alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013274EN.01002001.xml

| 21.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/20

---

Action brought on 24 July 2013 — Perfetti Van Melle v OHIM (DAISY)

(Case T-381/13)

2013/C 274/33

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle SpA (Lainate, Italy) (represented by P. Testa, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

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 10 April 2013 in Case R 427/2012-1, in so far as it rejected the application for registration of the trade mark ‘DAISY’ for the following products: confectionery, pastry, sweets, caramels, wine gums, caramel, chewing-gum, gelatine (confectionery), liquorice, lollipops, toffee, pastilles, sugar, chocolate, cocoa. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 10 April 2013 in Case R 427/2012-1, in so far as it rejected the application for registration of the trade mark ‘DAISY’ for the following products: confectionery, pastry, sweets, caramels, wine gums, caramel, chewing-gum, gelatine (confectionery), liquorice, lollipops, toffee, pastilles, sugar, chocolate, cocoa.

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Community word mark ‘DAISY’, for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark application No 10 267 037

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the word ‘DAISY’ is not descriptive; |
| --- | --- |

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the word ‘DAISY’ is not descriptive;

| | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the word ‘DAISY’ does not describe an essential characteristic of the product; |
| --- | --- |

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the word ‘DAISY’ does not describe an essential characteristic of the product;

| | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the term ‘DAISY’ has distinctive character with regard to confectionery products. |
| --- | --- |

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the term ‘DAISY’ has distinctive character with regard to confectionery products.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2580
DALLAS B. LANIER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-96-285-5-BO) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 31, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dallas B. Lanier, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days withinwhich to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).The district court entered its order on July 11, 1996; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on October 18, 1996. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain either an extension or areopening of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2014361EN.01000702.xml

| 13.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/7

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2014 — Unibail Management v OHIM (Representation of two lines and five stars)

(Case T-687/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing two lines and five stars - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absence of concrete assessment - Duty to state reasons))

2014/C 361/08

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Unibail Management (Paris, France) (represented by: L. Bénard, A. Rudoni, and O. Klimis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2013 (case R 299/2013-2), concerning an application for the registration of a sign representing two lines and five stars as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 September 2013 (case R 299/2013-2) in so far as it dismissed the appeal brought by Unibail Management for products and services falling within classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 September 2013 (case R 299/2013-2) in so far as it dismissed the appeal brought by Unibail Management for products and services falling within classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

1

---
2 3

1

Bōke wūno in kōmadmōde TB eo ejab kabobo ej 

wāween eo emmontata ñan kejbarok kwe jen am bōk 

nañinmijin TB eo ekabobo. Ilo ien eo emaron, CDC ej 

rōjañ kōjerbal wūno ko an ien kadu im rebidodo iomwin 

3 ak 4-allon wūno in rifamycin ñan kōmadmōde TB 

eo ejab kabobo.

Jekdoñ armij ro emōj aer bōke wā in TB eo ettanin bacille 

Calmette-Guérin (BCG), rej aikuj teej kinke wā eo ej 

mojnolok an jerbal iomwin ien.

Teej im Wūno in Kōmadmōd Nañinmijin

Tuberculosis (TB) eo Ejab Kabobo

Kenono ibben taktō eo am kin am bōk teej eo elañe kwōj:

jerbal ilo jikin ko elab uwōta ñan an ajeeded Tb, einwōt 

aujbitol ko, imōn kiki ko an ro ejellok imōn aer jokwe, 

imōn kalbuj ko, im imōn nōōjin ko

kwōj jokwe ak kwōkujoñ jokwe ilo jikin ko 

elab armij rej jokwe ibben doon im 

elablok an ekkā an wōr TB, einwōt imōn 

kiki ko an armij ro ejellok imōn aer jokwe 

ak imōn kalbuj ko

emōjnolok an enbwinnier 

maron bōbrae jen nañinmij kin jet 

wūno ko rej bōki ak nañinmij ko 

einwōt tōñal, cancer, im HIV

Ilo raan ko rej kab jemlok 

kwar bed iturin juon armij 

eo ewōr an nañinmijin 

TB eo ekabobo

kwar lotak ilo ak ekut am ito tak 

ñan aelon ko ekkā an wōr TB, 

ekoba aelon ko ilo Asia, Africa, 

im Latin America

Lomnak Ewōr ke uwōta ñan aō bōk nañinmijin TB?

Teej Kōmadmōd

Ta wūno in kōmadmōd 

ko imaron bōki? Teej in TB ta eo

ij aikuji?

Lok ñan 13 milien armij ilo Amedka emaron wōr TB eo ejab kabobo ibbeir 

(bar etannin nañinmijin TB eo ejab kabobo). Ilo ien kwōjab bōke wūno in 

kōmadmōd eo, 1 jen 10 armij ro ewōr TB eo ejab kabobo ibbeir renaj nañinmij 

kin TB eo ekabobo, im remaron kaajeeded TB ñan armij ro jet ilo mejatoto. 

Kwōmaron jibañ bōbrae an jab ajeeded TB.

Nan am bōk melele ko relablok kin TB im wāween am maron kejbarok kwe 

make im ro jet, lale www.cdc.gov/thinktesttreattb

Ewōr ruo kain teej ko ñan nañinmijin TB: teej in TB 

ilo bōtōktōk im teej in TB ilo kil. Emmonlok teej 

in TB ilo bōtōktōk ñan teej in TB ñan armij ro emōj 

aer bōke wā eo an TB (BCG). Taktō im rinañinmij ro 

rej aikuj kenono ibben doon ñan lale teej eo 

emmontata ñan kajojo armij.
Exhibit 10(d)  FIRST
AMENDMENT
TO
THE EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY
2006 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN  The Empire District Electric Company 2006 Stock
Incentive Plan is hereby amended in the following respects:  1.             Section 18
is amended by adding the following sentence at the end thereof:  Anything in the Plan to the contrary notwithstanding, no adjustment
shall be made pursuant to this Section 18 that causes any Award that is
not otherwise deferred compensation subject to Section 409A of the Code to
become deferred compensation subject to Section 409A of the Code.  2.             A
new Section 25 is added to read in its entirety as follows:  25.  Code Section 409A Compliance  It
is intended that the Plan and Awards issued thereunder will comply with Section 409A
of the Code (and any regulations and guidelines issued thereunder) to the
extent the Awards are subject thereto, and the Plan and such Awards shall be
interpreted on a basis consistent with such intent.  The Plan and any Awards issued thereunder may
be amended in any respect deemed by the Committee to be necessary to preserve
compliance with Section 409A of the Code. 
The Committees authority under the Plan shall be limited to the extent
necessary so that the existence of such authority does not (i) cause an
Award that is not otherwise deferred compensation subject to Section 409A
of the Code to become deferred compensation subject to Section 409A of the
Code or (ii) cause an Award that is otherwise deferred compensation
subject to Section 409A of the Code to fail to meet the requirements
prescribed by Section 409A of the Code.
EXHIBIT 31.02CERTIFICATIONSI, James C. Gossett, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Superior Bancorp;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 9, 2006     By: /s/ James C. Gossett         James C. Gossett
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2904 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to extend certain 

supervisory authority of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 

to include assessing compliance with the Military Lending Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2019 

Mr. BARR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 

to extend certain supervisory authority of the Bureau 

of Consumer Financial Protection to include assessing 

compliance with the Military Lending Act. 

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 ‘‘Financial Protection 

5 for Our Military Families Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2904 IH

1 SEC. 2. BUREAU EXAMINATION AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT 

2 TO MILITARY LENDING ACT COMPLIANCE. 

3 The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 

4 U.S.C. 5481 et seq.) is amended— 

5 (1) in section 1024(b)(1)(A), by inserting be6 fore the semicolon the following: ‘‘and section 987 of 

7 title 10, United States Code’’; and 

8 (2) in section 1025(b)(1)— 

9 (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) 

10 and (C) as subparagraphs (C) and (D), respec11 tively; and 

12 (B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) 

13 the following: 

14 ‘‘(B) assessing compliance with the re15 quirements of section 987 of title 10, United 

16 States Code;’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
RE: Revisions to Section III of SO2 preamble

Laity, James A. 

to: 

Lydia Wegman, Mancini, Dominic J. 

06/02/2010 03:31 PM 

Cc: 

James Hemby, Richard Wayland, Kevin McLean, Sara Schneeberg, Mike Thrift, Scott Jenkins, Tricia 

Crabtree, Charlotte Bertrand, Bridgid Curry, Lydia Wegman 

Show Details 

This language looks good to us.

From: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 2:27 PM 

To: Laity, James A.; Mancini, Dominic J. 

Cc: Hemby.James@epamail.epa.gov; Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov; Mclean.Kevin@epamail.epa.gov; 

schneeberg.sara@epamail.epa.gov; thrift.mike@epamail.epa.gov; Jenkins.Scott@epamail.epa.gov; 

crabtree.tricia@epa.gov; Bertrand.Charlotte@epamail.epa.gov; Curry.Bridgid@epamail.epa.gov; Lydia Wegman 

Subject: Revisions to Section III of SO2 preamble

 

Jim and Dom, 

Attached is a redline/strikeout version of section III of the preamble that includes the language we agreed to this 

morning: two additions at the end of the document and an added footnote on page 7. We have also incorporated 

Jim's comments from last week consistent with our agreement to take public comment on the modeling and 

implementation guidance. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks. 

 

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\tcrabtre\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web1584.htm 6/2/2010
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated February 17, 1999, included in this Form 10-K
into Weatherford International, Inc.'s previously filed Registration Statement
File Nos. 33-31662, 33-56384, 33-56386, 33-65790, 33-64349, 333-13531,
333-39587, 333-44345, 333-45207 and 333-53633.








ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Houston, Texas
March 29, 1999
No. 10-5505.

#### Michael Lee Brown, Petitioner v. City of North Chicago, Illinois, et al.

562 U.S. 1103, 131 S. Ct. 815,

178 L. Ed. 2d 549,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9564.

December 6, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 926, 131 S. Ct. 310, 178 L. Ed. 2d 202, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7477.
# C_2014039EN.01002501.xml

| 8.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/25

---

Action brought on 2 December 2013 — Meda v OHIM — Takeda (PANTOPREM)

(Case T-647/13)

2014/C 39/44

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, 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: Takeda GmbH (Constance, 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 Fourth Board of Appeal of 25 September 2013 in Case R 2171/2012-4 concerning the opposition against Community trade mark application No 9403973 ‘PANTOPREM’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 25 September 2013 in Case R 2171/2012-4 concerning the opposition against Community trade mark application No 9403973 ‘PANTOPREM’;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘PANTOPREM’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark application No 9403973

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Takeda GmbH

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Community word marks ‘PANTOPAN’, ‘PANTOMED’, ‘PANTOPRAZ’ and ‘PANTOPRO’ and the national word mark ‘PANTOP’ for goods in Class 5

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b); the first sentence of Article 59; Article 64(1); Article 75; 76(1), in fine; Article 77 and Article 112(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

in fine

---
No. 10-7384.

#### Kaytrena J. Francis, Petitioner v. United States, et al.

562 U.S. 1133, 131 S. Ct. 977,

178 L. Ed. 2d 745,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 153.

January 10, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis *746denied. Petitioner is allowed until January 31, 2011, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 792.
EXHIBIT 99

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the annual report of Quixote Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the Annual Period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer's knowledge:



|Date: |  | September 25, 2002 |  | /s/LESLIE J. JEZUIT                      
|----- |  | ------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------
|      |  |                    |  |                                          
|      |  |                    |  | Leslie J. Jezuit, Chief Executive Officer
|Date: |  | September 25, 2002 |  | /s/DANIEL P. GOREY                       
|      |  |                    |  |                                          
|      |  |                    |  | Daniel P. Gorey, Chief Financial Officer 

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

---

QuickLinks
#### *State, Respondent, v. Young, Petitioner,*

No. 92115-6.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 45582-0-II, July 28, 2015, 189 Wn. App. 1011. *Denied*January 6, 2016.
No. 10-7301.

#### Michael Singleton, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 1150, 131 S. Ct. 933,

178 L. Ed. 2d 776,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 561.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.

Same case below, 41 So. 3d 225.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6164

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DEBORAH M. WAGNER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. ( 4:15

- cr
- 00028

- RGD

- LRL

- 1 )

Submitted : April 18, 2019 Decided: April 23, 2019

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Deborah M. Wagner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Deborah M. Wagner seeks to appeal the district court’s ord er denying her motion to appoint counsel in the post

- judgment garnishment proceedings against her . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (201 2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Wagner seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of j urisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED