alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016305EN.01002601.xml

| 22.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 — Future Enterprises v EUIPO — McDonald’s International Property (MACCOFFEE)

(Case T-518/13) (1)

1

((European Union trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union word mark MACCOFFEE - Earlier European Union word mark McDONALD’S - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Family of marks - Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark - Declaration of invalidity))

(2016/C 305/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Future Enterprises Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented initially by B. Hitchens, J. Olsen, R. Sharma, M. Henshall, Solicitors, and R. Tritton, Barrister, and subsequently by B. Hitchens, J. Olsen, R. Tritton and E. Hughes-Jones, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: C. Eckhartt, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2013 (Case R 1178/2012-1) relating to cancellation proceedings between McDonald’s International Property Co. and Future Enterprises.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Future Enterprises Pte Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Future Enterprises Pte Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16431]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of person privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, ZDK1 GRB-4(03).
    Date: June 30, 1998.
    Time: 3:00 pm to Adjournment.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Room 6AS.25S, MD 20892 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: William Elzinga, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, Natcher Building, Room 
6AS-37, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-6600, 
(301) 594-8895.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 12, 1998.
Laverne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 98-16431 Filed 6-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2014024EN.01003902.xml

| 25.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/39

---

Action brought on 17 September 2013 — ZZ v REA

(Case F-88/13)

2014/C 24/72

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request to treat his mother as a dependent child pursuant to Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO.1), notified on 28 November 2012, rejecting the applicant’s request of 20 July 2012 to treat his mother as a dependent child pursuant to Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, for the period from 1 November 2012 to 31 October 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO.1), notified on 28 November 2012, rejecting the applicant’s request of 20 July 2012 to treat his mother as a dependent child pursuant to Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, for the period from 1 November 2012 to 31 October 2013;

| — | award the applicant compensation, subject to any amendment and/or increase, in the amount of EUR 1 000 to make good the non-material damage caused by the vexatious and hurtful nature of the decisions rejecting the request and the complaint prior to action; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicant compensation, subject to any amendment and/or increase, in the amount of EUR 1 000 to make good the non-material damage caused by the vexatious and hurtful nature of the decisions rejecting the request and the complaint prior to action;

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

—

order the REA to pay the costs.

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 1 9 , 2020

NO. 03

- 20

- 00152

- CV

C. C. F., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFO RE C HIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES BAKER AND TRIANA

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the de cree of termination signed by the tr i a l court on February 4, 2020

.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s

judg ment

. Because a ppellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is

made.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2572 

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to clarify the definition of 

a deposit broker, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2019 

Mr. FOSTER (for himself and Mr. STIVERS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to clarify the 

definition of a deposit broker, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF DEPOSIT 

4 BROKER. 

5 Section 29 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 

6 U.S.C. 1831f) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (g)(2)— 

8 (A) in subparagraph (H), by striking ‘‘or’’ 

9 at the end; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2572 IH

1 (B) in subparagraph (I), by striking the 

2 period at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

3 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

4 subparagraph: 

5 ‘‘(J) an affiliate of the insured depository 

6 institution, with respect to funds of an account 

7 or benefit plan described in section 

8 3(a)(4)(B)(viii)(I)(ee) of the Securities Ex9 change Act of 1934 for which the insured de10 pository institution acts as custodian or di11 rected trustee, to the extent the affiliate pro12 vides brokerage, advisory, or agency services to 

13 participants or beneficiaries of such account or 

14 benefit plan and such services result in the in15 vestment of the assets of such benefit plan or 

16 account as deposits of such insured depository 

17 institution.’’; and 

18 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub19 section: 

20 ‘‘(i) CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION

21 SHARED WITH AFFILIATES.—Information regarding de22 posit accounts shared by an insured depository institution 

23 with its affiliates that is a communication described under 

24 section 603(d)(2)(ii) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 

25 shall not be a factor in determining whether— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2572 IH

1 ‘‘(1) an affiliate of an insured depository insti2 tution, including an individual employed by such af3 filiate, is considered to be a deposit broker; or 

4 ‘‘(2) deposits resulting from referrals of cus5 tomers to an affiliate of an insured depository insti6 tution are subject to the restrictions of subsections 

7 (a) and (b).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JULIAN GUTIERREZ,

 Appellant,

v.

MARIA LOURDES GUTIERREZ,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00212-CV

Appeal from the

388th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2008CM1409)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion for determination whether the appeal

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Finding that Appellant did not timely file a notice

of appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

A civil appeal is perfected when the notice of appeal is filed. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1;

Restrepo v. First Nat’l Bank of Dona Ana County, N.M., 892 S.W.2d 237, 238 (Tex.App.--

El Paso 1995, no writ)(applying former TEX.R.APP.P. 40(a)(1)). When no motion for new trial

or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law is filed, the notice of appeal must be filed

within thirty days after the judgment is signed. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1; Restrepo, 892 S.W.2d at 238.

When motion for new trial is timely filed, or a party timely files a request for findings of fact and

conclusions of law, the notice of appeal is due ninety days after the judgment is signed. See

TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1(a). An untimely notice of appeal will be considered timely if it is filed within

fifteen days after the due date and includes a reasonable explanation for the appellant’s failure to

file on the due date. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.3; Vergburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex.
-2-

1997).

The judgment in this case was entered on April 4. 2008. Neither a motion for new trial,

nor a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law was filed in the trial court. Thus, the

notice of appeal was due to be filed no later than May 4, 2008. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1. 

Appellant did not file a notice of appeal until June 9, 2008. Therefore, Appellant’s notice of

appeal was untimely filed. By letter dated June 9, 2008, the clerk of this Court notified

Appellant in writing of our intent to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction because the appeal

had not been perfected. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.3. Appellant has not responded to the notice.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

September 11, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.
# Army logistician officer takes charge of DLA Troop Support Europe & Africa

/ Published June 24, 2022
KAISERSLAUTERN, Germany, 
The charge to deliver food, uniforms, medical items and more to ensure the combat readiness of America’s warfighters throughout Europe, Africa and the Middle East changed hands June 17.

Army Lt. Col. Fermin Gonzales Jr. assumed command of the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Europe & Africa from Lt. Col. Tracy Yates during a change of command ceremony in Kaiserslautern, Germany.

Army Brig. Gen. Eric P. Shirley, DLA Troop Support commander, officiated the outdoor ceremony in front of more than forty guests and distinguished visitors at the DLA Quad on Kleber Kaserne.

DLA Troop Support Europe & Africa is a forward element of DLA Troop Support in Philadelphia and supports warfighters in the region through four supply chains: Subsistence, Clothing & Textiles, Medical and Construction & Equipment.

Shirley commented that Yates has expertly led the DLA Troop Support Europe and Africa team through some of the most challenging and volatile times in recent history.

“I’ve witnessed first-hand Tracy’s impact on the local workforce and on Troop Support as a whole as she navigated Warfighter support through the COVID-19 pandemic and additional global crises.” he said. “Under Yates command, the Warfighter was supported with more than 2 billion dollars in Class I, Class II, Class IV and Class VIII items, including more than 30 million dollars in Maintenance, Repair and Operations sales.”

Yates gave credit to military service members, DLA civilians and the local national workforce of DLA Troop Support Europe & Africa whose “care, commitment and sense of duty drives them to go above and beyond.”  She said, “It has been an honor over these past two years to serve with this dedicated team of professionals.”

Yates will serve as the Assistant Executive Officer to the Commanding General of Army Materiel Command at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama.

Gonzales takes command after completing a three-year tour in Okinawa, Japan with the 10th Regional Support Group, U.S Army Japan where he served as the operations officer, executive officer, and deputy commander.

“I’d like to thank the DLA chain of command for this amazing privilege to command Troop Support Europe & Africa,” he said. “I look forward to serving this great organization and its vital mission to support the warfighter.”
No. 09-11531.

#### Deshundrick Dawson, Petitioner v. Louisiana.

562 U.S. 886, 131 S. Ct. 216,

178 L. Ed. 2d 130,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6516.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana denied.

Same case below, 31 So. 3d 359.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

39 

CAF 10-00293 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF TRACY ANDERSON, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SARAH RONCONE, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

CHARLES J. GREENBERG, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ELIZABETH J. CIAMBRONE, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

KENNETH W. GIBBONS, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, BUFFALO, FOR CHEYENNE

R. AND JEFFREY R., JR. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Patricia

A. Maxwell, J.), entered January 20, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 6. The order denied the petition for

visitation. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner mother appeals from an order that denied

her petition seeking to modify a prior order of custody and visitation

by providing her with unsupervised visitation with two of her

children. Those children are in the custody of respondent, their

paternal aunt. “An order of visitation cannot be modified unless

there has been a sufficient change in circumstances since the entry of

the prior order [that], if not addressed, would have an adverse effect

on the children’s best interests” (Matter of Neeley v Ferris, 63 AD3d

1258, 1259; see Matter of Taylor v Fry, 63 AD3d 1217, 1218). Here,

the mother failed to demonstrate such a change in circumstances, and

the record supports Family Court’s determination that the best

interests of the children would be served by continuing the

requirement that visitation be supervised (see Matter of Burczynski v

Rodgers, 61 AD3d 1401; Matter of De Cicco v De Cicco, 29 AD3d 1095,

1096).

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 10.3

                                                                  Attachment III
                                                                  --------------


                    HQ SUSTAINABLE MARITIME INDUSTRIES, INC.
                             2004 STOCK OPTION PLAN

                               EXERCISE AGREEMENT
                               ------------------

The Committee for the
HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc.
2004 Stock Option Plan
Attn: ___________________________

To the Committee:

         This constitutes notice under my Option that I,_______________________,


elect to  purchase  the number of shares of Stock  ("Shares")  for the price set
forth below.

o        Date of exercise:                                  ____________________

o        Type of Option (check one):                        Incentive        |_|
                                                            Non-Qualified    |_|

o        Option dated:                                      ____________________

o        Number of Shares as to which Option is exercised:  ____________________

o        Exercise Price per share:                          ____________________

o        Total Exercise Price:                              ____________________

o        Cash payment delivered herewith:                   ____________________

o        Certificates to be issued in name of:              ____________________


By this exercise,  I agree (i) to provide such  additional  documents as you may
require pursuant to the terms of the HQ Sustainable  Maritime  Industries,  Inc.
2004 Stock  Option  Plan,  (ii) to provide  for the payment by me to you (in the
manner  designated by you) of your withholding  obligation,  if any, relating to
the exercise of this Option,  and (iii) if this  exercise  relates to an ISO, to
notify you in writing within fifteen (15) days after the date of any disposition
of any of the Shares  issued upon exercise of this Option that occurs within two
(2) years  after the Date of Grant of this  Option or within  one (1) year after
such  Shares  are  issued  upon  exercise  of this  Option.  Defined  terms  not
explicitly defined in this Exercise Agreement but defined in the Plan shall have
the same definitions as in the Plan.


Signature:_____________________________                 Date:___________________
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1930

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 12, 1994

Referred to the Committee on Agriculture

AN ACT

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development

Act to improve the administration of claims and obligations of the Farmers Home Administration, and for other

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Farmers Home Admin5 istration Improvement Act of 1994’’.
2

•S 1930 RFH

1 SEC. 2. DELINQUENT FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION

2 OBLIGATIONS.

3 Section 331 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural De4 velopment Act (7 U.S.C. 1981) is amended by adding at

5 the end the following new subsection:

6 ‘‘(c) The Secretary may use for the prosecution or

7 defense of any claim or obligation described in subsection

8 (b)(5) the Attorney General, the General Counsel of the

9 Department of Agriculture, or a private attorney who has

10 entered into a contract with the Secretary.’’.

Passed the Senate March 24 (legislative day, February 22), 1994.

Attest: WALTER J. STEWART,

Secretary.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23

- 0464 IN THE MATTER OF: R.L.R.G., A YOUTH IN NEED OF CARE.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Robin Lee is granted an extension of time to and including November 17 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on appeal. No further extensions will be granted. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 16 2023

10/16/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0464
#### Roxanne Gayle, Respondent, v Janet C. Body, DDS, et al., Appellants.

[66 NYS3d 607]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered December 11, 2015, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to file a note of issue after service of a CPLR 3216 demand, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ motion to dismiss this action alleging dental malpractice. Despite the inadequacy of plaintiff’s papers opposing dismissal, the record indicates only a minor delay to complete discovery. The circumstances presented also do not suggest an intent to abandon prosecution, persistent neglect on the part of plaintiff, or particular prejudice to defendants. Furthermore, “a credibly meritorious claim can be gleaned from the record” *(Espinoza v 373-381 Park Ave. S., LLC,*68 AD3d 532, 533 [1st Dept 2009]; *see Di Simone v Good Samaritan*Hosp., 100 NY2d 632 [2003]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kapnick, Webber and Moulton, JJ.