alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022237EN.01006001.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/60

---

Action brought on 19 April 2022 — Mhana v Council

(Case T-207/22)

(2022/C 237/78)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ghada Mhana (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni and K. Assogba, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in so far as those acts concern the applicant,






  — | Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/242 of 21 February 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its Annex I; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as those acts concern the applicant,

—

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/242 of 21 February 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its Annex I;

| — | Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/237 of 21 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and its Annex II; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/237 of 21 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and its Annex II;

| — | order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss;

| — | under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs. Ms Ghada Mhana requests that the Council be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by her, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs. Ms Ghada Mhana requests that the Council be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by her, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied upon in Case T-206/22, Makhlouf v Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE REGISTRANT'S
FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,104,132
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,203,589
<PP&E>                                          32,911
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,765
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,458,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          232,923
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,852,452
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,458,650
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               442,685
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 583
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                443,268
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (444,068)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (444,068)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sid Edward WILLIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-30057

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2018 * Portland, Oregon

Filed March 8, 2018

Scott Kerin, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Tonia Louise Moro, Tonia L. Moro Attorney at Law PC, Medford, OR, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: FISHER, N.R. SMITH, apd HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, *See*Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Sid Edward Willis, Jr., appeals a 60-month sentence imposed for violation of *761the terms of his supervised release. We had previously vacated Willis’s sentence for the supervised release violation and remanded for further proceedings. *United States v. Willis,*795 F.3d 986, 997 (9th Cir. 2015). The panel concluded that Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.220(l)(a) is divisible and comprises two offenses, only one of which—the “attempt” offense—is categorically a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 7Bl.l(a)(l), which defines grades of supervised release violations. *Willis,*795 F.3d at 991 n.4, 995. On remand, the district court reviewed the evidence adduced at various evidentiary hearings and found that Willis committed the attempt offense and that he had therefore committed a Grade A violation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. Both *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), and *Almanza-Arenas v. Lynch,*815 F.3d 469 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), support a conclusion that Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.220(l)(a) is divisible, because Oregon case law and model jury instructions demonstrate § 166.220(l)(a) is a disjunctive list of elements, not means. *See Oregon v. Alvarez,*240 Or.App. 167, 246 P.3d 26, 29 (2010); *Oregon v. Cufaude,*239 Or.App, 188, 244 P.3d 382, 383-84 (2010). We therefore adhere to the previous panel’s determination about divisibility, And, Willis does not contend that, if the statute is divisible, the district court was incorrect in finding that he committed the attempt offense.

2. Willis contends that the district court failed to provide an adequate explanation for his sentence. But, Willis does not address the district court’s written resen-tencing order, instead continuing to challenge the district court proceedings in which his initial sentence, now vacated, was imposed. Because he makes no arguments about the insufficiency of the court’s explanation for the renewed sentence, Willis has waived the issue. *See Kim v. Kang,*154 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th Cir. 1998). In any event, the court’s written order is sufficient “to communicate ‘that a reasoned decision has been made’ and ‘permit meaningful appellate review.’ ” *United States v. Rudd,*662 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting *United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)).

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,099
<SECURITIES>                                     3,132
<RECEIVABLES>                                  176,937
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,910
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         341,727
<DEPRECIATION>                                 190,043
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 356,856
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        344,385
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,769)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   356,856
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,155
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,050
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,074
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,997
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,997
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,997
<EPS-BASIC>                                       4.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.80


</TABLE>
# C_2023063EN.01006803.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/68

---

Order of the General Court of 15 December 2022 — PV v European Public Prosecutor’s Office

(Case T-443/22) (1)

(2023/C 63/88)

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Tenth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 380, 3.10.2022.

---
# C_2022109EN.01003401.xml

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/34

---

Action brought on 24 January 2022 — Weider Germany v EUIPO — Den i Nosht (YIPPIE!)

(Case T-45/22)

(2022/C 109/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Weider Germany GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Pfeifer and N. Böhmer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Den i Nosht Ltd (Gorna Oryahovitsa, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark YIPPIE! — EU trade mark No 12 411 567

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 November 2021 in Case R 2227/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division in Case 36 243 C; and |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division in Case 36 243 C; and

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the potential intervener (‘Den i Nosht’ Limited) to pay the costs of the invalidity proceedings and of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the potential intervener (‘Den i Nosht’ Limited) to pay the costs of the invalidity proceedings and of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 64(2) 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(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
BIG-2014.2.01-EX.10.48






EXHIBIT 10.48


Big Lots, Inc. Nonemployee Director
Compensation Package and Share Ownership Requirements
May 30, 2013




Compensation Package1 


	
				
	Annual Board Retainer - Nonexecutive Chair
	

	$160,000
	


	Annual Board Retainer - Nonemployee Director
	

	$70,000
	


	Annual Committee Retainer - Audit Committee - Chair
	

	$30,000
	


	Annual Committee Retainer - Audit Committee - Member
	

	$15,000
	


	Annual Committee Retainer - Compensation Committee and Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee - Chair
	

	$20,000
	


	Annual Committee Retainer - Compensation Committee and Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee - Member
	

	$10,000
	


	Board Meeting Fee
	

	$0
	


	Committee Meeting Fee
	

	$0
	


	Telephonic Meeting Fee - All Types2
	

	$750
	


	Annual Donation by the Company to a Charitable Organization Nominated by Director
	

	$15,000
	


	Annual Matching Donation by the Company to an Charitable Organization Receiving a Donation from a Director
	

	$15,000
	


	Grant Date Fair Value of Big Lots, Inc. Common Shares Underlying Annual Grant of Restricted Stock Award3
	

	$100,000
	









Share Ownership Requirements


Under the minimum share ownership requirements applicable to all non-employee directors and senior executives, each director must, at a minimum, own common shares having an aggregate value equal to four times (4x) his or her annual Board retainer (as is in effect at the time compliance with the requirements is evaluated).  Each existing director will be required to meet the requirements on the date of the 2013 annual meeting of shareholders and at subsequent annual meetings.  A newly elected director will be required to meet the requirements on the date of the first annual meeting following the fifth anniversary of his or her election.  Shares counted toward these requirements include common shares held directly or through a broker, unvested restricted stock, and vested but unexercised in-the-money stock options4.


















		
	1 
	The Board and committee retainers for chairs are in lieu of the Board and committee retainers for members.


		
	2 
	The telephonic meeting fee is to be paid only for telephonic meetings exceeding one per fiscal quarter for each committee and the Board.


		
	3 
	Equity awards are granted pursuant to the Big Lots 2012 Long-Term Incentive Plan or its successor.


		
	4 
	For vested but unexercised in-the-money stock options, only the difference in value between the then-current fair market value of the common shares and the exercise price will be counted toward the share ownership requirements.
No. 11-10791.

#### Buzbee *v.*Maryland.

Ct. Sp. App. Md. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 11-10961.

#### Williams *v.*Hobbs et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     Dec-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                             3,233,000
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      52,000
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     3,285,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                759,000
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                         108,568,000
<OTHER-SE>                      (106,042,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       3,285,000
<SALES>                            6,513,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   6,726,000
<CGS>                                211,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      1,191,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     108,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    10,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    5,417,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                5,417,000
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                       5,417,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.57
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-10711.

#### Powell *v.*Westgate Resorts, Inc.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2022011EN.01002801.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/28

---

Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Omelyanyuk v Council

(Case T-557/21)

(2022/C 11/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aleksandr Omelyanyuk (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-556/21, Lyubetskaya v Council.

---
EXHIBIT 10.17

                        TERMINATION OF PLEDGE AGREEMENT


  The undersigned,

  A.    Internationale Nederlanden  Bank,  N.V., which  has  its  registered
        office in  Amsterdam,  The Netherlands,  acting herein  through  its
        Amsterdam branch, The Netherlands,

        hereinafter referred to as the "Bank"

  B.    Reading &  Bates Corporation, a corporation  organized and  existing
        under the  laws of  Delaware ("RBC"), Reading &  Bates Drilling  Co.
        ("RBC"), Reading & Bates Exploration Co. ("RBX"), Reading and Bates,
        Inc.  ("RBI")  and  Reading  and Bates  Borneo  Drilling  Co.,  Ltd.
        ("RBB"), RBD, RBX, RBI and RBB each being corporations organized and
        existing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and Reading & Bates
        (A) Pty. Ltd. ("RBA"), a company  incorporated under the laws of the
        State of Western Australia,

        RBC, RBD, RBX, RBI, RBB and RBA hereinafter referred to collectively
        as the "Pledgors" and individually as a "Pledgor"

        hereby agree as follows:

        Effective as of the date of execution of this Agreement, the  Pledge
        Agreement dated April  27, 1995 among the  Bank and the Pledgors  is
        terminated,  and  the Pledgors  are released  from any  liability or
        obligation thereunder.

  The Agreement shall be governed by Dutch law.  Any disputes relating to it
  shall  be brought before  the competent  Dutch court, unless the  Bank, as
  plaintiff,  chooses  to  institute proceedings  before  the foreign  court
  competent to hear the case in respect of the Pledgors, as defendants.

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties hereto have duly executed  this Agreement
  on November 29, 1995.

  INTERNATIONALE NEDERLANDEN BANK,    READING & BATES CORPORATION
  BANK, N.V.


  By:                                 By:                         
  Name:                               Name:
  Title:                              Title:

  READING & BATES DRILLING CO.        READING & BATES EXPLORATION CO.


  By:                                 By:                         
  Name:                               Name:
  Title:                              Title:


  READING AND BATES, INC.             READING AND BATES BORNEO
                                            DRILLING CO., LTD.


  By:                                 By:                         
  Name:                               Name:
  Title:                              Title: 

  THE COMMON SEAL OF                        READING & BATES (A) PTY. LTD.
  READING & BATES (A)
  PTY. LTD. was hereunto
  affixed by authority of             By:                         
  the Board of Directors              Name:
  in the presence of:                 Title:


                           
  T. W. Nagle, Director


                           
  W. K. Hillin, Secretary
No. 12-5.

#### Weldon et al. *v.*Obama, President of the United States.

Super. Ct. Fulton County, Ga. Certiorari denied.
# C_2022318EN.01004302.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/43

---

Action brought on 5 July 2022 — adp Merkur v EUIPO — psmtec (SEVEN 7)

(Case T-408/22)

(2022/C 318/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: adp Merkur GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: psmtec GmbH (Illertissen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark SEVEN SEVEN 7 — Application No 18 123 915

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2022 in Case R 1498/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the opposition in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the opposition in its entirety;

| — | refuse the EU trade mark application No 18 123 915 for ‘SEVEN SEVEN 7’ in respect of all of the contested goods in Class 9, namely ‘Software for games on video devices; Game software; Electronic game software; Software’; |
| --- | --- |

—

refuse the EU trade mark application No 18 123 915 for ‘SEVEN SEVEN 7’ in respect of all of the contested goods in Class 9, namely ‘Software for games on video devices; Game software; Electronic game software; Software’;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---