alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021431EN.01003601.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — Cara Therapeutics v EUIPO — Gebro Holding (KORSUVA)

(Case T-584/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark KORSUVA - Earlier national word mark AROSUVA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 431/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cara Therapeutics, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor, and by T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gebro Holding GmbH (Fieberbrunn, Austria) (represented by: M. Konzett, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 July 2020 (Case R 2450/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Gebro Holding and Cara Therapeutics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cara Therapeutic, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cara Therapeutic, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.

---
THANH-THUY THI LE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATION TRUST CO., as Trustee, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0554

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# C_2021079EN.01002801.xml

| 8.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/28

---

Order of the President of the Court of Justice of 21 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen Afdeling Gent — Belgium) — Openbaar Ministerie v EA

(Case C-246/20) (1)

(2021/C 79/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court of Justice has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---
EX-4.5



 Exhibit 4.5 

AMENDMENT TO THE 

INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC. 401(K) PLAN 

WHEREAS, International Specialty Products Inc. (the “Corporation”) maintains the International Specialty
Products Inc. 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of eligible employees; and 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Article X of the
Plan, the Corporation, as sponsor of the Plan, has retained the authority to amend the Plan at any time in whole or in part; and 

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act for federal tax law purposes;
consequently, the Internal Revenue Service issued Revenue Ruling 2013-17 and Notice 2014-19 detailing the rules for identifying same-sex spouses in a qualified retirement plan (collectively, the “Guidance”); and 

WHEREAS, the Corporation desires to amend the Plan to conform to the Guidance; and 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is amended retroactively to be effective as of June 26, 2013 as follows: 

 

	I.	The following definition of Spouse shall be added to Article II of the Plan: 


“Spouse” shall mean the spouse of a Participant determined by Federal law applicable to 

Code §401(a) as announced in Revenue Ruling 2013-17 and Notice 2014-19; provided that to the extent required by a qualified domestic relations order
pursuant to the terms of this Plan, a former Spouse of the Participant shall be treated as the Spouse of the Participant. 
  

	II.	The term “spouse” wherever found in the Plan shall be amended to be a capitalized word and carry with it the definition of Spouse as provided herein. 


 

	III.	In all other respects, the Plan shall remain unchanged. 

 [signature page immediately
follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this amendment to the Plan to be executed this 26
day of Sept., 2014 
  

							
	ATTEST:	 		  	INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC.	  	
				
	 /s/ Issa O. Yesufu
	 		  	 By: /s/ Robin Swanson
	  	
	Secretary	 		  	Title: Director, Global Opns. & Benefits
William R. REYNOLDS, Jr. v. STATE

CR-15-1443

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 4, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jose N. GARCIA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2560

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 15, 2019 Rehearing Denied February 20, 2019

Jose N. Garcia, Graceville, pro se.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BERGER and HARRIS, JJ., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Digital Network Alliance International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Edward Chan, CEO, COO, and a director of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

> 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange
> Act of 1934; and
> 
> 
> 2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Edward Chan



Edward Chan, COO, CEO and

 a director

December 28, 2006
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of the Federal Register

          - 5 CFR Chapter XL

      ( print page 104859)    

              Editorial Note            

#### Editorial Note:

Under section 101 of Public Law 104-88, the Interstate Commerce Commission was abolished on Dec. 29, 1995, effective January 1, 1996.

The Director of the Office of the Federal Register, pursuant to his authority to maintain an orderly system of codification under 44 U.S.C. 1510 and 1 CFR 8.2, hereby removes from the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter XL of Title 5, consisting of Parts 5000 to 5099, containing supplemental standards of ethical conduct for the employees of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Accordingly, Chapter XL of Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations is hereby removed as of December 26, 2024.

[FR Doc. 2024-31079 Filed 12-23-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 0099-10-P
# C_2020175EN.01000301.xml

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2020 — Hauptzollamt B v XY

(Case C-87/20)

(2020/C 175/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Hauptzollamt B

Respondent: XY

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 57(5)(a) of Regulation No 865/2006, (1) as amended by Regulation No 2015/870, to be interpreted as meaning that an importer carrying a total of more than 125 grams (g) of caviar of sturgeon species (Acipenseriformes spp.) in individually marked containers, for which he presents neither a (re-)export document nor an import permit, is to be allowed to keep up to 125 g of caviar, provided that the import is not for any of the purposes listed in the first subparagraph of Article 57(1) of Regulation No 865/2006?
  If that question is to be answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 57(5)(a) of Regulation No 865/2006, (1) as amended by Regulation No 2015/870, to be interpreted as meaning that an importer carrying a total of more than 125 grams (g) of caviar of sturgeon species (Acipenseriformes spp.) in individually marked containers, for which he presents neither a (re-)export document nor an import permit, is to be allowed to keep up to 125 g of caviar, provided that the import is not for any of the purposes listed in the first subparagraph of Article 57(1) of Regulation No 865/2006?

If that question is to be answered in the affirmative:

| 2. | Do specimens introduced into the customs territory of the European Union also qualify as personal and household effects within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (2) where the importer declares at the time of introduction that he intends to present the imported items as a gift to other persons? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do specimens introduced into the customs territory of the European Union also qualify as personal and household effects within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (2) where the importer declares at the time of introduction that he intends to present the imported items as a gift to other persons?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation No 865/2006 of 4 May 2006 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ 2006 L 166, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ 1997 L 61, p. 1).

---
# C_2021028EN.01005201.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/52

---

Order of the General Court of 19 November 2020 — Comune di Stintino v Commission

(Case T-174/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Grant agreement in the framework of the funding instrument for the environment (LIFE+) - Debit Note - Act which is part of a purely contractual framework and from which it is inseparable - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 28/80)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Comune di Stintino (Italy) (represented by: G. Machiavelli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. De Dominicis, Agent)

Re:

Application brought under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the alleged decision set out in the letter Ares(2020) 734033 of the Commission, of 5 February 2020, on the reduction of the grant awarded to the applicant under the LIFE10 NAT/IT/244 project and on the repayment of the excess sum already paid; of Debit Note No 3242002652 of the Commission, of 24 February 2020, requesting that the applicant pay it EUR 447 078,63; of the alleged decision set out in the letter Ares(2019) 6551262 of the Commission, of 23 October 2019, relating to the proportion of the ineligible costs; and of all preliminary, consequential or connected acts or measures.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The Comune di Stintino shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Comune di Stintino shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.

---
Juan Ricardo Jackson MELENDEZ and Jessica Santo Rivera, Petitioners, v. Donald Deland EVERSOLE and Michele Marie Eversole, His Wife, Respondents.

No. 1D18-3534

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 18, 2019

Paul M. Eza and Michael L. Glass of Stone, Glass & Connolly, LLP, Jacksonville, for Petitioners.

Benjamin E. Richard, Curry G. Pajcic, and William A. Bald of Pajcic & Pajcic, P.A., Jacksonville, for Respondents.

Per Curiam.

*1141Petitioners seek certiorari review of the order allowing Respondents to amend their counterclaim to assert a claim for punitive damages. In such a proceeding, the scope of our review is limited to determining whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes. We, conversely, lack "jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence proffered to support the punitive damages claim." *Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Smith* , 263 So.3d 133, 2018 WL 5915019 (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 13, 2018) (citing *Globe Newspaper Co. v. King* , 658 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla. 1995) and additional cases). Because the trial court complied with the applicable procedural requirements, the petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED .

Wolf, Osterhaus, and Jay, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 613 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 613

          Commemorating the centennial of Webster University.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 9, 2014

    Mrs. Wagner (for herself and Mr. Clay) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
                               Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
          Commemorating the centennial of Webster University.

Whereas in 1915, the Sisters of Loretto established Webster University in Saint 
        Louis, Missouri, as one of the first Catholic colleges for women that is 
        located west of the Mississippi River;
Whereas Webster University has campuses in 8 different countries, introducing 
        people in Europe, Asia, and Africa to United States educational 
        programs, helping to spread United States culture and ideas around the 
        globe, and serving the educational needs of people abroad;
Whereas in 1974, Webster University became one of the first universities in the 
        United States to operate on a military base;
Whereas in 2014, Webster University is located on military bases across the 
        country, serving all branches of the military and directly helping more 
        than 7,700 students who are active members of the Armed Forces, 
        veterans, or direct relatives of individuals with military connections;
Whereas Webster University has been a leader in online education since 1999, and 
        more than 9,000 students are taking courses in the Webster University 
        Online Learning Center, a program that provides quality higher education 
        to students who have access to the Internet and are residing anywhere in 
        the world;
Whereas since 1915, Webster University has conferred more than 184,000 degrees 
        at campuses around the world, including nearly 80,000 degrees in the 
        greater Saint Louis area, demonstrating a local commitment and offering 
        a global education;
Whereas Webster University has a diverse student body and is routinely lauded by 
        organizations working on diversity issues;
Whereas Webster University is the alma mater of more than 160,000 proud alumni; 
        and
Whereas the quality of Webster University as an institution of higher learning 
        is a reflection of the extraordinary caliber of its educational 
        professionals and students: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes and extends 
congratulations to the educational professionals, students, and alumni 
of Webster University for 100 years of excellence in higher education.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2020320EN.01000302.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/3

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di appello di Napoli — Italy) — TJ v Balga Srl

(Case C-32/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal - Articles 20, 21, 34 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Directive 98/59/EC - Collective dismissal - National legislation on the protection to be afforded to a worker who has been the subject of unjustified collective dismissal on account of a violation of the criteria for selecting the workers to be dismissed - Absence of a situation regarding the implementation of EU law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Inapplicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

(2020/C 320/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte di appello di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TJ

Defendant: Balga Srl

Operative part of the order

The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Corte d’appello di Napoli (Court of Appeal, Naples, Italy) by decision of 18 September 2019.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---
Appendix B. Exhibit ‘A’ Review Checklist

ARP SOP No. 3.00 	Effective Date: October 1, 2013

Effective Date: October 1, 2013	ARP SOP No. 3.00

B-2

B-1

Accepted By: _______________________________________	Date: Click here to enter a date. 

	Airports Specialist

B-0

B-1
EX PARTE Dedric Jamar DEAN

CR-16-0721

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HOWARD COOPER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 192 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of October, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
1939.

#### Central of Georgia Railway Co. *v.*Dowe & Co.

Action for damages; from city court of Atlanta — Judge Reid-April 14, 1909.

Submitted July 19, —

Decided November 9, 1909.

*Payne, Little & Jones,*for plaintiff in error.

*Moore •& Pomeroy,*W. *W. Mood,*contra.

Powell, J.

1. Where section 2334 of the Civil Code, relating to venue of suits against railroad companies, is applicable, it is exclusive. A suit brought elsewhere than is there provided is void, and the defendant can not waive the question of jurisdiction by pleading to the merits. Other suits against railroad companies are controlled by the general law. *South Carolina R. Co.*v. *Dietzen,*101 *Ga.*730 (29 S. E. 292); *Lytle v. Sou. Ry. Co.,*3 *Ga. App.*220 (59 S. E. 595). The statute does not cover the case of a tort committed in another State. In such • cases the question of jurisdiction, so far as it is affected by the venue, must be raised by timely plea or demurrer. See *Central R. Co.*v. *DeBray,*71 *Ga.*406; *East Tenn. Ry. Co.*v. *Suddeth,*86 *Ga.*388 (12 S. E. 682).

2. It is unnecessary to pass upon the constitutionality of the Hepburn act (Act. Cong. June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584; U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, p. 892). The goods having been appropriated by the initial carrier, the liabilities are the same under the general law as they would be under the act in question. The case proceeded on two counts, either of them sufficient to uphold the verdict. *Sou. Ry. Co.*v. *Schlittler,*1 *Ga. App.*20 (58 S. E. 59).

3. It is not error for the court to charge the jury that when a carrier by its bill of lading has received goods as in “good order,” or “in apparent good order,” the burden is upon the carrier to show that they were not so. The charge is authorized although the evidence may tend to show that they were not in perfect order when received.

4. The alleged errors in the case may be cured and rendered harmless by a direction slightly reducing the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The judgment is affirmed, with direction that the principal of the plaintiff’s judgment be reduced to the sum of $81.12.

*Judgment affirmed, with direction.*
EXHIBIT 99.1




                            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 Quarterly Report of United Energy Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Ronald Wilen, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  November 15, 2002     By: /s/ Ronald Wilen
                                 --------------------------
                                     Ronald Wilen
                                     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# C_2022024EN.01003401.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Jakober v EUIPO (Shape of a cup)

(Case T-658/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a cup - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2022/C 24/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Philip Jakober (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, D. Hanf and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 August 2020 (Case R 554/2020-5), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a cup as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Philip Jakober to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Philip Jakober to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---