alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021242EN.01004901.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/49

---

Action brought on 8 April 2021 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO — Schuju (Хозяйка)

(Case T-185/21)

(2021/C 242/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peter Schuju (Borchen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Хозяйка — EU trade mark No 12 344 529

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2020 in Case R 2717/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for revocation No 42 860 C (EU trade mark No 12 344 529) with award of costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for revocation No 42 860 C (EU trade mark No 12 344 529) with award of costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2022237EN.01003601.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein (Germany) lodged on 17 March 2022 — TF v Sparkasse Südpfalz

(Case C-206/22)

(2022/C 237/45)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TF

Defendant: Sparkasse Südpfalz

Question referred

Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) and the right to an annual period of paid leave set out in Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice on the granting of annual leave to workers under which the obligation to grant an entitlement to leave is fulfilled even if the worker is affected by an unforeseeable event during an authorised period of leave, such as, in the present case, government-ordered quarantine, and is therefore prevented from exercising that entitlement in full?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

---
tnib_ex1011.htm


Exhibit 10.11


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 




  





6











  






 


 




  





7











  






 


 




  





8











  






 


 




  





9











  






 


 




  





10











  






 


 




  





11











  






 


 




  





12











  






 


 


13
Transport Transports 

Canada Canada

 TP 7245E

 

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

The following airworthiness directive (AD) may be applicable to an aircraft which our records indicate is registered in your name. ADs are issued pursuant to Canadian 

Aviation Regulation (CAR) 593. Pursuant to CAR 605.84 and the further details of CAR Standard 625, Appendix H, the continuing airworthiness of a Canadian registered aircraft is contingent upon compliance with all applicable ADs. Failure to comply with the requirements of an AD may invalidate the flight authorization of the aircraft. Alternative means of compliance shall be applied for in accordance with CAR 605.84 and the above-referenced Standard. 

This AD has been issued by the Continuing Airworthiness Division (AARDG), National Aircraft Certification Branch, Transport Canada, Ottawa, telephone 613 952-4357.

Pursuant to CAR 202.51 the registered owner of a Canadian aircraft shall, within seven days, notify the Minister in writing of any change of his or her name or address. 

To request a change of address, contact the Civil Aviation Communications Centre (AARC) at Place de Ville, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8, or 1-800-305-2059, or www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/communications/centre/ address.asp 

24-0022 (01-2005)

1/1 No.

CF-2009-41

Issue Date 

16 November 2009 

Number: CF-2009-41 

Subject: Tailboom Attachment Fitting 

Effective: 9 December 2009 

Applicability: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC) Model 206L series helicopters: 

206L serial numbers 45004 through 45153 and 46601 through 46617 

206L-1 serial numbers 45154 through 45790 

206L-3 serial numbers 51001 through 51612 

206L-4 all serial numbers. 

Compliance: At the next 100 hours scheduled inspection and within the 100 hours flight time intervals 

thereafter. 

Background: A new airworthiness limitation has been introduced for the tailboom upper left attachment 

fitting Part Number (P/N) 206-032-409-001. The 100 flight hours/annual inspection of the 

fitting has been incorporated in Chapter 4 of the applicable Maintenance Manual. 

Corrective 

Actions: 

Inspect the tailboom upper left attachment fitting P/N 206-032-409-001, and rectify if 

required, in accordance with Accomplishment Instructions of Alert Service Bulletin 

206L-09-158 Rev. A dated 31 August 2009 or later revisions approved by the Chief, 

Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada. 

Incorporation of the following applicable Maintenance Manual revision constitutes 

terminating action to this directive: 

BHT-206L-MM-1, Rev 29, dated 26 May 2009 

BHT-206L1-MM-1, Rev 26, dated 26 May 2009 

BHT-206L3-MM-1, Rev 9, dated 26 May 2009 

BHT-206L4-MM-1, Rev 7, dated 26 May 2009 

Authorization: For Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities 

Derek Ferguson 

Chief, Continuing Airworthiness 

Contact: Mr. Bogdan Gajewski, Continuing Airworthiness, Ottawa, telephone (613) 952-4357, 

facsimile (613) 996-9178 or e-mail: CAW WEB Feedback@tc.gc.ca or any Transport 

Canada Centre
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          50,800
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             235
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                25,400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     18,154
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          29,985
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            29,716
<LOANS>                                        260,042
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,250
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 464,151
<DEPOSITS>                                     410,395
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             12,021
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,198
<OTHER-SE>                                         537
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 464,151
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,787
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  787
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    11
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,585
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,156
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,224
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,361
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      407
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,945
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,176
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,176
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       434
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.00
<LOANS-NON>                                      6,488
<LOANS-PAST>                                       692
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,919
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,156
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      345
<RECOVERIES>                                        32
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,250
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,250
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Nicholas WOODS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50194 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 9, 2018

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Nicholas Woods, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Nicholas Woods has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Woods has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Woods’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Woods’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo'lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
No. D-2670.

#### In re Disbarment of Wexler.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 566 U. S. 960.]
(logo) BERKADIA

 

 

Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Calendar Year 2022

 

*Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust,*

*Series 2015-C21*

 

Pursuant to Section 3.01(13.9) of the Subservicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction (the“Servicing Agreement”), I hereby attest that:

 

        i.           A review of the activities andperformance of Berkadia as Subservicer during the calendar year has been madeunder my supervision.

 

      ii.           To the best of my knowledge, basedon such review, Berkadia as Subservicer has fulfilled, in all materialrespects, its obligations under this Subservicing Agreement throughout thecalendar year and no default by the Subservicer under the SubservicingAgreement has occurred and is continuing.

 

Berkadia,

 

/s/ Mark E. McCool

Mark E. McCool 

President 

February 10, 2023
# C_2023104EN.01001402.xml

| 20.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/14 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 12 December 2022 — QY v Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-753/22) (2023/C 104/18) Language of the case: German Referring court Bundesverwaltungsgericht Parties to the main proceedings Applicant and appellant: QY Defendant and respondent: Federal Republic of Germany Question referred In the event that a Member State may not exercise the power conferred by Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU ( 1 ) to reject as inadmissible an application for international protection with a view to the granting of refugee status in another Member State because living conditions in that Member State would expose the applicant to a serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter, must the second sentence of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, ( 2 ) the second sentence of Article 4(1) and Article 13 of Directive 2011/95/EU ( 3 ) as well as Article 10(2) and (3) and Article 33(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU be interpreted as meaning that the fact that refugee status has already been granted prevents the Member State from carrying out an examination of the application for international protection submitted to it that is unbiased as to the outcome, and obliges the Member State to grant the applicant refugee status without examining the substantive conditions for that protection? ( 1 )  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60). ( 2 )  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31). ( 3 )  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

---
<PAGE>



                                                             EXHIBIT 21

                            PUBCO CORPORATION

                      Subsidiaries of the Registrant




    The Registrant directly or indirectly owns 100% of the capital stock 
of the following significant subsidiaries:


          Subsidiaries                         State of Incorporation

    The Century Wholesale Company                    Delaware

    PC Real Estate Corporation                       Illinois

    Pubco Management Company                         Ohio


    The Registrant directly or indirectly owns over 90% of the capital 
stock of the following significant subsidiaries:


          Subsidiaries                         State of Incorporation

    Bobbie Brooks, Incorporated                      Delaware
      [including the Buckeye Business
      Products, Inc. division]

    Brooks Management Company                        Ohio


    The Registrant owns an indirect 85% plus interest in Allied 
Construction Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

    The Registrant owns an indirect approximately 62% plus interest in 
Aspen Imaging International, Inc., a Delaware corporation.















                               E-12
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00006

- CR
Benjamin Vasquez Hernandez v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 398th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR

- 3074

- 13

- I

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consider ed this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. February 14, 2019
# C_2022073EN.01005701.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/57

---

Action brought on 21 December 2021 — UniSkin v EUIPO — Unicskin (UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild)

(Case T-787/21)

(2022/C 73/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UniSkin ApS (Silkeborg, Denmark) (represented by: M. Hoffgaard Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Unicskin, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild — Application for registration No 18 153 435

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2021 in Case R 771/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and, subsequently, reject the opposition against the trade mark in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, subsequently, reject the opposition against the trade mark in its entirety;

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2022191EN.01003501.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/35

---

Action brought on 10 March 2022 — Sport1 v EUIPO — SFR (SFR SPORT1)

(Case T-141/22)

(2022/C 191/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sport1 GmbH (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: J. Krekel and C. Otto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société française du radiotelephone — SFR (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark SFR SPORT1 in red, white and black — Application for registration No 16 161 317

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2021 in Case R 2329/2020-1

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 of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Help America Vote Act - Election Security Program

2022 Award Packet and Instructions 

This award packet contains all the information you need to access your 2022 HAVA Election Security Grant 

funds. EAC is making the funds available for immediate access and use, subject to the contingencies found in 

the attached Notice of Grant Award (NGA). The purpose of this award is to “improve the administration of 

elections for Federal office, including to enhance election technology and make election security 

improvements”. 

The following documents are part of the 2022 Election Security Award Packet and Instructions: 

1. State by State Allocation Chart

2. State Funding Request Letter Template

3. Program Narrative Guidelines

4. Combined Budget Guidelines and Worksheet

5. Required Certifications

To access the funds, you will need to:

1. Make sure your Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) and System of Award Management (SAM) account 

are accurate and up to date.

A. Your UEI was assigned to you in the System for Award Management (SAM). EAC will need to 

verify that you are using the correct UEI before payment can be issued.

B. Your SAM account must be renewed annually and must be active before a payment can

be made. More information can be found at https://www.sam.gov/portal.

2. Send a request letter via email to grants@eac.gov from your Chief State Election Official to the EAC 

requesting disbursement of grant funds. A template for this request letter is provided at https://

www.eac.gov/. EAC will process all funding disbursement requests within five (5) business days 

of receipt of the request except for states that are delinquent on any HAVA grant requirements. 

The letter includes the following information:

A. The amount of funds you are requesting. EAC encourages states to immediately request the

entirety of the available funds.

B. Certification that, per Section 101(c)(1)&(2) of HAVA, funds will be used in a manner that is

consistent with the laws described in Section 906 of HAVA and that funds will not be used in a

manner that is inconsistent with the requirements of Title III of HAVA.

C. Affirmation that you have reviewed and accept the terms of the award found in the Notice of

Grant Award.

3. Review and email the signed Standard Certifications to Grants@eac.gov. Required certifications 

can be found at https://www.eac.gov/.

4. Submit the program narrative and combined budget no later than May 2, 2022.

Note: Expenses can be incurred against the grant from March 16, 2022, onward. Matching funds must be 

identified by March 16, 2024. Per HAVA Section 104(d) cash match must be deposited in the state election fund. 

In-kind match must be tracked in the same manner as cash contributions. Both cash, funds from existing budget 

authority and in-kind contributions should be reported under the Recipient Share on the annual EAC Federal 

Financial Report.

All federal grant funds provided as an advance must be deposited in an interest-bearing account. HAVA grants 

must be deposited in the interest-bearing state election fund per Section 104(d).
#### COM. v. JOHNSON, T.

758 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/29/2017

Reargument Denied 12/8/2017

CP-03-CR-0000197-2015 (Armstrong)

Affirmed
No. D-2684.

#### In re Discipline of Gargano.

Paul A. Gar-gano, of Cambridge, Mass., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.