alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013344EN.01006002.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/60

---

Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Inceda Holding (watt)

(Case T-494/13)

2013/C 344/111

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

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

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Inceda Holding (Cologne, 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 contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2013 in appeal proceedings R 1192/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2013 in appeal proceedings R 1192/2012-4;

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

—

Order the intervener 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 figurative mark ‘watt’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 42 — Community trade mark No 3 820 313

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: Inceda Holding

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation No 207/2009

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the mark concerned was declared invalid

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) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
Exhibit 10(b)  FIRST
AMENDMENT
TO
THE EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY
1996 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN  The Empire District Electric Company 1996 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.
No. 10-7306.

#### Allan M. Schlechty, Petitioner v. Indiana.

562 U.S. 1150, 131 S. Ct. 934,

178 L. Ed. 2d 776,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 302.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 926 N.E.2d 1.
# C_2018427EN.01006501.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/65

---

Order of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Roeckl Sporthandschuhe v EUIPO — Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires (representation of a hand)

(Case T-537/13) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2018/C 427/86)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: O. Baumann, C. Straßberger and F. Römisch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, J. Springer, A. Wagner and S. Brandstätter, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2013 (Case R 1866/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Roeckl Sporthandschuhe and Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG and Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires GmbH & Co. KG are ordered to bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG and Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires GmbH & Co. KG are ordered to bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

---
# C_2014024EN.01003502.xml

| 25.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/35

---

Action brought on 20 November 2013 — AIC v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)

(Case T-617/13)

2014/C 24/66

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AIC S.A. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ACV Manufacturing (Seneffe, Belgium)

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 Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2013 given in Case R 688/2012-3; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2013 given in Case R 688/2012-3;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The design for a product described as ‘heat exchanger inserts’ — Registered Community Design No 1 137 152-0002

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

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community design:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the design did not fulfil the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2), in conjunction with Articles 5 and 6 and in particular Article 8(1) and (2) CDR

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 4(2) CDR.

Pleas in law:

---
**Exhibit 32.1****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Keith S. Walters, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Ennis, Inc. (the“Company”), certify, that pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode: (1) The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 2007, as filedwith the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and  (2) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company as of the dates and for theperiods expressed in the Report.   /S/ KEITH S. WALTERS     Keith S. Walters  Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerMay 9, 2007  *The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350; it is notbeing filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation languages in such filing.*
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★ ■

■

■

■

★

●

●

●

●

★

●

●

●

●
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          39,782
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,802
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,872
<INVENTORY>                                     40,125
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               161,911
<PP&E>                                          61,101
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,268
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 250,035
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,517
<BONDS>                                          5,226
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,721
<OTHER-SE>                                     156,965
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   250,035
<SALES>                                        362,412
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               362,412
<CGS>                                          137,254
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,254
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               191,669
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   646
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 828
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,434
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,585
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,849
<DISCONTINUED>                                  12,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,849
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.66
        

</TABLE>
*February 21, 2018*

2018-Ohio-643.]

2017-0469.

#### Chagrin Realty, Inc. v. Testa.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2011-2523. On appellant/cross-appellee’s motion for oral argument before full court. Motion denied.
EXHIBIT 10.4

                     SCHEDULE IDENTIFYING OMITTED DOCUMENTS

      The only particulars in which the (a) Form of Neoprobe Corporation 8%
Series A Convertible Promissory Note and (b) Form of Neoprobe Corporation Common
Stock Purchase Warrant filed with the Current Report on Form 8-K dated December
13, 2004, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16,
2004, differ materially from the omitted instruments are the names of the
holders of the warrants, the number of shares of common stock for which the
warrants are exercisable, the names of the holders of the notes and the
principal amounts of the notes, which information is included in the following
tables:

(a) Neoprobe Corporation 8% Series A Convertible Promissory Notes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              HOLDER                                        PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biomedical Value Fund, L.P.                                    $4,400,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biomedical Offshore Value Fund, Ltd.                           $3,600,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David C. Bupp                                                    $100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Neoprobe Corporation Common Stock Purchase Warrants

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              HOLDER                                        WARRANT SHARES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biomedical Value Fund, L.P.                                     5,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biomedical Offshore Value Fund, Ltd.                            4,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David C. Bupp                                                     125,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. D-2586.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Stephen T. Mitchell.

562 U.S. 1041, 131 S. Ct. 630,

178 L. Ed. 2d 458,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9012.

November 15, 2010.

Stephen T. Mitchell, of New York, New York, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
No. 10-7455.

#### Randy Herman Swopes, Petitioner v. Illinois.

562 U.S. 1184, 131 S. Ct. 1006,

178 L. Ed. 2d 836,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 820,

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, denied.
No. 10-5973.

#### Jocelyn Espino Javan, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1181, 131 S. Ct. 995,

178 L. Ed. 2d 832,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 799.

January 18, 2011.

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

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 596.
No. 10M53.

#### Felicia Dyer, Petitioner v. Clarice Stovall, Warden.

562 U.S. 1090, 131 S. Ct. 812,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9531.

178 L. Ed. 2d 529,

December 6, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 51127 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
FIDEL MENDEZ

- HERNANDEZ, also known as Fidel Mendez Hernandez , Defendant

- Appellant

Cons. w/ No. 16

- 51129
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
FIDEL MENDEZ

- HERNANDEZ, also known as Miguel Mendez Hernandez , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:16

- CR

- 134

- 1 USDC No. 1:13

- CR

- 179

- 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 2, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-51127 Document: 00513975456 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2017No. 16

- 51127 Cons w/ No. 16

- 51129

2 Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fidel Mendez

Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mendez

- Hernandez has filed a response. The record is not s ufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Mendez

Hernandez ’s claims of ine ffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims w ithout prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 )

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Mendez

- Hernandez ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal s present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL S ARE DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. Case: 16-51127 Document: 00513975456 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2017
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58203-58204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23119]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8032]

In the Matter of the Designation of the Haqqani Network Also 
Known as HQN as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to Section 
219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this 
matter and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary 
of the Treasury, I conclude that there is a sufficient factual basis to 
find that the

[[Page 58204]]

relevant circumstances described in section 219 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, as amended (hereinafter ``INA'') (8 U.S.C. 1189), 
exist with respect to the Haqqani Network, also known as HQN.
    Therefore, I hereby designate the aforementioned organization and 
its aliases as a Foreign Terrorist Organization pursuant to section 219 
of the INA. This determination shall be published in the Federal 
Register.

    Dated: September 7, 2012.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-23119 Filed 9-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
Order filed February 14, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00730-CV

____________

HUA XU, Appellant

V.

DAVID K. LAM, AKA KA PUN LAM, KA P. LAM, DAVID LAM, KAPUN 

LAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND JIA TIAN AKA ANGELA TIAN, Appellees

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-79571

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due September 17, 2013. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. On September 30, 2013, this court ordered the court reporter to file 

the record within 30 days. The record was not filed. On October 31, 2013 the 

court granted Amanda King’s motion for extension of time to file the record until 

November 17, 2013. The record was not filed. On December 13, 2013, this court 
2

again ordered the court reporter to file the record within 30 days. On January 17, 

2014 this court granted Amanda King’s second motion for extension of time to 

file the record until February 7, 2014, noting that no further extensions would 

be granted absent exceptional circumstances. The record has not been filed with 

the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely as ordered, we 

issue the following order.

We order Amanda King, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal on or before March 3, 2014. If the record is not filed as ordered, the court 

will consider ordering a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the 

record.

PER CURIAM
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  (1)
    
    The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 2006, as filed
with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(2)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report..
  
 
 The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350; it is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation languages in such filing.
No. 10-235.

#### CSX Transportation, Inc., Petitioner v. Robert McBride.

562 U.S. 1060, 131 S. Ct. 644,

178 L. Ed. 2d 475,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9272.

November 29, 2010.

Motion of the Association of American Railroads for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted.

Same case below, 598 F.3d 388.