alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023235EN.01003502.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — Chambers and Others v Commission

(Case T-177/22) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Members of the contract staff - Reimbursement of expenses - Travel expenses - Consequences of the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union - Place of origin located in a third country - Withdrawal of entitlement to annual flat-rate payment for travel expenses - Error of assessment - Equal treatment)

(2023/C 235/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alexander Chambers (Barcelona, Spain), and the nine other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of their pay slips for June 2021, in so far as those pay slips support a finding that, following the departure of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union (or ‘Brexit’), they were no longer eligible for the annual flat-rate payment corresponding to the cost of travel from the place of employment to the place of origin.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Alexander Chambers and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Alexander Chambers and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 20, 2012

t1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

145587

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145587

COA: 310210 

Mecosta CC: 09-006574-FC

GERALD SIDNEY RACE, III, 09-006659-FH

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

HILARIO MORENO-GARCIA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-30382

D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00041-WFN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2013** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Hilario Moreno-Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 27-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

JAN 03 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly MorenoGarcia’s request for oral argument is denied.
Moreno-Garcia contends that the district court’s denial of his motions to

unseal the sentencing transcripts of his co-defendants violated his First

Amendment rights and impeded his ability to evaluate his sentence for disparities

with the sentences of his co-defendants. The district court did not abuse its

discretion because the record supports its conclusion that Moreno-Garcia’s interest

in investigating potential sentencing disparities did not outweigh the compelling

interest of maintaining the safety of his co-defendants and their families. See In re

Copley Press, Inc., 518 F.3d 1022, 1026, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Moreno-Garcia next argues that the district court procedurally erred by

failing to consider unwarranted sentencing disparities when it decided to run his

revocation sentence consecutively to the sentence for his underlying drug

conspiracy. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,

608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The district court considered

Moreno-Garcia’s sentencing disparity argument and found it unpersuasive because

Moreno-Garcia’s circumstances were unique.

Moreno-Garcia finally contends that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the

sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The Guidelines

contemplate that revocation sentences are to run consecutively to sentences for

2 12-30382
new offenses, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), and Moreno-Garcia’s sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of his breach of the court’s trust. See United

States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.

3 12-30382
#### COM. v. WILSON, L.

515 MDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/21/2017

CP-36-CR-0002883-2016 CP-36-CR-0002884-2016 CP-36-CR-0002885-2016 CP-36-CR-0002886-2016 CP-36-CR-0002887-2016 CP-36-CR-0005284-2014 (Lancaster)

Affirmed
<PAGE> 1

<TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21                                   PGI INCORPORATED                                  PAGE 1 OF 1
----------                                   ----------------
                                               SUBSIDIARIES
                                               ------------
<CAPTION>
                                       State of Incorporation        Relationship
                                       ----------------------        ------------
<S>                                    <C>                           <C>
Sugarmill Woods, Inc.                  Florida                       Wholly owned <F1>
Sugarmill Woods Management, Inc.       Florida                       Wholly owned <F1>
Deep Creek Utilities, Inc.             Florida                       Wholly owned <F1>
Southern Woods, Incorporated           Florida                       Wholly owned by Sugarmill Woods, Inc.
Burnt Store Marina, Inc.               Florida                       Wholly owned <F1>
Punta Gorda Isles Sales, Inc.          Florida                       Wholly owned <F1>
Burnt Store Utilities, Inc.            Florida                       Wholly owned <F1>
Gulf Coast Credit Corporation          Florida                       Wholly owned <F1>
Sugarmill Woods Sales, Inc.            Florida                       Wholly owned by Sugarmill Woods, Inc.
Sugarmill Construction, Inc.           Florida                       Wholly owned by Sugarmill Woods, Inc.

<FN>
---------------------------------------
<F1>   Included in the Company's consolidated financial statements.

</TABLE>
No. 11-10415.

#### Herrera *v.*Almager, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-586]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / 
Notices

[[Page 1426]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial Interagency Executive 
Committee (PIEC), Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Eastern Washington Cascades PIEC Advisory Committee will 
meet on January 30, 1997 in Campbell's Conference Center (River Room), 
104 W. Wooden, Chelan, Washington. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. 
and continue until 3:30 p.m. The focus of this meeting will be to 
discuss grazing management under the Northwest Forest Plan, agency 
updates on Northwest Forest Plan implementation, and discuss the focus 
for future advisory committee meetings. All Eastern Washington Cascades 
Province Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested 
citizens are welcome to attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Direct questions regarding this meeting to Paul Hart, Designated 
Federal Official, USDA, Wenatchee National Forest, P.O. Box 811, 
Wenatchee, Washington 98807, 509-662-4335.

    Dated: January 6, 1997.
Sonny J. O'Neal,
Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee National Forest.
[FR Doc. 97-586 Filed 1-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Brian Alleman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Simtek Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Simtek Corporation.



 /s/Brian Alleman
-------------------------------------------
Brian Alleman
Chief Financial Officer

November 14, 2006
# C_2023045EN.01001402.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/14

---

Appeal brought on 15 December 2022 by Airoldi Metalli SpA against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 05 October 2022 in Case T-1/22, Airoldi Metalli SpA v Commission

(Case C-764/22 P)

(2023/C 45/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (represented by: M. Campa, avvocato, D. Rovetta, avocat, P. Gjørtler, advokat, V. Villante, avvocato)

Other party: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare admissible the present appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare admissible the present appeal;

| — | Set aside the Order of the General Court of October 5, 2022, in Case T-1/22, Airoldi Metalli Spa vs. European Commission and declares the action brought by Airoldi Metalli Spa admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the Order of the General Court of October 5, 2022, in Case T-1/22, Airoldi Metalli Spa vs. European Commission and declares the action brought by Airoldi Metalli Spa admissible;

| — | Send back the case to the General Court for examining the substance of Airoldi Metalli Spa’s action; |
| --- | --- |

—

Send back the case to the General Court for examining the substance of Airoldi Metalli Spa’s action;

| — | Order the European Commission to bear the legal cost of the present appeal and of the procedure at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to bear the legal cost of the present appeal and of the procedure at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the current Appeal, the Appellant relies on the two main grounds of appeals:

First ground of appeal: error in law in interpreting the final limb of Article 263 (4) and the requisite and notion of regulatory act which does not entail implementing measures — Wrong qualification of facts and distortion of evidence.

Second ground of appeal: error in law in interpreting the Article 263 (4) TFEU and in particular the requisite of ‘direct and individual concern’ — Wrong qualification of facts.

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4

                           T.J. SMITH & COMPANY, INC.
                             OIL AND GAS CONSULTING
                             1331 LAMAR, SUITE 1340
                            HOUSTON, TEXAS 77010-3027

                               TEL: (713) 651-0651
                               FAX: (713) 655-7613

                      CONSENT OF T.J. SMITH & COMPANY, INC.

        As independent oil and gas consultants, T.J. Smith & Company, Inc.
hereby consents to the use of our reserve report dated as of December 31, 2001
and to all references to our firm included in or made a part of the Mission
Resources Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2002 to be filed on or about March 25, 2003, and to the incorporation by
reference thereof into Mission Resources Corporation's previously filed
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-63562, 333-54798, 333-57827,
333-27707 and 33-91326).

                                        T.J. Smith & Company, Inc.


                                        By:   /s/ T.J. Smith
                                             ---------------------
                                             T.J. Smith, P.E.

Houston, Texas
March 25, 2003
**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 Annual Report of Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy,
Inc. (the "Companies") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Form 10-K"), I, Stephen P. Reynolds, the President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)  The Form
10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Companies.
 
 
 
 Date:
      March 1, 2005/s/Bertrand
      A. ValdmanBertrand
      A. ValdmanSenior
      Vice President andChief
      Financial Officer
#### COM. v. ELLISON, D.

1339 MDA 2011

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

3/2/2012

CP-67-CR-0007099-2007

(York)

Affirmed
EX-10.47





 Exhibit 10.47 

Amendment No. 4 to Scientific Advisory Board Agreement 

This Amendment No. 4, effective March 31, 2018 (“Amendment Effective Date”), is made to the Scientific Advisory Board
Agreement, dated June 18, 2012, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Scientific Advisory Board Agreement, dated June 18, 2012, Amendment No. 2 to Scientific Advisory Board Agreement, dated May 31, 2016, and Amendment No. 3
to Scientific Advisory Board Agreement, dated January 1, 2017 (“Amendment No. 3”) (and collectively, the “SAB Agreement”), and is by and between Caribou Biosciences, Inc. (the “Company”), a Delaware
corporation, and Jennifer A. Doudna (“Advisor”), an individual. Each may be referred to as a “party” and collectively as the “parties.” Any capitalized term used herein that is not defined has the meaning ascribed to it
in the SAB Agreement. 
 WHEREAS, Company and Advisor simultaneously with Amendment No. 3 entered into a separate AgCo
Scientific Advisory Board Agreement (the “AgCo SAB Agreement”) on January 1, 2017, and the parties have mutually agreed to terminate the AgCo SAB Agreement effective March 31, 2018; 

WHEREAS, as set forth in Amendment No. 3, termination of the AgCo SAB Agreement would trigger cessation of payments from Company
to Advisor under the SAB Agreement, and the parties desire instead to continue payments from Company to Advisor under the SAB Agreement; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and undertakings hereinafter set forth, the sufficiency of which is
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	 Paragraph 4 of Amendment No. 3 is hereby deleted in its entirety as of the Amendment Effective Date set
forth above. 


  

	 	2.	 Paragraph 5 of Amendment No. 3 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following Paragraph
4 as of the Amendment Effective Date: 


 “4. Except as set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, the terms and
conditions of the SAB Agreement remain in full force and effect, and the parties hereby ratify and confirm the SAB Agreement.” 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 4 to Scientific Advisory Board Agreement as of the Amendment Effective Date. 
  

					
	Caribou Biosciences, Inc.	 		 	Jennifer A. Doudna
			
	 /s/ Rachel E. Haurwitz
	 		 	 /s/ Jennifer A. Doudna

	Rachel E. Haurwitz	 		 	
	President & CEO
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5827]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Translation Advisory Committee for Diabetes Prevention and 
Control Programs: Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting.

    Name: Translation Advisory Committee for Diabetes Prevention and 
Control Programs.
    Times and Dates: 1 p.m.-5 p.m., March 26, 1997. 8 a.m.-5 p.m., 
March 27, 1997.
    Place: San Diego Marriott Mission Valley, 8757 Rio San Diego 
Drive, San Diego, California 92108, telephone 619/692-3800.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. 
The meeting room accommodates approximately 50 people.
    Purpose: This committee is charged with advising the Director, 
CDC, regarding policy issues and broad strategies for diabetes 
translation activities and control programs designed to reduce risk 
factors, health services utilization, costs, morbidity, and 
mortality associated with diabetes and its complications. The 
Committee identifies research advances and technologies ready for 
translation into widespread community practice; recommends broad 
public health strategies to be implemented through public health 
interventions; identifies opportunities for surveillance and 
epidemiologic assessment of diabetes and related complications; and 
for the purpose of assuring the most effective use and organization 
of resources, maintains liaison and coordination of programs within 
the Federal, voluntary, and private sectors involved in the 
provision of services to people with diabetes.
    Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items include a discussion on 
the public health issues surrounding screening for undiagnosed 
diabetes mellitus, issues in chronic disease screening, salient 
issues for program development, and goals and future areas of 
emphasis for the Division of Diabetes Translation.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Contact Person for More Information: Jay Allen, Program Analyst, 
Division of Diabetes Translation, National Center for Chronic 
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, 
NE, M/S K-10, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724, telephone 770/488-5004.

    Dated: March 3, 1997.
Carolyn J. Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 97-5827 Filed 3-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
```
# C_2023252EN.01004701.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — UNSA Énergie v Commission

(Case T-322/22) (1)

(State aid - Regulated tariffs for the sale of electricity in France - Increase in the ceiling for regulated access to historical nuclear electricity - Rejection of a complaint - Article 1(h) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Trade union - Concept of ‘interested party’)

(2023/C 252/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UNSA Énergie (Bagnolet, France) (represented by: M.-P. Ogel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C.-M. Carrega and I. Georgiopoulos, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the European Commission, contained in its letter of 8 April 2022, rejecting its complaint against the increase, by France, of the maximum overall volume of electricity capable of being sold by Electricité de France (EDF) to alternative electricity suppliers under the regulated access to historical nuclear electricity and the price of additional volumes of electricity accordingly sold.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Unsa Énergie to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Unsa Énergie to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

---
# C_2023216EN.01004701.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — XTG (XTG)

(Case T-154/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark XTG - Earlier EU word mark GTX - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 216/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Machei and G. Orsoni, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: XTG S.A. (Wrocław, Poland)

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 20 December 2021 (Case R 1385/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.

---