alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015026EN.01002701.xml

| 26.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2014 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Inceda (WATT and WATT)

(Joined Cases T-494/13 and T-495/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative trade mark Watt and Community word mark Watt - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 026/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sales & Solutions GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Inceda Holding GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: J. Wald and D. Thrun, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

In Case T-494/13, action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2013 (Case R 1192/2012-4), and, in Case T-495/13, action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2013 (Case R 1193/2012-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Inceda Holding GmbH and Sales & Solutions GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Sales & Solutions GmbH to bear its own costs as well as those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and of Inceda Holding GmbH in Joined Cases T-494/13 and T-495/13. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sales & Solutions GmbH to bear its own costs as well as those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and of Inceda Holding GmbH in Joined Cases T-494/13 and T-495/13.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

1

---
# C_2014039EN.01003001.xml

| 8.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/30

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 December 2013 — Roda v Commission

(Case F-30/13)

(Civil service - Survivor’s pension - Death of former spouse - Maintenance - Pre-litigation procedure - Requirement of a complaint - Unduly late - Manifest inadmissibility)

2014/C 39/55

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Silvana Roda (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: L. Ribolzi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request to receive a survivor’s pension at the rate of 60 % of the last basic salary of her late ex-husband.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Ms Roda is ordered to bear her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Roda is ordered to bear her own costs.

---
Exhibit 10.25 (a)



                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     This Amendment to Employment Agreement is entered into effective December
8, 2004 by and between AspenBio, Inc. (the "Company") and Roger Hurst ("Hurst").

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors and Hurst agree that it is in the best
interests of the Company for Hurst to change his employment status from Chief
Executive Officer and President of the Company to Manager of the Antigen
Division. This change will allow Hurst to focus his efforts on increasing the
value to the Company of the Antigen Division.

     WHEREAS, the parties desire that Hurst's employment agreement effective
September 1, 2004 (the "Agreement") remain in effect, except for the changes in
Hurst's position and duties and the other provisions specifically set forth in
this Amendment.

     NOW THEREFORE the parties enter into this Amendment to Employment Agreement
for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged:

     1.   Effective immediately, Hurst resigns as President of the Company and
          will serve as Manager of the Antigen Division of the Company, in which
          position he will oversee all internal operations of the antigen
          business.

     THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is effective as of the date first
set forth above.

                                               ASPENBIO, INC.

                                               By ___________________________
                                               Name _________________________
                                               Title ___________________________


                                               ROGER HURST

                                               /s/ Roger Hurst
                                               ---------------------------
                                               Roger Hurst, Individually
#  All Grown-Up: DLA Child Development Center has its first set of high school graduates

/ Published July 23, 2015
Fort Belvoir, Virginia,
#### Grace Phillips Johnson, a feme sole, et al., *Appellants,*vs. Emil Metzinger, et al., *Appellees.*

144 So. 204.

Division A.

Opinion filed October 27, 1932.

*164*Akerman <& Gray,*for Appellants;

*G. P. Garrett,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This case is before us on -motion to dismiss. Briefs have been filed both for appellants and appellees. The motion to dismiss is based upon seven (7) grounds, as follows:

> “Ground No. 1.

> Complainant had no right to bring this suit for foreclosure.

> Ground No. 2.

> Complainant did not make any showing for receivership in her foreclosure suit.

> Ground No. 3.

> The receiver has no right of appeal from the orders appealed from.

> Ground No. 4.

> Grace Phillips Johnson has no right of appeal from the orders appealed from.

> Ground No. 5.

> The appeal is, upon its face, frivolous and taken for delay only.

> Ground No. 6.

> The appeal is, upon its face, taken in ill faith.

> Ground No. 7.

> The record shows that the suit is a collusive one, and that the complainant did not come into court with clean hands.”

From an inspection of the record we are unable to say that the appeal is frivolous; and, therefore, we would not be justified in dismissing the appeal on grounds numbered 5 and 6.

To determine whether or not the suit should be dismissed upon either of the other grounds would require the Court to give to the record the same thorough and careful consideration which would be required to reach a determination of the case on its merits and to do so would *165be in effect to advance tbe case on tbe docket for consideration on its merits.

The question presented aside from the allegation that the appeal is frivolous should be determined upon consideration of the case upon its merits and not upon consideration on motion to dismiss.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.

Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
TO: Ex parte communications, U.S. Department of Energy FROM: Keith Dennis , National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA DATE: September 6 , 2013

RE: NRECA’s Ex Parte Communication with DOE on June 11, 2013

Teleconference summary Attendees: John Cymbalsky – DOE Jay Morr ison – NRECA Keith Dennis – NRECA Julie Barkemeyer - NRECA

Issues Discussed:

The attendees identified above met via teleconference on July 10, 2013, to discuss DOE’s proposed rulemaking to allow waivers from ene rgy conservation standards for large (>55 gallon) residential electric storage water heaters used in demand response and thermal energy storage programs (Docket No. EERE

‐ 2012

‐ BT

‐ STD

‐ 0022).

In addition, NRECA specifically addressed the following:

• Ongoin g efforts to negotiate a potential compromise solution with environmental advocates and manufacturers and status of such negoti ations.

• The potential for Congress to take action to address the waiver issue.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5



       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       5,584,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               87,115,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,326,000
<INVENTORY>                                129,695,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           224,422,000
<PP&E>                                     107,151,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              35,580,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             320,718,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      178,554,000
<BONDS>                                    103,665,000
<COMMON>                                        47,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,733,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               320,718,000
<SALES>                                    614,300,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           614,300,000
<CGS>                                      524,535,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              524,535,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          23,429,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,032,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   680,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,352,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,352,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.46
        


</TABLE>
# C_2016270EN.01003802.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2016 — Marquis Energy v Council

(Case T-277/13) (1)

1

((Dumping - Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Direct concern - Admissibility - Countrywide anti-dumping duty - Individual treatment - Sampling))

(2016/C 270/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Marquis Energy LLC (Hennepin, Illinois, United States) (represented initially by P. Vander Schueren, and subsequently by P. Vander Schueren and M. Peristeraki, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, and by B. Byrne, Solicitor, and G. Berrisch, lawyer, and subsequently by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents); and ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol (represented by: O. Prost and A. Massot, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America (OJ 2013 L 49, p. 10), in so far as it affects the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America in so far as it concerns Marquis Energy LLC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America in so far as it concerns Marquis Energy LLC;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Marquis Energy; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Marquis Energy;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2596 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2596

To amend the Toxic Substances Control Act with respect to manufacturing 
and processing notices for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2019

Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire (for herself and Mr. Pappas) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Toxic Substances Control Act with respect to manufacturing 
and processing notices for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Communities from New PFAS 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING NOTICES FOR PER- AND 
              POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES.

    Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2604) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (h), by adding at the end the following:
    ``(7) This subsection does not apply to any chemical substance that 
is a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance.''.
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(j) Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.--
            ``(1) Determination.--Any chemical substance that is a 
        perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance for which a notice 
        is submitted under subsection (a) shall be deemed to have been 
        determined by the Administrator to present an unreasonable risk 
        of injury to health or the environment under paragraph (3)(A) 
        of such subsection.
            ``(2) Order.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)(3)(A), for a 
        chemical substance described in paragraph (1) of this 
        subsection, the Administrator shall issue an order under 
        subsection (f)(3) to prohibit the manufacture, processing, and 
        distribution in commerce of such chemical substance.''.
                                 <all>
```
# New commanders selected for three DLA activities

/ Published April 5, 2016

Defense Logistics Agency Director Air Force Lt. Gen. Andy Busch has announced the selection of new commanders for three DLA activities: Air Force Brig. Gen. Martin Chapin, DLA Energy; Army Col. John Laskodi, DLA Distribution; and Navy Rear Adm. Michelle Skubic, DLA Land and Maritime.

Chapin currently serves as the deputy director of operations and plans for U.S. Transportation Command, where he oversees the deployment of forces and distribution of supplies for humanitarian, peacetime and wartime operations. He will replace Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark McLeod, who departs in July.

Laskodi currently serves as the director of strategic logistics integration for the Army’s deputy chief of staff for logistics. He has also served as deputy chief of staff for the Army Materiel Command and has operational experience as the commander of the U.S. Army Sustainment Command’s 402nd Army Field Support Brigade. He will replace Army Brig. Gen. Richard Dix, who departs in June.

Skubic currently serves as the director of logistics, fleet supply and ordnance for the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Her previous positions include chief of staff for the Naval Supply Fleet Logistics Center. She also served on a DLA support team in Kuwait, focusing on aviation supply operations. Skubic will replace Navy Rear Adm. John King, who departs later this year.
##### 



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, William R. Walker, 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 hi/fn, inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2003 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
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of hi/fn, inc.

|               |  |                                                                                 
|-------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|August 1, 2003 |  | By: /s/ WILLIAM R. WALKER                                                       
|               |  |                                                                                 
|               |  | Name: William R. Walker
Title: Vice President, Finance & Chief Financial Officer
No. 09-11237.

#### Michael F. Myers, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 869, 131 S. Ct. 166,

178 L. Ed. 2d 98,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6570.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 350 Fed. Appx. 810.
1

Filed 4/29/13 P. v. Caddy CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Colusa)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CAROL SUE CADDY,

Defendant and Appellant.

C071604

(Super. Ct. No. CR53431)

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. 

Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment. 

We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of 

the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

On September 19, 2011, defendant Carol Sue Caddy entered a drugstore and 

claimed she needed to pick up a prescription, giving a false name and date of birth. 

While an employee searched for the prescription, defendant went behind the counter and 

put her hand in her purse. She held something that poked the end of the purse, suggesting 
2

a gun. Defendant threatened to shoot the employee and demanded certain drugs. The 

employee gave the drugs to defendant, who thereafter left the store. 

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) 

and was released to a rehabilitation program pending sentencing. Defendant waived 

credit for time spent in the rehabilitation program. The court sentenced defendant to state 

prison for the midterm of three years. 

Defendant appeals. She did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, 

§ 1237.5.) 

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 

25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental 

brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have 

elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken 

an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 MURRAY , J.

We concur:

 BLEASE , Acting P. J.

 DUARTE , J.
#### People v Rosado

App Div, 3d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 62142(U) (Broome)

denied 3/31/17 (Fahey, J.)
#### Raul Calleja, Plaintiff, v AI 229 West 42nd Street Property Owner, LLC, et al., Defendants. AI 229 West 42nd Street Property Owner, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Nurminen Construction Corporation et al., Third-Party Defendants, and Daffy’s Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[69 NYS3d 626]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered November 2, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, denied third-party defendant Daffy’s Inc.’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court correctly determined that this third-party action against Daffy’s Inc. is not barred by the “Stipulated Order” in Daffy’s bankruptcy proceeding, in which third-party plaintiff AI 229 West 43rd Street Property Owner, LLC, waived and released any claims or causes of action relating to or arising under its lease with Daffy’s, and the lease was “rejected and terminated.” The motion papers make it clear that AI 229 West seeks to establish Daffy’s liability in the underlying personal injury action for the sole purpose of recovering under Daffy’s insurance policy in effect at the time of the accident. Because the policy would not inure to Daffy’s pecuniary benefit, it was not part of the bankruptcy estate, and thus it is not covered by the Stipulated Order *(see Matter of Edgeworth,*993 F2d 51, 55-56 [5th Cir 1993]). Moreover, this Court has recognized that “a claim asserted for the sole purpose of establishing the liability of a party’s insurer is not barred by that party’s discharge in bankruptcy” *(Roman v Hudson Tel. Assoc.,*11 AD3d 346, 347 [1st Dept 2004], citing *Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Morse Shoe Co.,*218 AD2d 624 [1st Dept 1995]).

To the extent Daffy’s argues that there is no evidence in the record that it had insurance coverage at the time of the underlying accident and that the third-party complaint is not limited either to the insurance coverage or by any stated amount, these arguments do not compel the dismissal of the third-party complaint as against Daffy’s at this stage. AI 299 West, which admits unequivocally that Daffy’s is not liable for any claim in its bankruptcy case or against its estate, will have to establish the facts to support its claim for insurance proceeds. The bankruptcy court’s retention of exclusive jurisdiction over issues arising from the bankruptcy does not affect AI 229 West’s claim since, as indicated, the insurance proceeds are not included in the bankruptcy estate.

Concur—Acosta, *559P.J., Sweeny, Gische, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
No. 10-5675.

#### Yokamon Laneal Hearn, Petitioner v. Texas.

562 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 507,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8550.

178 L. Ed. 2d 376,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.

Same case below, 310 S.W.3d 424.