alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022084EN.01004901.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/49

---

Action brought on 5 January 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (Representation of a chevron)

(Case T-5/22)

(2022/C 84/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brooks Sports, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of a chevron) — International registration designating the European Union No 1 441 912

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2021 in Case R 910/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal 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(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 54 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13376-13377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7139]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES


Notice of Open Special Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the 
Export-Import Bank of the Export-Import Bank of the United States

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee was established by P.L. 98-181, 
November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and 
to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import 
Bank to the United States Congress.

TIME AND PLACE: Thursday, April 3, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon. 
The meeting will be held at EX-IM Bank in Room 1143, 811 Vermont 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20571.

AGENDA: The meeting agenda will include a discussion of the following: 
A discussion of the roles and responsibilities of the Advisory 
Committee, an overview of the Export-Import Bank and a round table 
discussion by the Advisory Committee of the theme for 1997, ``Global 
Export Finance.''

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The meeting will be open to public participation; 
and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral questions or 
comments. Members of the public may also file written statement(s) 
before or after the meeting. In order to permit the Export-Import Bank 
to arrange suitable accommodations, members of the public who plan to 
attend the meeting should notify Joyce Herron, Room 1215, 811 Vermont 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20571, (202) 565-3503, not later than 
September 23, 1996. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign 
language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please contact, 
prior to September 26, 1996, Joyce Herron, Room 1215, 811 Vermont 
Avenue, N.W.,

[[Page 13377]]

Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 565-3955 or TDD: (202) 565-3377.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joyce Herron, Room 1215, 811 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20571, (202) 565-3503.
Kenneth Hansen,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-7139 Filed 3-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOEL MAZARIEGOS-SOTO, a.k.a. Joel

Mazariegos-Perez,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-10129

D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00898-SRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2015** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Joel Mazariegos-Soto appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

FILED

FEB 24 2015

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).
§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and (h); and one count of conspiracy to transport and harbor

illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (iii), and (v)(I). We

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

Mazariegos-Soto contends that the district court improperly restricted his

attorney’s argument during sentencing, thereby violating Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 32, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and his rights to due process and the assistance

of counsel. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1011

(9th Cir. 2008), we conclude that the court did not violate Rule 32 or MazariegosSoto’s rights because it permitted counsel to argue for a below-Guidelines sentence

under the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(1)(C);

United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Mazariegos-Soto next argues that the district court erred by applying a ninelevel, rather than a six-level, enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(2)(C). 

Contrary to Mazariegos-Soto’s argument, the enhancement did not need to be

supported by clear and convincing evidence. See United States v. Dare, 425 F.3d

634, 642 (9th Cir. 2005). A preponderance of the evidence supports the

enhancement. See id.

Mazariegos-Soto finally argues that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable, in part because the court gave the Guidelines calculation less weight

2 14-10129
than the other section 3553(a) factors. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in imposing sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section

3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including

Mazariegos-Soto’s role in, and the extent of, the conspiracy. See Gall, 552 U.S. at

51; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009)

(“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion

of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.

3 14-10129
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1192 

Expressing support for the goals of November National Lung Cancer 

Awareness Month and for the early detection of lung cancer. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 16, 2020 

Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr. RUTHERFORD) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the goals of November National Lung 

Cancer Awareness Month and for the early detection 

of lung cancer. 

Whereas lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related 

death among men and women in the United States, accounting for more deaths than colon cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer combined; 

Whereas lung cancer is the second most common cancer in 

the United States; 

Whereas 1 in 15 men and 1 in 17 women in the United 

States will develop lung cancer during their lifetime; 

Whereas it is estimated that in 2020, 228,820 individuals in 

the United States will be diagnosed with lung cancer, and 

135,720 individuals will die from the disease; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1192 IH 

Whereas the 5-year survival rate for localized lung cancer is 

around 59 percent, yet only about 17 percent of lung 

cancers are diagnosed at this stage; 

Whereas screening for lung cancer for high-risk individuals 

using low-dose computed tomography can lead to the earlier detection of lung cancer and save lives, reducing the 

mortality by 20 percent when compared to screening by 

chest x-ray in the National Lung Screening Trial and reducing the risk of death at 10 years by 24 percent in 

men and 33 percent in women when compared to no 

screening as demonstrated by another large randomized 

trial; 

Whereas lung cancer screening can effectively reduce lung 

cancer mortality, yet only a small percentage of individuals (3.9 to 8.6 percent) considered to be at high risk for 

developing lung cancer actually undergo lung cancer 

screening with low-dose computed tomography; and 

Whereas educational efforts can increase awareness for lung 

cancer and lung cancer screening among the general public, patients, and health care workers, thereby increasing 

the early detection of lung cancer: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of November 

3 National Lung Cancer Awareness Month; 

4 (2) supports efforts to increase awareness of, 

5 and education about, lung cancer and lung cancer 

6 screening among the general public of the United 

7 States; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1192 IH 

1 (3) recognizes the need for additional research 

2 into early diagnosis, screening, and treatment for 

3 lung cancer; and 

4 (4) encourages the people of the United States 

5 to observe National Lung Cancer Awareness Month 

6 with appropriate awareness and educational activi7 ties. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
No. 11-11015.

#### Canas *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2022359EN.01004001.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/40

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad Sofia (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 June 2022 — UA v EUROBANK BULGARIA AD

(Case C-409/22)

(2022/C 359/45)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Apelativen sad Sofia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UA

Defendant: EUROBANK BULGARIA AD

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a power of attorney by which the agent makes a disposal of assets on behalf of the payer by means of a payment order constitute a payment instrument within the meaning of Article 4(23) of [Directive 2007/64/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC]? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a power of attorney by which the agent makes a disposal of assets on behalf of the payer by means of a payment order constitute a payment instrument within the meaning of Article 4(23) of [Directive 2007/64/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC]?

| 2. | Does the ‘apostille’ certificate placed on a document by the competent foreign authority in accordance with the 1961 Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents form part of the authentication procedure for both the payment instrument and the payment transaction within the meaning of Article 4(19) of that directive, in conjunction with Article 59(1) thereof? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the ‘apostille’ certificate placed on a document by the competent foreign authority in accordance with the 1961 Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents form part of the authentication procedure for both the payment instrument and the payment transaction within the meaning of Article 4(19) of that directive, in conjunction with Article 59(1) thereof?

| 3. | If the payment instrument (including one authorising a third person to make disposals on behalf of the payer) is formally (prima facie) regular, can the national court assume that the payment transaction is authorised, that is to say, that the payer has consented to its execution? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the payment instrument (including one authorising a third person to make disposals on behalf of the payer) is formally (prima facie) regular, can the national court assume that the payment transaction is authorised, that is to say, that the payer has consented to its execution?

---

(1)  Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1).

---
|
|

|Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009                                                                                   
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Figure 18.  Coal Costs to Electricity Producers in ACESA Main Cases, 2020 (2007 dollars per million Btu).  Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800).
|Figure 18.  Coal Costs to Electricity Producers in ACESA Main Cases, 2020 (2007 dollars per million Btu).  Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800).
|Figure 18.  Coal Costs to Electricity Producers in ACESA Main Cases, 2020 (2007 dollars per million Btu).  Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800).
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(t)

                [UNITED STATES LIME & MINERALS, INC. LETTERHEAD]


                                 April 18, 1996

Mr. Wallace G. Irmscher
51 Marsh Creek Road
Amelia Island, Florida 32034

Dear Jack,

         This letter is to confirm our understanding of the consulting work
that you will be undertaking for United States Lime & Minerals, Inc.

         The following will highlight these understandings:

         1)      You will provide consulting services which will assist U.S.
                 Lime in pursuing acquisitions and/or expansion opportunities.

         2)      You will, on average, spend three to four days per month on
                 these consulting activities.

         3)      You will be paid $2,000.00 per month, plus you will be
                 reimbursed for reasonable out of pocket expenses which you
                 incur on our behalf.

         4)      You will be directed by me in these undertakings and you will
                 keep me appraised of your work with periodic oral and written
                 reports.

         5)      These arrangements for your consulting services will cover a
                 one year period starting April 1st, 1996, unless either you or
                 I terminate this understanding, for any reason, before the end
                 of one year.

         Jack, I appreciate your commitment to our Company and I look forward
to developing new opportunities for U.S.  Lime. If you have any questions,
please let me know.

                                        Very truly yours,


                                        /s/ ROBERT F. KIZER


                                        Robert F. Kizer,
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer

cc: Ed Odishaw
World Energy Projection System (WEPS): 

Greenhouse Gases Module

Independent Statistics & Analysis

www.eia.gov

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

Last Updated 2020
U.S. Energy Information Administration | World Energy Projection System: Greenhouse Gases Model i

This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and 

analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA’s data, analyses, and forecasts are 

independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the United States Government. The views 

in this report therefore should not be construed as representing those of the U.S. Department of Energy 

or other federal agencies.
U.S. Energy Information Administration | World Energy Projection System: Greenhouse Gases Model 1

Contents

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 2

2. Calculating Emissions................................................................................................................................ 2
U.S. Energy Information Administration | World Energy Projection System: Greenhouse Gases Model 2

1. Introduction

The WEPS Greenhouse Gases Model projects energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by taking the 

consumption projections of the other WEPS models and applying carbon dioxide emissions factors and 

combustion fractions to them. We calibrated the emissions factors and combustion fractions to recent 

historical data from EIA’s International Energy Statistics database. The model accounts for fuel used as a 

petrochemical feedstock that captures carbon by reducing the combustion fraction, as well as energy 

that is used by carbon capture and storage facilities. The model does not account for carbon dioxide

emissions from non-energy consumption sources, such as process emissions from the manufacture of 

cement, or for non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions that may be related to energy production,

such as fugitive methane emissions. Also, it does not account for carbon transfers (flux) related to land 

use and changes in land use. 

2. Calculating Emissions

For every sector, fuel, region, and year, carbon dioxide emissions (million metric tons) are estimated by

the following formula:

Emissions= (Energy Consumption-ECCE)×Emissions Factor×Combustion Fraction 

1,000

where CCE=Energy Consumption with Captured Emissions

The Consumption estimate for each fuel is expressed in trillion Btu, and the Emissions Factor is in 

kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted per million Btu of consumption. The Combustion Fraction is the 

fraction of fuel actually combusted and not sequestered.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 13614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7313]


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


FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 
10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 25, 1997, to consider the following 
matters:

Summary Agenda

    No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. 
These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of 
the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion 
agenda.

Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' meetings.
Reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board 
of Directors.
Executive Management Report for year end 1996.
Memorandum and resolution re: Proposed Amendments to Part 361--Formal 
Minority-and Women-Owned Business and Law Firm Certification Program--
Individuals with Disabilities Outreach Program.
Memorandum and resolution re: Final Amendments to Part 303 Regarding 
Applications and Delegations of Authority.
Memorandum and resolution re: Statement of Policy on Interagency 
Coordination of Bank Holding Company Inspections and Subsidiary Bank 
Examinations.
Memorandum and resolution re: Statement of Policy on Applications, 
Legal Fees, and Other Expenses.
Memorandum and resolution re: Statement of Policy Regarding Eligibility 
to Make Application to Become an Insured Bank under Section 5 of the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

Discussion Agenda

Memorandum and resolution re: Statement of Policy Regarding Liability 
of Commonly Controlled Depository Institutions.
Memorandum and resolution re: Proposed Rule Regarding Deposit Insurance 
Simplification.

    The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of 
the FDIC Building located at 550--17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign 
language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees 
needing such assistance should call (202) 416-2449 (Voice); (202) 416-
2004 (TTY), to make necessary arrangements.
    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be 
directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Deputy Executive Secretary of the 
Corporation, at (202) 898-6757.

    Dated: March 18, 1997.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Robert E. Feldman,
Deputy Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-7313 Filed 3-19-97; 10:59 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alan D. TURNER Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4516

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted December 11, 2017

Filed February 8, 2018

Tiffany Gulley Becker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Saint Louis, MO, Timothy J. Willis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Cape Girardeau, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

*715Michael Skrien, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Cape Girardeau, MO, for Defendant-Appellant

Alan D. Turner, Pro Se

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Alan D. Turner appeals a district court1 order revoking his supervised release. Turner was released from custody before his appeal was submitted to this panel, and he is not subject to a new term of supervised release. We are “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971) (per curiam). Turner has completed his post-revocation sentence, so we can only consider his appeal if there is an ongoing “collateral consequence” of the revocation or incarceration. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). To maintain his appeal, Turner must show a “concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole.” Id.

Turner appeals only the revocation of his supervised release. Turner completed his 14-month post-revocation sentence on October 27, 2017. He did not receive a new term of supervised release, and he has not identified any concrete and continuing injury. We therefore conclude that Turner presents no case or controversy for us to resolve, and we dismiss his appeal as moot.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Michael Lamont ELLIS, Petitioner

No. 308 WAL 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 9, 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.