alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023223EN.01002601.xml

| 26.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2023 — Vanhove v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (bistro Régent)

(Case T-437/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark bistro Régent - Earlier national word mark REGENT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a), and Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

(2023/C 223/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vanhove (Bordeaux, France) (represented by: N. Castagnon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and T. Klee, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, C. Fürsen, M. Minkner and A. Starcke, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 May 2022 (Case R 1113/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vanhove to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vanhove to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG;

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 29.8.2022.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Santos Lorenzo MEMBRENO-AREVALO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50296 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

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

Bradford W. Bogan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Santos Lorenzo Membreno-Arevalo appeals the 71-month within-guidelines sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that his sentence violates due process be*464cause it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He concedes that the issue whether his eligibility for a sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b) must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). However, he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court may reconsider this issue.

In *Almendarez-Torres,*the Supreme Court held that, for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 523 U.S. at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. This .court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace,*759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering the effect of *Alleyne v. United States,*570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013)); *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007) (considering the effect of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)). Thus, Membreno-Arevalo’s argument is foreclosed.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

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. 11-10535.

#### Berry *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8840 

To amend the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act to extend 

the temporary suspension of Medicare sequestration, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2020 

Mr. SCHNEIDER (for himself, Mr. MCKINLEY, Ms. SCHRIER, Mr. SUOZZI, and 

Mr. RUSH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To amend the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act to extend the temporary suspension of Medicare 

sequestration, 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 ‘‘Medicare Sequester 

5 COVID Moratorium Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF MEDI7 CARE SEQUESTRATION. 

8 (a) EXTENSION THROUGH THE END OF THE

9 COVID–19 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY.—Section 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8840 IH

1 3709(a) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Se2 curity Act (Public Law 116–136; 134 Stat. 421) is 

3 amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2020,’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘the termination date of the emergency period described 

5 in section 1135(g)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act,’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact8 ment of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Secu9 rity Act (Public Law 116–136; 134 Stat. 421). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 11
                   NUTRAMAX PRODUCTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       Computation Of Earnings Per Share
                                  (Unaudited)


<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 

                                                                       Quarters Ended
                                                              --------------------------------
                                                              Jan. 3, 1998       Dec. 28, 1997  
                                                              ------------       -------------
                                                          
<S>                                                           <C>                <C> 
Basic Earnings per share:                                 
Weighted average number of shares outstanding:            
Common                                                         5,624,318          8,714,381
Shares deemed outstanding from the assumed exercise
  of stock options and ING warrant                               222,206             50,312
                                                              ----------         ----------
Total                                                          5,846,524          8,764,693
                                                              ----------         ----------
Net Income                                                    $  810,000         $1,540,000
                                                              ----------         ----------
Basic Earnings per share                                      $     0.14         $     0.18
                                                              ==========         ==========

Fully diluted earnings per share:
Weighted average number of shares outstanding
 as above                                                      5,846,524          8,764,693
Additional shares deemed outstanding from the
 assumed exercise of stock options and ING warrant                91,031              1,590
                                                              ----------         ----------
Total                                                          5,937,555          8,766,283
                                                              ----------         ----------
Fully diluted earnings per share                              $     0.14         $     0.18
                                                              ==========         ==========
</TABLE>
No. 11-10578.

#### Wilson *v.*Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Haci KURT, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-71558

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed February 22, 2018

Marc Van Der Hout, Katherine Margaret Lewis, Esquire, Attorney, Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, Attorney, Anthony Cardozo Payne, *597Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: GILMAN,* GRABER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

ORDER

On February 2, 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals granted Haci Kurt’s motion to reopen and remanded the matter to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings. Our memorandum disposition dated March 6, 2017 is withdrawn and this petition for review is dismissed as moot. The copy of this order constitutes the mandate of this court.
# INSTRUCTIONS

The U.S. Economic Development Administration's Distressed Area Recompete Pilot Program (Recompete Pilot Program) aims to alleviate persistent economic distress and support long-term, comprehensive economic development and job creation in places with a high prime-age (25 to 54 years) employment gap. To learn more about the program, please visit www.eda.gov/recompeteThis file provides the proposed service area(s) for each of the 22 Recompete Phase 1 Finalists. The file includes the following attributes:Applicant Organization Name: The organizatio name of the Recompete Finalist. Project Name: The name of the Recompete Finalist's project. Name of Service Area: The name of the Census Tract, County, Incorporated Place, or Tribal Land submitted by the Finalist. State / Territory of Service Area: The state or territory where the identified service area is located. Service Area Type: Each Finalist submitted one or more of the following geography types: (1) Census Tract; (2) County; (3) Incorporated Place; (4) Tribal Land. Service Area GEOID: The IDs provided are the following Census Tract: 11-digit GEO-ID County: 5-digit FIPS codePlace: 7-digit GEO-ID(source - https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-identifiers.html)Tribal Land: 8-digit American Indian Area NS codes(source - https://www.census.gov/library/reference/code-lists/ansi.html) If you have questions about this file, please reach out to Recompete@eda.gov 

# Geography Data
# C_2023278EN.01001001.xml

| 7.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Hannover-Nord v H Lebensversicherung

(Case C-258/22, (1) H Lebensversicherung)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Business tax - Calculation of the basis of assessment for that tax - Rules for calculation - Dividends from holdings of less than 10 % in the capital of resident and non-resident capital companies - Inclusion in the basis of assessment for business tax - Time of the inclusion - Difference in treatment - Restriction - None)

(2023/C 278/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: H Lebensversicherung

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which, when calculating the basis of assessment for a company’s business tax, dividends from holdings of less than 10 % in non-resident capital companies are to be added back to that basis of assessment, if and to the extent that those dividends were deducted from that basis of assessment at a previous stage of that calculation, whereas dividends from comparable holdings in resident capital companies are included from the outset in the abovementioned basis of assessment, without being deducted from or, consequently, added back to that basis of assessment.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

---
### UNITED STATES

v.

Aaron T. HOWARD Special Warfare Operator First Class (E

- 6 ) U.S. Navy
Applicant NMCCA No. 202 000 251

Panel 1

ORDER

Denying Application for Review

Applicant was tried by general court

- martial at Naval Station Norfolk

, Virginia , Mil itary Judge Michael J. Luken presiding

. 1 O n 7 February 2020

, the court

- martial members sentenc ed Applicant to reduction to E

- 5, forfeiture of $500.00 per month for three months, and confinement for 30 days

. The convening authority approved the sentence and ordered it executed. 2

On 15 July 20 20 , a judge advocate reviewed the case, in accordance with Article 6 5 , Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ ]

, 3 and determined that the court

- martial had jurisdiction over Applicant and each offense of which he was fou nd guilty, that each specification of
which he was found guilty stated an offense, and that the sentence was legal. The judge
advocate also responded to each allegation of error raised by the A ccused , finding no error.

On 17 September 2020 , Applicant appl ied for review by the Judge Advocate General, in accordance with Article 69( a) , UCMJ. On 20 October 2021, the Judge Advocate General denied the A pplication f or Relief

. On 20 December 2021, Applicant timely submitted to this Court an Application for Revie w of the Judge Advocate General’s A ction, in accordance with Article 69(d)(1)(B), UCMJ

.

1 Judge Hayes C. Larsen completed the Entry of Judgment.

2 T he convening authority suspended the $500.00 forfeiture for three month s, provided SO1 Howard maintain an allotment for his wife in the amount of $500.00 for three months

.

3 10 U.S.C. § 865.United States v

. Howard , NMCCA No. 20 2000251 Order Denying Application for Review

2 We have reviewed the A ction taken by t he Judge Advocate General in this case and the Application for Review

, and have determine d that the A pplication does not demonstr ate a substantial basis for concluding that the A ction under review constituted prejudicial error. 4
Accordingly, it is by the C ourt on this 29 th day of March, 2022

, ORDERED:
The Application for Review is DENIED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Cl erk of Court

Copy to: Timothy C. Parlatore, Esq., Counsel for Applicant Elizabeth Candelario, Esq., Counsel for Applicant

4 Article 69(d)(2)(A)

, UCMJ

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7650

FRED POWELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,

Magistrate Judge. (CA-05-445)

Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 19, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fred Powell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Fred Powell, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000)

petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Powell v. Stansberry, No. CA-05-445 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 14, 2005). 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.

AFFIRMED
# C_2023071EN.01003102.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/31

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 6 December 2022 — Westpole Belgium v Parliament

(Case T-640/22 R)

(Interim measures - Public service contracts - External provision for IT services - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency)

(2023/C 71/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Westpole Belgium (Vilvoorde, Belgium) (represented by: A. Vercruysse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Wójcik and E. Taneva, Agents)

Re:

By its application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, suspension of the operation of the decisions of the European Parliament of 3 October 2022 to award Lot No 7 of the contract ‘PE/ITEC-ITS 19 — External Provision of IT Services’ to three tenderers and not to award that lot to the consortium InfraExpert, to which the applicant belongs, and, second, an order that the Parliament must not implement the contested decisions and must refrain from signing the framework contracts the subject of the tendering procedure relating to Lot No 7 of that contract.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 14 October 2022, Westpole Belgium and Unisys Belgium v Parliament (T-640/22 R), is set aside. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 14 October 2022, Westpole Belgium and Unisys Belgium v Parliament (T-640/22 R), is set aside.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rondalyn Joy ADDISON, also known as “Ronnie”, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11500 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 15, 2018

Gail A. Hayworth, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Dimitri Dube’, Esq., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Following her guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, Rondalyn Joy Addison received a 360-month sentence, to be followed by a four-year term of supervised release. In calculating the guidelines range, the district court concluded that Addison was not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because although she had admitted in her Factual Resume that she had distributed methamphetamine to Larry Daniel Maxey, she informed the probation officer that she disagreed with that statement and that she had not directly provided drugs to him. On appeal, Addison argues that she was entitled to an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, given her guilty plea and remorse for her actions and in light of her statement that she believed Maxey may have received methamphetamine from her through a third party.

A defendant may receive a sentencing reduction if she “clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for [her] offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(a). The fact that a defendant has pleaded guilty to the charged offense does not automatically qualify her for the reduction. § 3E1.1, comment, (n.3). “[A] defendant who falsely denies, or frivolously contests, relevant conduct that the court determines to be true” does not warrant the adjustment. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.l(A)). The district court credited Addison’s statement in her Factual Resume and adopted the presen-tence report, which included information from Maxey indicating that Addison had provided him with methamphetamine. Addison has not established that the denial of the reduction was “without foundation.” *United States v. Juarez-Duarte,*513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheets, the Statements of Income, and the Statements of Cash Flows and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          19,495
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,235
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,853
<PP&E>                                          14,870
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,067
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,268
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     19,683
<COMMON>                                           164
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,565
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,083
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,650
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,101
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,245
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (595)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,899
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,899
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,899
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-10766.

#### Dean *v.*Louisiana.

Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.