alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014061EN.01001501.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/15

---

Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Steinbeck v OHIM — Alfred Sternjakob (BE HAPPY)

(Case T-707/13)

2014/C 61/26

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Steinbeck GmbH (Fulda, Germany) (represented by: M. Heinrich and M. Fischer, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG (Frankenthal, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 in Case R 31/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 in Case R 31/2013-1;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘BE HAPPY’ for goods in Classes 9, 11 and 18 — Community trade mark No 8 666 083

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of that regulation

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 2-69243) pertaining to the EDO Corporation 1996 Long-term Incentive Plan
and the EDO Corporation 1980 Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-01526) pertaining to the EDO Corporation 1996 Long-term Incentive
Plan and the EDO Corporation 1985 Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-28020) pertaining to the EDO Corporation 1983 Long-term
Incentive Plan, the EDO Corporation 1988 Long-term Incentive Plan, the EDO
Corporation 1988 Stock Option Plan and the EDO Corporation 1996 Long-term
Incentive Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-77865) pertaining to
the EDO Corporation Compensation Plan for Directors, the EDO Corporation 1997
Non-employee Director Stock Option Plan and the EDO Corporation 1996 Long-term
Incentive Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-88620) relating to
the issuance by EDO Corporation of its 5.25% Convertible Subordinated Notes due
2007, and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-105265) pertaining to the
EDO Corporation 2002 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan and the EDO
Corporation 2002 Long-term Incentive Plan, of our report dated February 13,
2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of EDO
Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2003.


                                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


New York, New York
March 2, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7144

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT CARL DOUGLAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-92-33, CA-97-561-2)

Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 9, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Carl Douglas, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Carl Douglas seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Douglas, No. CR-92-33; CA-97-

561-2 (M.D.N.C. May 29, 1998). 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
# C_2014431EN.01000602.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/6

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — János Kárász v Nyugdíjfolyósító Igazgatóság

(Case C-199/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of EU law - Lack of implementation - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

(2014/C 431/11)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: János Kárász

Applicant:

Defendant: Nyugdíjfolyósító Igazgatóság

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) by decision of 25 March 2014.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 28.07.2014.

1

---
Exhibit 10.6
 SUPERIOR BANK
9.5% Subordinated Note due September 15, 2018
 THIS SECURITY IS NOT A SAVINGS ACCOUNT OR DEPOSIT AND IS NOT INSURED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ANY
AGENCY OR FUND OF THE UNITED STATES.




---



##### 



No. 1
    
    Principal Amount:       $10,000,000
 
  Payment
 Issuer Maturity Date Interest Payment Date
 Business Day
 Subordinated Notes and Subordinated Noteholders Subordinated Note
 Optional Redemption.
  2




---



##### 



Subordination
  Consolidation, Merger and Sale of Assets
   Events of Default; Acceleration Event of Default
 3




---



##### 



Failure to Make Payment
 Payment Procedures
 4




---



##### 



Regular
Record Date Special Record Date Record
Dates
 Form of Payment
 Registration of Transfer, Subordinated Note Register Subordinated Note Register
 Charges and Transfer Taxes
 Ownership
 5




---



##### 



Priority pari passu
 Notices th
 Modification
 Absolute and Unconditional Obligation of the Issuer
 Waiver and Consent
  Further Issues
 Governing Law
 6




---



##### 



SUPERIOR BANKBy:
    /s/ C. Stanley BaileyName:
    C. Stanley BaileyTitle:
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 7
#### In the Matter of Diane K., Respondent, v Yasmin Q., Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 514]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Robert D. Hettleman, J.), entered on or about May 31, 2016, which, inter alia, granted *582sole physical and legal custody of the child to petitioner grandmother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that it is in the child’s best interests to be in petitioner’s custody is amply supported by the record *(see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*40 NY2d 543 [1976]). Petitioner has supported the child and provided a stable and loving home for him, and the child is thriving *(see Matter of Ruth L. v Clemese Theresa J.,*104 AD3d 554 [1st Dept 2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 860 [2013]). Respondent mother remains in a long-term relationship with a man (not the child’s father) who has repeatedly engaged in acts of domestic violence against her in the child’s presence, and she has stated her intention to continue to live with this man. Following an assault in September 2012 that left her hospitalized with a broken arm and burns and various bruises, respondent resumed living with the man within days. She denied, and continues to deny, that he poses a danger to herself and the child. For his part, the man has engaged in limited therapy and has stated that he has no issues to work on. In determining custody, the court properly considered this history of domestic violence *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1] [a]; *Matter of Rena M. v Derrick A.,*122 AD3d 457, 458 [1st Dept 2014], *lv denied*25 NY3d 906 [2015]).

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.
# Puget Sound’s Lacy wins employee of the quarter award

/ Published March 10, 2016
PUGET SOUND, Washington, 
Lula Lacy, supply technician at DLA Distribution Puget Sound, Wash., has been named DLA Distribution’s Employee of the Quarter for first quarter, fiscal year 2016, for her technical expertise, work ethic and professional drive.

As the Receipt Control administrative subject matter expert, Lacy****validated and reviewed over 18,000 receipt documents against the Material Movement Document for accuracy, supporting causative research methodologies, financial management and historical material tracking.  Through her meticulous attention to detail, no discrepancies were noted. 

She volunteered as the prescription safety glasses custodian for Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in a “just-do-it” initiative that expedited the receipt process, increased accountability, and precipitated on-time vendor payment for more than 550 pairs of critical prescription glasses and ultimately increased production capability.

According to distribution center commander Navy Cmdr. Mark Peace, Lacy is an exceptional team player.  During the reporting period, she processed over 6,000 requisitions, 1,000 disposition requests, and 240 transactions for the Direct Material Inventory division, eliminating the administrative burden on warehouse personnel and accurately streamlining the process.

She also assisted in the Wide Area Work Flow processing of 35 receipt transactions by collaborating with Product Quality Deficiency Report and Supply Deficiency Report representatives that resulted to on-time vendor payments.

In her spare time, Lacy has been pursuing her Bachelor of Arts Degree in Criminal Justice from the Florida Institute of Technology.

“Ms. Lacy’s sustained superior performance and leadership have been highly instrumental in the overall mission of the Receiving Division.  Her exceptional contributions to material management integrity and material receiving process contributed to warfighter support and mission readiness,” said Peace.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 21



                       QUIXOTE CORPORATION & SUBSIDIARIES
                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                               as of June 30, 1998
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Jurisdiction
                                                           Under Which
QUIXOTE CORPORATION (PARENT)                                Organized
----------------------------                              -------------
<S>                                                       <C>
Energy Absorption Systems, Inc.                           Delaware
 Composite Components, Inc.                               Delaware
 E-Tech Testing Services, Inc.                            Delaware
 Safe-Hit Corporation                                     Nevada
 Spin-Cast Plastics, Inc.                                 Indiana
 
TranSafe Corporation                                      Delaware
 Roadway Safety Service, Inc.                             Delaware
 Highway Information Systems, Inc.                        Delaware

LaserVideo Acquisition Corporation                        Delaware

Legal Technologies, Inc.                                  Delaware
 Litigation Communications, Inc.                          Delaware
 Quixote Steno Corporation                                Delaware
  Quixote DPI Corporation                                 Delaware
   Court Technologies, Inc.                               Delaware
  Quixote IIS Corporation                                 Delaware
  Quixote Limited                                         United Kingdom
  Quixote LSI Corporation                                 Delaware

QualAir Corporation                                       Delaware

Quixote Foreign Sales Corporation                         U.S. Virgin Islands

Quixote Laser Corporation                                 Delaware

Quixote Research Corporation                              Delaware
</TABLE>

All of the subsidiaries listed above are wholly-owned by Quixote except as
follows:

Energy Absorption Systems, Inc. is the sole shareholder of Composite 
Components, Inc., E-Tech Testing Services, Inc., Safe-Hit Corporation and 
Spin-Cast Plastics, Inc.

TranSafe Corporation is the sole shareholder of Roadway Safety Service, Inc. 
and Highway Information Systems, Inc.

Legal Technologies, Inc. is the sole shareholder of Litigation 
Communications, Inc. and Quixote Steno Corporation.

Quixote Steno Corporation is the sole shareholder of Quixote DPI Corporation, 
Quixote IIS Corporation, Quixote Limited and Quixote LSI Corporation.

Quixote DPI Corporation is the sole shareholder of Court Technologies, Inc.

The Company owns all of the preferred stock of LaserVideo Acquisition 
Corporation (LVAC) and shares voting power with respect to the outstanding 
common stock.  The preferred stock has voting rights and represents 50% of 
the voting stock of LVAC.
No. 10-6280.

#### Maureen Miller, Petitioner v. City of New York, New York.

562 U.S. 1031, 131 S. Ct. 570,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8678.

178 L. Ed. 2d 417,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HUGO R O DRIGUES M AC IEL, Pe titione r, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-70648 Age n c y No. A088-447-312 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 19, 2013 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TR OTT, a nd THOM AS, C irc uit Judge s. Hugo R o drigue s M a c ie l, a native and c itiz e n of B ra z il, pe t itions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have 

# FIL ED D EC 02 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e fa c tua l findings, Ze haty ev . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006), a n d we de ny the pe tition for re vie w . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t e ve n if M a c ie l’ s a sy lum a pplic ation wa s tim e ly , he fa ile d to e sta b lish pa st pe rse c ution in B ra z il ba se d on the t hre at s he and his fa

m i ly re c e ive d following a

polic e offic e r’ s m ista

ke n shooting of his brothe

r. S e eHox ha v . Ashc roft , 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th C ir. 2003) (unfulfille d thre ats c onstitute d ha ra ssm e nt, not perse c ution). Substa ntia l e vide nc e a l so supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t M a c ie l fa ile d

to de m onstra

te a we llfounde d fe ar of future ha

rm be c a use his m othe r and brothe r re m a in in B ra z il unha rm e d. Se eN

agoulk o v . IN S , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th C ir. 2003); s e e also Hak e e m v . IN S , 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th C ir. 2001) (c la im we ake ne d or unde rc ut whe n sim ila

rly -situa te d fam ily

m e m be rs re m a in in a

pplic ant’ s hom e c ountry without inc ide nt). Ac c ordingly , M a c ie l ’ s a sy l um c la im fa ils. B e c a use M a c ie l fa ile d to e sta

blish e ligibility for a sy lum , he ne c e ssa rily fa ile d to m e e t the m ore stringe nt sta nda rd for withholding of rem ova l . Se e Ze haty e , 453 F.3d a

t 1190.

1 2 - 7 0 6 4 8 2Fina lly , substa ntia l e v ide nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a use M a c ie l fa i l e d to e sta

blish it is m

ore like ly tha n not tha t he will betorture d if re turne d to B ra z il. Se eZhe ng v . Holde r , 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th C ir. 2011). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 0 6 4 8 3
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-18962, 333-05709, 333-50749 and 333-33266 on Form S-3 and Registration
Statement Nos. 33-91340 and 33-92918 on Form S-8 of Energy Conversion Devices,
Inc., of our report dated September 28, 2001, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2001.


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Detroit, Michigan
September 28, 2001
No. 10-7496.

#### John Edward Cowles, Petitioner v. Iowa Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 1185, 131 S. Ct. 1038,

178 L. Ed. 2d 839,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 711.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
# DLA director visits the U.S. Indo-Pacific theatre

/ Published Feb. 27, 2020
OKINAWA, Japan, 
Defense Logistics Agency Director Lt. Gen. Darrell Williams visited the U.S. Indo-Pacific theatre early this month. In Okinawa, Japan, Feb. 4, he observed DLA Energy’s fuel distribution capabilities. DLA Energy Okinawa Commander, Air Force Maj. Tracy Gilmore and her team provided Williams a tour of the Single-Point Mooring and Three-legged Mooring systems, which are anchored to the sea floor and used for the on-load and off-load of aviation fuel to the island. The SPM and TLM highlight the unique capabilities the DLA Energy team in Okinawa operate and maintain to provide first-class service to Indo-Pacific warfighters.
#### Prompt Mortgage Providers of North America, LLC, et al., Respondents, v Simon Zarour, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[47 NYS3d 914]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Simon Zarour appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh II, J.), dated October 29, 2014, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint and denied that branch of his cross motion which was to extend the time for discovery.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal is from an intermediate order dated October 29, 2014. However, a judgment of foreclosure and sale dated July 20, 2015, was entered in the action. Since the right of direct appeal from the intermediate order terminated with the entry of the judgment of foreclosure and sale in the action, we must dismiss the appeal from the intermediate order *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal *849from the intermediate order are brought up for review and have been considered on the companion appeal from the judgment of foreclosure and sale *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; *Prompt Mtge. Providers of N. Am., LLC v Zarour,*148 AD3d 849 [2017] [decided herewith]).

Dillon, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.
No. 10-7606.

#### In re Maurice Holloman, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1107, 131 S. Ct. 847,

178 L. Ed. 2d 580,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9723,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
<PAGE>

                         EXHIBIT 21.1
                         ------------
                SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                ------------------------------

The Company has the following subsidiaries, each of which is wholly owned by the
Company or by a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. Indented names are
subsidiaries of the company under which they are indented.


   Clear Shield National, Inc. (California)
       Carnival Brands, Inc. (Illinois)
   Envirosonics, Inc. (California)
   Sandusky Plastics, Inc. (Delaware)
       Envirodyne Subsidiary, Inc. (Delaware)
   Sandusky Plastics of Delaware, Inc. (Delaware)
   Viskase Corporation (Pennsylvania)
       Viskase Holding Corporation (Delaware)
           Viskase Argentina S.A. (Argentina)
           Viskase Australia Limited (Delaware)
           Viskase (Chile) Embalagens Ltda. (Chile)
           Viskase (China) Limited (China)
           Viskase Brasil Embalagens Ltda. (Brazil)
           Viskase de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
           Viskase Europe Limited (United Kingdom)
               Viskase S.A. (France)
                  Viskase Canada Inc. (Ontario)
                  Viskase GMBH (Germany)
                  Viskase Holdings Limited (United Kingdom)
                       Filmco International Limited (United Kingdom)
                       Viskase Limited (United Kingdom)
                           Viskase Ireland
                           Viskase (U.K.) Limited (United Kingdom)
                                 Envirodyne S.A.R.L. (France)
                  Viskase S.p.A. (Italy)
                  Viskase ZAO (Russia)
       Viskase de Nuevo Laredo, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
       Viskase Sales Corporation (Delaware)
           Viskase Puerto Rico Corporation (Delaware)
   WSC Corp. (Delaware)
No. 10-587.

#### Hinal A. Patel, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 1138, 131 S. Ct. 934,

178 L. Ed. 2d 753,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 593.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 388 Fed. Appx. 595.
#### In the Matter of Hasaun Grigger, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 912]

— Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Dadd, J.), entered December 23, 2002, which dismissed the CPLR article 78 petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot *(see Matter of Free v Coombe,*234 AD2d 996 [1996]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J, Green, Pine, Hurlbutt and Kehoe, JJ.
LET YOUR KIDS

INSPIRE YOU

TO QUIT.

Beatrice, Quit at age 37

New York

There are a lot of reasons to quit smoking.

Don’t stop trying until you find yours. Beatrice did it. 

You can too. For free help, call 1-800-QUIT-NOW