alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021422EN.01001602.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/16

---

Order of the General Court of 9 August 2021 — Telefónica Germany v EUIPO — Google (LOOP)

(Case T-305/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 422/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Google LLC (Mountain View, California, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, C. Schmitt and S. Clotten, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2020 (Case R 281/2019-4), relating to cancellation proceedings between Google and Telefónica Germany.

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. | Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG and Google LLC are ordered to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG and Google LLC are ordered to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---
Brian M. CASEY, DOC #139647, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-590

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
|   | (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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |   |                          |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  May 16, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Bryan Kenyon         |   |
|                          |   | Bryan Kenyon, CFO             |   |
|                          |   | (Principal Financial Officer) |   |
|                          |   |                          |   |
##### 



Exhibit 99.1 MAXCOM TELECOMUNICACIONES, S.A. DE C.V. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE 2000
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2001
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2002
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2003
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2004
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2004WEIGHTED-AVERAGE
COMMON
SHARES OUTSTANDING
    
    
    
    
    
    
    11,463,667
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    13,748,445
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    13,885,006
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    14,654,063
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    14,806,980
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    14,806,980NET LOSS FOR THE PERIOD
    
    PS.
    
    
    (720,590
    )
    
    PS.
    
    
    (755,052
    )
    
    PS.
    
    
    (801,387
    )
    
    PS.
    
    
    (386,243
    )
    
    PS.
    
    
    (129,004
    )
    
    
    U.S.$
    
    
    
    (11,570
    )NET LOSS PER SHARE
    
    PS.
    
    
    (62.86
    )
    
    PS.
    
    
    (54.92
    )
    
    PS.
    
    
    (57.72
    )
    
    PS.
    
    
    (26.36
    )
    
    PS.
    
    
    (8.71
    )
    
    
    U.S.$
    
    
    
    (0.78
    )
# C_2022171EN.01002801.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — OA v EESC

(Case T-671/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary penalty - Written warning - Rights of the defence - Error of assessment - Liability)

(2022/C 171/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OA (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld and M. Aboudi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Social and Economic Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka, A. Carvajal García-Valdecasas and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of Decision No 293/19 of the EESC of 5 December 2019 imposing the penalty of a written warning on the applicant and, second, compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision No 293/19 of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of 5 December 2019 imposing the penalty of a written warning on OA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision No 293/19 of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of 5 December 2019 imposing the penalty of a written warning on OA;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the EESC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the EESC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - (-)science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - (-)connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - california(1)
              - colorado(1)
              - massachusetts(1)

## By Year

              - 2024(2)
              - 2023(2)
              - 2022(2)

Education        April 22, 2004        Introduction to Geologic Mapping

Education        October 26, 2018        Principal Aquifers

staff profileJacob E Poletti, M.S.

staff profileRoger Borcherdt

staff profileAdrian M Bender

staff profileMichelle Guy

staff profileMichael Pribil

staff profileClaudia Flores
# C_2021019EN.01001601.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 2 October 2020 — Delfarma Sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych

(Case C-488/20)

(2021/C 19/20)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Delfarma Sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 34 TFEU preclude national legislation under which a parallel import licence is to expire after one year from the expiry of the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 34 TFEU preclude national legislation under which a parallel import licence is to expire after one year from the expiry of the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product?

| 2. | In the light of Articles 34 and 36 TFEU, may a national authority adopt a decision of a declaratory nature to the effect that a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product in connection with parallel import is to expire automatically, solely on the ground that the period laid down by law has expired, as from the date on which the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product expired, without examining the reasons for the expiry of [the marketing authorisation for] that product or other requirements referred to in Article 36 TFEU relating to the protection of the health and life of humans? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the light of Articles 34 and 36 TFEU, may a national authority adopt a decision of a declaratory nature to the effect that a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product in connection with parallel import is to expire automatically, solely on the ground that the period laid down by law has expired, as from the date on which the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product expired, without examining the reasons for the expiry of [the marketing authorisation for] that product or other requirements referred to in Article 36 TFEU relating to the protection of the health and life of humans?

| 3. | Is the fact that parallel importers are exempt from the obligation to submit periodic safety reports, and the authority consequently has no current data on the benefit/risk of pharmacotherapy, sufficient to adopt a decision of a declaratory nature to the effect that a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product in connection with parallel import is to expire? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the fact that parallel importers are exempt from the obligation to submit periodic safety reports, and the authority consequently has no current data on the benefit/risk of pharmacotherapy, sufficient to adopt a decision of a declaratory nature to the effect that a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product in connection with parallel import is to expire?

---
STATE of Louisiana v. Jacob M. WILLIAMS

NO. 2018-KH-2078

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of U.S. Fuel Corporation
(formerly Nuclear Solutions, Inc.), (the “Company”), herby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.





|By: | /s/ William E. Chady    |  |                       
|--- | ----------------------- |  | ----------------------
|    | William E. Chady        |  |                       
|    | Chief Financial Officer |  | Dated: August 1, 2013.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31740]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 6, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1181 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-969, K2025-968.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31740 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
# C_2021163EN.01003501.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/35

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 23 February 2021 — Symrise v ECHA

(Case T-655/20 R)

(Application for interim relief - REACH - Substance 2-ethylhexyl salicylate - Compliance check of registrations - Obligation to provide certain information requiring animal testing - Application for interim measures - No urgency)

(2021/C 163/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Symrise AG (Holzminden, Germany) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: W. Broere, N. Knight and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures, first, to suspend implementation of Decision A 010 2018 of the Board of Appeal of ECHA of 18 August 2020, relating to the applicant’s registration dossier for 2-ethylhexyl salicylate and, second, to order the extension of the prescribed period to communicate the results of the tests for the duration of the suspension.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135367 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135367 COA: 279041 Wayne CC: 85-005287-01 RONALD MARK DRAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the A ugust 1, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0421 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2008

Clerk
# C_2022024EN.01003701.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/37

---

Order of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — KS and KD v Council and Others

(Case T-771/20) (1)

(Action for damages - Common foreign and security policy - Eulex Kosovo mission - Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

(2022/C 24/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: KS, KD (represented by: F. Randolph QC and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro, P. Mahnič and K. Kouri, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: Y. Marinova and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents), European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt, S. Rodríguez Sánchez-Tabernero and E. Orgován, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of various acts and omissions by the Council, the Commission and the EEAS in the implementation of Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP of 4 February 2008 on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (OJ 2008 L 42, p. 92), and, in particular, during the investigations that were carried out, during that mission, into the disappearance and killing of the applicants’ family members in 1999 in Pristina (Kosovo).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed since the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine it. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed since the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine it.

| 2. | KS and KD shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

KS and KD shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

| 3. | The European External Action Service (EEAS) shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European External Action Service (EEAS) shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---
EX PARTE Cedric Lamar WALLACE

CR-16-0977

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Jefferson Cir. Ct.
# C_2022303EN.01003902.xml

| 8.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Unite the Union v EUIPO — WWRD Ireland (WATERFORD)

(Case T-739/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark WATERFORD - Action for annulment - Article 63(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Admissibility - Trade mark liable to mislead the public - Article 51(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2022/C 303/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unite the Union (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. O’Connor and M. Hommé, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: WWRD Ireland IPCO LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Mortelé and B. Lieben, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 September 2020 (Case R 2683/2019-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Unite the Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by WWRD Ireland IPCO LLC; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Unite the Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by WWRD Ireland IPCO LLC;

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1)
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Airvana, Inc.;2)
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b)
    
    [Not applicable];c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: November 5, 2008
    /s/ Jeffrey D. GliddenJeffrey D. GliddenVice President, Chief Financial Officer