the proceeding with regard to Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 129, p. 1). ( 3 )  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).

---
AGREEMENT FOR DEFERRAL OF 1996 ANNUAL AND SPECIAL CASH BONUS


     Ralston Purina Company ("Company") and         agree that, of the $

Annual Bonus and $        Special Bonus  awarded to Participant  under the  1996

Annual and Special Cash Bonus Award Program, $             shall  be  deferred,

effective November 1,  1996, as  requested by  Participant, into  the option  or
options available  under  the  Deferred  Compensation  Plan  for  Key  Employees
("Plan"), which is attached  hereto as Exhibit A  and incorporated by  reference
herein.

     Pursuant to Participant's request, the following amounts have been deferred
for Participant in the manner set forth below:

     (1)  Equity Option -


          (a)  $     in  a Deferred  Stock Equivalent  Account in  Participant's

               name under the Equity Option as  set forth in Section 2.2 of  the
               Plan.

          (b)  $     in  a Deferred  Stock Equivalent  Account in  Participant's

               name representing Company Matching Deferral (25% of amount listed
               in 1(a) above) as set forth in Section 2.2(b) of the Plan.

     (2)  Short-Term Variable Interest Option -   $      in   a  Deferred   Cash

          Account in Participant's  name under the  Variable Interest Option  as
          set forth  in  Section  2.3 of  the  Plan;  provided,  however,  that,
          notwithstanding any provision to the  contrary contained in the  Plan,
          amounts  attributable  to  deferrals  into  the  Short-Term   Variable
          Interest Option shall be paid to Participant in January 1997.

     (3)  Long-Term Variable Interest Option -  $  in a Deferred Cash Account in

          Participant's name under the Variable Interest Option as set forth  in
          Section 2.3 of the Plan.

     Participant's deferral hereunder is pursuant to the Plan and is subject  in
     all respects to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and of the Plan.
     No other communications or representations, written or oral, made prior  or
     subsequent to this Agreement shall be  deemed to amend or modify the  terms
     of this deferral except by an agreement in writing executed by the  parties
     subsequent to  the date  of this  Agreement, expressly  consenting to  such
     amendment or  modification.   Participant  hereby  waives any  rights,  and
     releases Company from any claim, based on any such prior communications  or
     representations, if any.

ACCEPTED:                          RALSTON PURINA


                                   By:
     Participant                        C. S. Sommer
                                        Vice President and
                                        Director, Administration



     Date
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8998 

To designate a peak in the State of Washington as ‘‘qwtma ́yqn-istiqayu- 

Mount Cleator’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 17, 2020 

Mr. BEYER (for himself and Ms. SCHRIER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To designate a peak in the State of Washington as 

‘‘qwtma ́yqn-istiqayu-Mount Cleator’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF qwtma ́yqn-istiqayu-MOUNT 

4 CLEATOR IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The 7,630-foot peak located at 

6 latitude 48.11516° N, longitude 120.94636° W, in the 

7 Glacier Peak Wilderness in the State of Washington, shall 

be known and designated as ‘‘q 8 wtma ́yqn-istiqayu- 

9 Mount Cleator’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8998 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the peak referred to in subsection (a) shall be 

deemed to be a reference to q 4 wtma ́yqn-istiqayu-Mount 

5 Cleator. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7278

BRYAN ERIC GRAY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; JACK

TURLINGTON; FRANKLIN FREEMAN,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-904)

Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 19, 1997

Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryan Eric Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Bryan Gray seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Gray's case was referred to a magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Gray that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive

appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Gray failed to object to the

magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Gray has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We

accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. Gray's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
(logo)Rialto 

CAPITAL

 

** **

**2017 AnnualStatement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as ofMarch 1, 2015 by and among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporationas Depositor, KeyBank National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association asTrustee, Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian and Park BridgeLender Services LLC as Operating Advisor relating to the Deutsche Mortgage& Asset Receiving Corporation, COMM 2015-DC1 Mortgage Trust, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates **(COMM 2015-DC1)**

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.       Allservicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.       Areview of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer forthe period of January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3.       Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there hasbeen a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, eachfailure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identifiedherein.

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/ Adam Singer 

AdamSinger, Managing Director

 

Date:March 1, 2018
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6094]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking 
company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the 
nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC 
Act. Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted 
throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 4, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. Cumberland Bancorp, Inc., Carthage, Tennessee; to acquire 9.2 
percent of the voting shares of The Bank of Mason, Mason, Tennessee.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 5, 1997.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-6094 Filed 3-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
Argued and submitted February 28,

affirmed April 19, 2017

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*LACY RENEE GIRARD, aka Lacy Girard, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Douglas County Circuit Court

14CR30129, 15CR00632, 15CR04469; A161117 (Control), A161118, A161120

392 P3d 831

George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Nathan Riemersma, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Wollheim, Senior Judge.

*886PER CURIAM

This is a companion case to *State v. Girard (A161121),*284 Or App 845, 395 P3d 645 (2017), decided today. In that case, we sustained defendant’s conviction for second-degree escape. This appeal concerns the trial court’s revocation of defendant’s probation based on defendant’s conviction in the companion case. On appeal, defendant’s sole argument is that, in view of the trial court’s reason for revoking probation, we would be required to reverse in this case if we were to set aside defendant’s conviction for second-degree escape in the companion case. But, as noted, we have sustained the conviction in the companion case.1 As a result, defendant’s sole argument for reversal in this case necessarily fails.

Affirmed.

1

 The conviction was based on two counts that merged. Although we concluded that defendant was entitled to entry of judgment of acquittal as to one of the two merged counts, we concluded that the trial court properly found defendant guilty on the other count. We therefore remanded for entry of a judgment reflecting a conviction on Count 2. *Girard,*284 Or App at 851.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8915 

To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 to provide for the consideration of climate change, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2020 

Mr. CLEAVER (for himself and Ms. BASS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to 

be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to provide for the 

consideration of climate change, 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 ‘‘Preparing Superfund 

5 for Climate Change Act of 2020’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8915 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION. 

2 Section 121 of the Comprehensive Environmental Re3 sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 

4 U.S.C. 9621) is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (b)(1), in the fifth sentence— 

6 (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph 

7 (A), by striking ‘‘account:’’ and inserting ‘‘ac8 count—’’; 

9 (B) in subparagraph (F), by striking 

10 ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

11 (C) in subparagraph (G), by striking the 

12 period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

13 (D) by inserting after subparagraph (G) 

14 the following: 

15 ‘‘(H) the potential threat to human health 

16 and the environment associated with local nat17 ural disasters and extreme weather hazards, in18 cluding any projected exacerbation or change in 

19 those disasters and hazards due to climate 

20 change.’’; and 

21 (2) in subsection (c), by inserting after the first 

22 sentence the following: ‘‘The President shall include 

23 in the review an assessment of whether the selected 

24 remedial action remains protective after taking into 

25 account local natural disasters and extreme weather 

26 hazards, including any projected exacerbation or 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8915 IH

1 change in those disasters and hazards due to climate 

2 change.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
ex10-11.htm


EXHIBIT 10.11


 



 AMENDMENT NUMBER 1


TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This AMENDMENT is in clarification and amendment of that certain EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") dated March 28, 2013, (“Effective Date”) by and between T Bancshares, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary T Bank, N.A. ("Company"), and Patrick Howard ("Executive"), to which this AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 is attached and of which it is hereby made a part.


 


The Agreement is hereby supplemented and amended as follows:


 


1.  Definitions. All terms defined in the Agreement and not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings where used herein.


 


2.  Paragraph 3.a. is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following to be and read: “So long as Executive is employed by the Company in good standing, commencing on April 1, 2014, the Company agrees to compensate the Executive on a salary basis of $8,854.17 semi­-monthly.”







3.  General.


 


(a) Except as expressly amended and supplemented hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.


 


(b) In the event of any conflict between the terms and conditions of this Amendment and the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall prevail.







Executed this 31st day of March, 2014.


 


 




	
EXECUTIVE

	  	  	 
	  	  	  	 
	  	  	  	 
	
 /s/ Shari Jensen

	  	
/s/ Patrick Howard

	 
	
WITNESS

	  	
Patrick Howard 

	 
	  	  	  	 
	
T BANK N.A. 

	  	  	 
	  	  	  	 
	  	  	  	 
	
 /s/ Ron Denheyer

	  	
/s/ Dan Basso

	 
	
WITNESS

	  	
Chairman of the Board 

	 
	  	  	  	 
	
T BANCSHARES, INC. 

	  	  	 
	  	  	  	 
	  	  	  	 
	
 /s/ Ron Denheyer

	  	
/s/ Dan Basso

	 
	
Witness

	  	
Chairman of the Board
# C_2022340EN.01004501.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/45

---

Action brought on 30 June 2022 — Good Services v EUIPO — ITV Studios Global Distribution (EL ROSCO)

(Case T-381/22)

(2022/C 340/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Good Services ltd. (Sliema, Malta) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ITV Studios Global Distribution Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark EL ROSCO — EU trade mark No 17 907 312

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2022 in Case R 959/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and confirm the registration of EU trade mark No 17 907 312 for all the goods and services for which it was granted or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO for further consideration following directions from the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and confirm the registration of EU trade mark No 17 907 312 for all the goods and services for which it was granted or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO for further consideration following directions from the Court;

| — | order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings and the previous proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings and the previous proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the case-law interpreting that article and the concept of bad faith, and the point at which bad faith is to be assessed. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the case-law interpreting that article and the concept of bad faith, and the point at which bad faith is to be assessed.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 Telestone Technologies Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Yu Xiaoli, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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.





Dated: May 16, 2011





By:
/s/ Yu XiaoliName:
Yu XiaoliTitle:
Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
THE PREGNANT WORKERS

FAIRNESS ACT (PWFA)

Prepare for this new law before it goes into effect on June 27, 2023.

The PWFA requires covered

employers to provide

“reasonable accommodations”

to a worker’s known limitations

related to pregnancy,

childbirth, or related

medical conditions,

unless the

accommodation

will cause the employer

an "undue hardship."

WHAT IS IT?

8 IN 10

first-time pregnant women

work until their final month

of pregnancy.

SOURCE: U.S. Congress, Pregnant Workers Fairness

Act, 2021, www.congress.gov/117/crpt/hrpt27/CRPT117hrpt27.pdf

of moms have

thought about

leaving a job due to

a lack of reasonable

accommodation or fear of

discrimination from an

employer during pregnancy,

according to one survey.

SOURCE: Bipartisan Policy Center: Morning

Consult Poll, February 11, 2022

23%

TIP FOR EMPLOYERS:

Train supervisors about the

PWFA so they are ready when

they get reasonable

accommodation requests.

72%

of working women will

become pregnant while

employed at some time in

their lives.

SOURCE: US Census Bureau, Maternity Leave and

Employment Patterns: 1961-2008, 2011

Examples of reasonable

accommodations that may

be available to workers:

Offering

additional, 

longer, or more

flexible breaks to

eat, drink, rest, or

use the restroom

Changing a work schedule,

such as having shorter

hours, part-time work, or a

later start time

Changing food or drink

policies to allow a worker to

have a water bottle or food

Providing leave for medical

appointments or to recover

from childbirth

Learn more at EEOC.gov