alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023134EN.01001402.xml

| 17.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Lifestyle Equities v EUIPO — Greenwich Polo Club (GREENWICH POLO CLUB GPC 2002)

(Case T-217/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark GREENWICH POLO CLUB GPC 2002 - Earlier EU figurative mark BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB - Relative ground for invalidity - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 134/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amstelveen, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Terpstra, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Greenwich Polo Club, Inc. (Greenwich, Connecticut, United States)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 February 2022 (Case R 1063/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lifestyle Equities CV and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lifestyle Equities CV and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.

---
III 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 140 

Commemorating and acknowledging the dedication and sacrifice made by 

the men and women who have lost their lives while serving as law 

enforcement officers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 11, 2009 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, 

Mr. KOHL, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. KAUFMAN, and Mr. MERKLEY) submitted the following resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating and acknowledging the dedication and sacrifice made by the men and women who have lost their 

lives while serving as law enforcement officers. 

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is 

preserved and enhanced as a direct result of the vigilance 

and dedication of law enforcement personnel; 

Whereas more than 900,000 men and women, at great risk 

to their personal safety, presently serve their fellow citizens as guardians of the peace; 

Whereas peace officers are on the front lines in protecting the 

schools and schoolchildren of the United States; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 140 ATS 

Whereas 133 peace officers across the United States were 

killed in the line of duty during 2008; 

Whereas Congress should strongly support initiatives to reduce violent crime and to increase the factors that contribute to the safety of law enforcement officers, including— 

(1) equipment of the highest quality and modernity; 

(2) increased availability and use of bullet-resistant 

vests; 

(3) improved training; and 

(4) advanced emergency medical care; 

Whereas there are recorded 18,274 Federal, State, and local 

law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line 

of duty while protecting their fellow citizens, and whose 

names are engraved upon the National Law Enforcement 

Officers Memorial in Washington, District of Columbia; 

Whereas in 1962, President John F. Kennedy designated 

May 15th as National Peace Officers Memorial Day; 

Whereas on May 15, 2009, more than 20,000 peace officers 

are expected to gather in Washington, District of Columbia, to join with the families of their recently fallen comrades to honor those comrades and all others who went 

before them: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes May 15, 2009, as ‘‘National 

3 Peace Officers Memorial Day’’, in honor of the Fed4 eral, State, and local law enforcement officers that 

5 have been killed or injured in the line of duty; and 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 140 ATS 

1 (2) calls on the people of the United States to 

2 observe that day with appropriate ceremony, solem3 nity, appreciation, and respect. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6296
JOHN G. SIMKUS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BISHOP L. ROBINSON; RICHARD A. LA NHAM, SR.; FRANK C. SIZER, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-97-1947-WMN) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 18, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John G. Simkus, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Wendy Ann Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Simkus v. Robinson , No. CA-97-1947-WMN (D. Md. Feb. 13, 1998). We deny Appellant's motion to terminate the collection of filing fees and motion for expedited treatment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Edward A. Johnson, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OptimumCareCorporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
(b) [Not required]
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonable likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial data; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.     /s/ Edward A. Johnson  Date: November 10, 2003 EDWARD A. JOHNSON,  Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 99

   LETTER TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T



SB Partners
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY  10020

March 29, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549-0408

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T of Article 3 of Regulation S-X, SB Partners has
received a letter of representation from Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen"), its
independent accountants, stating that the December 31, 2001 audit was subject to
their quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to
provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance
with professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen
personnel working on the audit and availability of national office consultation.
Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen is not relevant to
this audit.


Very truly yours,

SB Partners
SB Partners Real Estate Corporation, General Partner


/s/George N. Tietjen, III
George N. Tietjen, III
Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
#### State v. Stevens

113,433

03/31/2016

Denied.

Unpublished
# table31
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6036
BARRY ALEXANDER ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-771-3) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barry Alexander Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewedthe record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Robinson v. Virginia , No. CA-95-771-3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 19, 1995). 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.

<S>                             <C>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                         APR-01-2000       APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-2000       JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                        1                 1
<CASH>                                 298,376           281,216
<SECURITIES>                           0                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                          3,011,314         2,068,428
<ALLOWANCES>                           0                 0
<INVENTORY>                            2,624,244         3,378,687
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       6,070,358         5,819,990
<PP&E>                                 18,676,298        18,589,567
<DEPRECIATION>                         (7,957,851)       (7,366,051)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         19,302,722        19,620,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  7,363,453         7,192,006
<BONDS>                                3,285,894         3,527,128
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0                 0
<PREFERRED>                            0                 0
<COMMON>                               0                 0
<OTHER-SE>                             8,653,375         8,901,586
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           19,302,722        19,620,720
<SALES>                                13,683,697        13,901,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       13,729,967        13,932,674
<CGS>                                  12,737,515        13,497,873
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          13,683,758        14,585,641
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     179,421           160,647
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        0                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                           0                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    0                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                         0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0                 0
<CHANGES>                              0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                           46,209            (652,967)
<EPS-BASIC>                            0                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.04)             (.50)


</TABLE>
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44315

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

ISMIEL EMANNUAL MEEDS

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 801

Filed: December 1, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail , District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen , State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford

, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , D eputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Ismiel Emannual Meeds pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm . I.C. § 18

- 3316

.

The district court sentenced Meeds to a unified term o f five years, with a minimum period of

confinement of two years, to run consecutive to an unrelated sentence

. Meeds filed an I.C.R 35

motion, which the district court denied. Meeds appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is esse ntially a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of2 new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the

motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 84 0 (2007). Upon review of the

record, including any new information submitted with Meeds ’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Meeds ’s

Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
## n VlSIO n P S LA S VEGA S | LO S ANGELE S | DALLAS | 

# ENTERTAINMEN TI CAPITA L Mr . Bo b Karn s Sovereig n Air , Inc . Dea rBob : A s pe ryou rrequest , I a m providin g thi s documen t a s a backgroun d t o th e Nvisio n grou p o fcompanie s s o tha t yo u mayhav e th e informatio n yo u require fo ryou rD.O.T . application . I fyo u shoul d require , w e coul d provid e more detaile d financia l informatio n althoug h thi s i s no t publi cinformatio n an d woul d requir e a separat e us e an d non-disclosure agreement . Nvisio n Partners i s a ful l servic e fir m providin g projec t consultin g primaril yt o th e entertainmen t an d entertainmen t suppor

t industries . W e specializ e i n motio n picture , stag e an d televisio n plannin g an d production . Ou rservice s includ e capita l structure , executiv e productio n services , pe rproject consulting . Thi s include s bot h live an d filme d entertainment . Currently , ou rentertainmen t practic e ha s ove r$20 0 Millio n U.S . i n project s an d capita l unde rmanagement . Nvisio n Partners , throug h its Dalla s base d subsidiar yNvisio n Sport s Managemen t d.b.a . NvisionGolf , manage s an d produce s two worldwid e gol ftournaments . Throug h NSM , w e als o provid e representatio n t o multipl e gol fplayers an d sport s entertainmen t relate d talent . Throug h licensin g an d fees , w e project th e sport s divisio n wil l creat e revenue s ofove r$2 0 Millio n U.S . i n 2010 . Most recentl yan d more directl yrelate d t o Sovereig n Air , w e create d anothe rsubsidiar ycalle d Nvisio n AviaTech . Thi s La s Vega s base d entityprovide s ove r6 0 year s o fcombine d experienc e i n th e aviatio n an d internationa l defens e fields . W e emplo yexpert s wit h divers e background s i n federa l regulations , operations , maintenance , defense , an d aircraft acquisitio n an d leasing . Nvisio n Partners ha s devote d $ 5 Millio n U.S . t o thi s divisio n an d i s currentl yplacin g capita l i n venture s includin g start-u p ai rcarrier , a s wel l a s acquisitio n o fexistin g businesses . W e are als o concentratin g o n opportunitie s i n internationa l leasin g o fbusines s aircraft . Nvisio n AviaTec h i s base d i n Te l Aviv , Israel . I n answe rt o som e question s raise d durin g ou rpreviou s conversation , ou rplanne d investmen t i n Sovereig n Ai rwil l b e conducte d throug h Nvisio n AviaTech . Th e placemen t wil l b e fo r$350,00 0 U.S . wit h a n additiona l lin e ofcredi t throug h Nvisio n AviaTec h fo r$500,000 U.S . subjec t t o th e term s an d condition s i n th e fundin g documen t packag e whic h i s forthcoming . I hop e thi s lette ranswere d som e o fth e question s raised . I fyo u require furthe rinformatio n fo rth e informatio n yo u are preparin g fo rth e D.O.T. , pleas e le t m e knowan d I wil l d o m ybest t o provid e tha t t o you . W e loo k

forwar d t o a successfu l relationshi p wit h Sovereig n Air .

Bria n Hicks Managin g Director , Nvisio n Partners / Nvisio n AviaTec h
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16216-16217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8696]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Nonconventional Source Fuel Credit; Publication of Inflation 
Adjustment Factor, Nonconventional Source Fuel Credit, and Reference 
Price for Calendar Year 1996

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Publication of inflation adjustment factor, nonconventional 
source fuel credit, and reference price for calendar year 1996 as 
required by section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. section 
29).

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

SUMMARY: The inflation adjustment factor, nonconventional source fuel 
credit, and reference price are used in determining the tax credit 
allowable on the production of fuel from nonconventional sources under 
section 29.

DATES: The 1996 inflation adjustment factor, nonconventional source 
fuel credit, and reference price apply to qualified fuels sold during 
calendar year 1996.
    Inflation Factor: The inflation adjustment factor for calendar year 
1996 is 1.9837.
    Credit: The nonconventional source fuel credit for calendar year 
1996 is $5.95 per barrel-of-oil equivalent of qualified fuels.
    Price: The reference price for calendar year 1996 is $18.46. 
Because this reference price does not exceed $23.50 multiplied by the 
inflation adjustment factor, the phaseout of credit provided for in 
section 29(b)(1) does not occur for any qualified fuel sold in calendar 
year 1996.

[[Page 16217]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For the inflation factor and credit--Thomas Thompson, CP:R:R:AR:E, 
Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 
20224, Telephone Number (202) 874-0585 (not a toll-free number).
    For the reference price--David McMunn, CC:DOM:P&SI:6, Internal 
Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20224, 
Telephone Number (202) 622-3110 (not a toll-free number).
Daniel J. Wiles,
Acting Associate Chief Counsel (Domestic).
[FR Doc. 97-8696 Filed 4-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
#### State v. Bolze-Sann

105,297

10/17/13

Granted

Unpublished
No. 12-107.

#### Sensing et al. *v.*Porter et al.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.