alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021490EN.01003301.xml

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 –Schneider v EUIPO — Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas (Frutaria)

(Case T-12/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative trade mark Frutaria - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use - Nature of use)

(2021/C 490/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Markus Schneider (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Bergermann and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas, SL (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: J. Learte Álvarez and C. Anadón Giménez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2019 (Case R 284/2019-1), relating to revocation proceedings between M. Schneider and Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Markus Schneider to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Markus Schneider to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of ClearPoint Business Resources, Inc. (the Company) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2007 (the Report) 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 13, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael D. Traina  
|                        |  |     |  | Michael D. Traina      
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                        |  |    
|Date: November 13, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Kurt A. Braun      
|                        |  |     |  | Kurt A. Braun          
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Executive Order 14133

# Providing for the Closing of Executive Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government on January 9, 2025

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

**Section 1**                    . All executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall be closed on January 9, 2025, as a mark of respect for James Earl Carter, Jr., the thirty-ninth President of the United States.                

**Sec. 2**                    . The heads of executive departments and agencies may determine that certain offices and installations of their organizations, or parts thereof, must remain open and that certain employees must report for duty on January 9, 2025, for reasons of national security, defense, or other public need.                

**Sec. 3**                    . January 9, 2025, shall be considered as falling within the scope of Executive Order 11582 of February 11, 1971, and of 5 U.S.C. 5546 and 6103(b) and other similar statutes insofar as they relate to the pay and leave of employees of the United States.                

**Sec. 4**                    . The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement this order.                

**Sec. 5**                    .                     *General Provisions*. (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:                

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or 

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

[FR Doc. 2024-31766

Billing code 3395-F4-P
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 876 

Designating October 2024 as ‘‘National Principals Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Ms. SMITH (for herself, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. KING, Mr. DURBIN, 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN, and Mr. BRAUN) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating October 2024 as ‘‘National Principals Month’’. 

Whereas the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Association of Elementary School 

Principals, and the American Federation of School Administrators have declared October 2024 to be ‘‘National 

Principals Month’’; 

Whereas principals are educational visionaries, instructional 

and assessment leaders, community builders, budget analysts, facilities managers, and administrators of legal and 

contractual obligations; 

Whereas principals work collaboratively with teachers and 

parents to develop and implement clear missions, high 

curriculum standards, and performance goals; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 876 ATS 

Whereas principals create school environments that facilitate 

great teaching and learning and continuous school improvement; 

Whereas the vision, actions, and dedication of principals provide the mobilizing force behind any school improvement 

effort; and 

Whereas the celebration of National Principals Month would 

honor elementary school, middle school, and high school 

principals and recognize the importance of principals in 

ensuring that every child has access to a high-quality 

education: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates October 2024 as ‘‘National Prin3 cipals Month’’; 

4 (2) honors the contributions of principals in ele5 mentary schools, middle schools, and high schools in 

6 the United States; and 

7 (3) supports the goals and ideals of National 

8 Principals Month. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 14.1**

**INTERACTIVE MOTORSPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT CORP.**

**CODE OF BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS**

Thefollowing code shall apply to Interactive Motorsports and Entertainment Corp.,an Indiana Corporation, and shall be followed by its employees, officers anddirectors:

**CONFLICTS OF INTEREST**.

          Thecompany prohibits conflicts of interest. Any conflict of interest that occursshould be reported directly to the Company’s CEO. A “conflict of interest”occurs when an individual’s private interest interferes in anyway - or evenappears to interfere - with the interests of the Company as a whole. A conflictsituation can arise when an employee, officer or director takes actions or hasinterests that may make it difficult to perform his or her Company workobjectively and effectively. Conflicts of interest also arise when an employee,officer or director, or a member of his or her family, receives improperpersonal benefits as a result of his or her position in the Company. Loans to,or guarantees of obligations of, such persons are of special concern.

**CORPORATE OPPORTUNITIES**.

          Employees,officers and directors are prohibited from (a) taking for themselves personallyopportunities that are discovered through the use of Company property,information or position; (b) using Company property, information, or positionfor personal gain; and (c) competing with the Company. Employees, officers anddirectors owe a duty to the Company to advance its legitimate interests whenthe opportunity to do so arises.

**CONFIDENTIALITY**. 

          Employees,officers and directors must maintain the confidentiality of informationentrusted to them by the Company or its customers, except when disclosure isauthorized or legally mandated. Confidential information includes allnon-public information that might be of use to competitors or might be harmfulto the company or its customers, if disclosed.

**FAIR DEALING**. 

          Eachemployee, officer and director shall endeavor to deal fairly with the Company’scustomers, suppliers, competitors and employees. 

**PROTECTION AND PROPER USE OF COMPANY ASSETS**. 

          Allemployees, officers and directors should protect the Company’s assets andensure their efficient use. Theft, carelessness and waste have a direct,negative impact on the Company’s profitability. All Company assets should beused for legitimate business purposes.

**COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS (INCLUDINGINSIDER TRADING LAWS)**.

          Eachemployee, officer and director must comply with laws, rules and regulations,including insider trading laws. Insider trading is both unethical and illegal,and will be dealt with decisively.

**REPORTING ANY ILLEGAL OR UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR**. 

          TheCompany encourages ethical behavior. The Company encourages employees to talkto supervisors, managers or other appropriate personnel when in doubt about thebest course of action in a particular situation. Additionally, employees shouldreport violations of laws, rules, regulations or this Code of Business Conductand Ethics to appropriate personnel. No retaliation for such reports made ingood faith will be permitted.

----
United States District Court

Northern District of Texas

September 22, 2005

Mr. Charles R. Fulbruge III, Clerk

U.S. Court of Appeals - Fifth Circuit

600 Camp Street, Room 102

New Orleans, LA 70130

SUBJECT: 3:03-cr-00270-N Kenny J Davis

Dear Mr. Fulbruge:

In connection with the appeal cited above, the following documents are transmitted:

X

Certified copy of the notice of appeal and docket entries

Certified copy of the notice of cross-appeal and docket entries

Record on appeal consisting of volume(s) of the electronic record;

 Volume(s) of the transcript PSI Sealed

Container(s) of exhibits Sealed envelopes

ORIGINAL DOCUMENT(S) ENCLOSED--RETURN TO DISTRICT COURT

Supplemental record, including updated docket entries

Copy of CJA-20 appointing counsel

Other: In regard to the notice of appeal, the following additional information is

furnished:

The Court of Appeals docket fee has not been paid

X This case is proceeding in forma pauperis

Although the Court of Appeals docket fee was not paid at the time the notice of appeal

was filed, it was paid on

X The District Judge entering the final judgment is Judge David C Godbey

X The court reporter(s) assigned to this case : Linda Robbin.

X Names of co-defendants if any, and any pending appeals: See docket sheet

This case was decided without a hearing, therefore there will be no transcript

Sincerely,

KAREN MITCHELL

 By: s/ S VanCamp

Deputy Clerk

cc: Attorneys of record

Defendant Pro Se

Case 3:03-cr-00270-N Document 185 Filed 09/22/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 490
----

| 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. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:   12/17/09 | By:    | /s/ Jonathan Ricker               |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|                             |   | Jonathan      Ricker              |   |
|                             |   | Chief      Executive Officer,     |   |
|                             |   | Chief      Financial Officer and  |   |
|                             |   | Principal      Accounting Officer |   |

----
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 522 

To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. Todd. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 11, 2024 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize testimony and representation in United States 

v. Todd. 

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Todd, CR. No. 22– 

166, pending in the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia, the prosecution has requested the 

production of testimony from Daniel Schwager, a former 

employee of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent current and former officers and employees of the 

Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request 

for evidence relating to their official responsibilities; 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no eviVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:58 Jan 11, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR522.ATS SR522

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 522 ATS 

dence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be 

taken from such control or possession but by permission 

of the Senate; and 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Daniel Schwager, a former employee 

2 of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, is authorized 

3 to provide relevant testimony in the case of United States 

4 v. Todd, except concerning matters for which a privilege 

5 should be asserted. 

6 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 

7 represent Mr. Schwager, and any current or former officer 

8 or employee of the Secretary’s office, in connection with 

9 the production of evidence authorized in section one of this 

10 resolution. 

Æ 


dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
Case 3:03-cv-01324-M Document 7 Filed 10/03/03 Page 1 of 1 PageID 39
# C_2020390EN.01002202.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 September 2020 — TR

(Case C-416/20)

(2020/C 390/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Person whose surrender is sought: TR

Other party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamburg

Question referred

In the case of decisions on the extradition for the purposes of criminal prosecution of a person convicted in absentia from a Member State of the European Union to another Member State, are the provisions of Directive 2016/343, (1) in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the legality of the extradition (in particular in a so-called case of absconding) depends on the fulfilment by the requesting State of the conditions laid down in the Directive?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).

---
# C_2022340EN.01003001.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — Aerospinning Master Franchising v EUIPO — Mad Dogg Athletics (SPINNING)

(Case T-246/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark SPINNING - Trade mark which has become the common name in the trade for a product or service in respect of which it is registered - Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relevant public)

(2022/C 340/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aerospinning Master Franchising s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Labalestra, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. (Venice, California, United States) (represented by: J. Steinberg, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 February 2020 (Case R 369/2019-4), relating to revocation proceedings between itself and the intervener.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Aerospinning Master Franchising s. r. o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aerospinning Master Franchising s. r. o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.

---
Michael J. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D19-0258

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 2019

Michael J. Johnson, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for belated appeal is denied. *See**Green v. Dep't of Corrs.* , 122 So.3d 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Wetherell, Osterhaus, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
C.D. v. CLEBURNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160395

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
William Gregory WHITSON v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

2160723

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

August 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# C_2020423EN.01001701.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 31 July 2020 — HOLD Alapkezelő Befektetési Alapkezelő Zrt. v Magyar Nemzeti Bank

(Case C-352/20)

(2020/C 423/24)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HOLD Alapkezelő Befektetési Alapkezelő Zrt.

Defendant: Magyar Nemzeti Bank

Question referred

Do dividends distributed to the persons concerned

| (a) | directly by virtue of their status as holders of preference shares with preferential rights to dividends in the investment fund manager, and |
| --- | --- |

(a)

directly by virtue of their status as holders of preference shares with preferential rights to dividends in the investment fund manager, and

| (b) | through single-member companies owned by the directors concerned, which hold preference shares with preferential rights to dividends in that fund manager
  remain subject to the remuneration policies of investment fund managers? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

through single-member companies owned by the directors concerned, which hold preference shares with preferential rights to dividends in that fund manager

remain subject to the remuneration policies of investment fund managers?

---
EX PARTE Antonio MIDDLETON

CR-16-0911

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
# C_2021028EN.01002101.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2020 — NovaText GmbH v Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

(Case C-531/20)

(2021/C 28/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: NovaText GmbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

Question referred

Are Article 3(1) and Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation imposing an obligation on the unsuccessful party to reimburse the costs incurred by the successful party for assistance by a patent lawyer in proceedings brought under trade mark law, whether or not the patent lawyer’s assistance was necessary for the purpose of appropriate legal action?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).

---
# C_2021062EN.01003302.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/33

---

Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — Ighoga Region 10 v Commission

(Case T-161/20) (1)

(State aid - Construction of a convention centre and hotel in Ingolstadt - Complaint - Action for failure to act - Adoption of a position putting an end to the failure to act - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 62/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Interessengemeinschaft der Hoteliers und Gastronomen Region 10 eV (Ighoga Region 10) (Ingolstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Bartosch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt a final decision closing the preliminary examination procedure concerning the alleged State aid scheme SA.48582 (2017/FC) implemented by Germany in favour of the Maritim Group and KHI Immobilien GmbH.

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. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Interessengemeinschaft der Hoteliers und Gastronomen Region 10 eV (Ighoga Region 10). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Interessengemeinschaft der Hoteliers und Gastronomen Region 10 eV (Ighoga Region 10).

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.

---