alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020433EN.01004602.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Body Attack Sports Nutrition v EUIPO — Sakkari (Sakkattack)

(Case T-788/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Sakkattack - Earlier international word marks ATTACK and Body Attack and earlier international figurative mark Body Attack SPORTS NUTRITION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 433/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Body Attack Sports Nutrition GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Labesius, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Maria Sakkari (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: M. Nikolaraki, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 August 2019 (Joined Cases R 2432/2018-4 and R 2562/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Body Attack Sports Nutrition and Ms Sakkari.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Body Attack Sports Nutrition GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Body Attack Sports Nutrition GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

---
WILLIAM HENRY CHASE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-0703

Opinion filed January 25, 2017.

Petition for Belated Appeal -- Original Jurisdiction.

William Henry Chase, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

ROWE, RAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-40468 Summary Calendar
JOHN MARK QUAAK, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. OFFICER BROWN; OFFICER HOUSTON; OFFICER SMITH; OFFICER PUGH SEYOFF; OFFICER FANNING SEGOTT; DEFENDANT CRY; DEFENDANT KATRAGRADDA; DEFENDANT THOMAS; DEFENDANT BURLESON; DEFENDANT RIVAS, Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:11-CV-356
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John Mark Quaak, Texas prisoner # 1436525, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit, alleging that officials with the T e rr e l l Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, have violated his constitutional rights. The district court di s m i ssed the lawsuit without prejudice pursu a nt to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary17 , 20 13 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-40468 Document: 00512116748 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2013No. 12-40468

Quaak failed to comply with its order that he submit a properly certified inmate trust fund data sheet in support of his motion for leave to pr o c e ed in forma pauperis. A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute
or to comply with any court order. F E D
. R. C IV
. P. 41(b); McCullough v. Lynaugh , 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). Because the dismissal at issue was without p r ej udice and the applicable statute of limitations would not currently b a r Quaak’s r e f

i l i n g of the suit, we review for an abuse of discretion. See Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA , 975 F.2d 1188, 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1992); McCullough , 835 F.2d at 1127; see also Wallace v. Kato , 549 U.S. 384, 387 ( 2007) ; Cooper v. Brookshire , 70 F.3d 377, 380 n.20 (5th Cir. 1995); T E X
. C IV
. P RA C
. & R E M
. C O D E AN N . § 16.003(a). Quaak conclusionally asserts that the district court judge was prejudiced against him, made false entries in the docket, and conspired with the defendants to keep his lawsuit out of court. However, he offers no explanation for his failure to comply with the district court’s order o r for his delay in submitting the required trust fund data sheet, which he ultimately supplied after the dismissal of his case. Quaak has thus failed to show that the dis trict court abused its discretion. See F E D
. R. C IV
. P. 41(b); McCullough , 835 F.2d at 1127. The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED. Quaak’s motion for the appointment of counsel, seeking to have counsel a p p ointed to represent him in unspecified future civil and criminal matters, is DENIED.

2 Case: 12-40468 Document: 00512116748 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2013
# C_2019280EN.01002601.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 13 June 2019 — Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto

(Case C-450/19)

(2019/C 280/35)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto

Defendant: Eltel Group Oy ja Eltel Networks Oy

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the system of competition established by Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) be interpreted to mean that, in a situation in which a cartel participant has entered into a construction contract as agreed in the cartel with a player outside the cartel, the competition infringement continues, due to the economic effects caused thereby, throughout the whole period in which contractual obligations arising from the contract are discharged or payments for the works are made to the contracting parties, that is to say up until the point at which the last instalment is paid for the works, or at least up until the point at which the works in question are completed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the system of competition established by Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) be interpreted to mean that, in a situation in which a cartel participant has entered into a construction contract as agreed in the cartel with a player outside the cartel, the competition infringement continues, due to the economic effects caused thereby, throughout the whole period in which contractual obligations arising from the contract are discharged or payments for the works are made to the contracting parties, that is to say up until the point at which the last instalment is paid for the works, or at least up until the point at which the works in question are completed;

| 2. | or is it to be assumed that the competition infringement continues only until the point at which the company that committed the infringement has submitted a tender for the works concerned or entered into a contract for the execution of the works? |
| --- | --- |

2.

or is it to be assumed that the competition infringement continues only until the point at which the company that committed the infringement has submitted a tender for the works concerned or entered into a contract for the execution of the works?

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1892** 

TERESSA L. ANGLINMATUMONA , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

MICRON CORPORATION , Defendant

- Appellee

.

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

. Anthony John Trenga , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv - 00572

- AJT

- TRJ )

Submitted : October 11 , 2012 Decided: October 15, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Teressa L. Anglinmatumona, Appellant Pro Se. Garen Edward Dodge, Jennifer Anne Harper, Joseph Erwin Schuler, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Reston, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

T eressa L. Anglinmatumona seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Micron Corporation on her claims of employment retaliation. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely

filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal perio d under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on June 4, 2012. * The notic e of appeal was filed on July 6, 2012. Because Anglinmatumona failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contenti ons are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

* The thirtieth day of the appeal period fell on July 4, 2012, a legal holiday. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C), (a)(6)(A). Thus, Anglinmatumona had until July 5, 2012, to file a timely notice of appeal.
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This amendment (“Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of May 6, 2009 (“Agreement”) by and between YOUNG INNOVATIONS, INC., a Missouri corporation, (“Company”) and Arthur L. Herbst, Jr., of Chicago, Illinois (“Employee”) is entered into as of December 30, 2010.  Capitalized terms herein have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.




The Employer and Employee intending to be legally bound, hereby agree to the amend the Agreement as follows pursuant to an in accordance with Section 10(f) of the Agreement:




The following language shall be added in Section 6(d) after the phrase “Any additional benefits provided under this Section 6(d) shall be paid in installments”:




“beginning on the first payroll date following the date that is 60 days following the Employee’s termination date, which such first payment shall include payments relating to such initial 60 day period; provided that the release described above has been executed (and any applicable waiting periods have expired or been waived).  Any additional benefits under this Section 6(d) shall also be....”














******







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the Agreement as of the date first above written.









EMPLOYER


YOUNG INNOVATIONS, INC.




By:___________________________




Its:___________________________














EMPLOYEE




By:__________________________
# C_2022037EN.01002601.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — Foz v Council

(Case T-258/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Proportionality - Right to property - Right to pursue an economic activity - Misuse of powers - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to a fair trial)

(2022/C 37/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Samer Foz (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: L. Cloquet and J.P. Buyle, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 13), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 4), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 1), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 66), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 1) in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Samer Foz to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Samer Foz to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.10

                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This First Amendment to Employment Agreement ("Amendment"), effective as of
July 28, 2000, is made by and between NANOGEN, INC., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), and HOWARD C. BIRNDORF (the "Executive").

                                    RECITALS

     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have entered into an Employment
Agreement, dated October 29, 1999 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive wish to amend the Employment Agreement
as described herein.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and Executive, in consideration of the
Executive's continued employment with the Company, agree as follows:

                                      TERMS

1.   SECTION 280G. In Article III, Section E SECTION 280G relating to
     restrictions on payments made pursuant to the Employment Agreement that may
     be considered "excess parachute payments" during Change of Control events
     as defined therein, shall be deleted in its entirety.

2.   REMAINDER OF AGREEMENT. The other terms and conditions contained in the
     Employment Agreement shall remain in effect pursuant to the Employment
     Agreement and such terms and conditions, where applicable, shall also
     govern this Amendment.

3.   GOVERNING LAW. This Amendment shall be construed in accordance with the
     laws of the State of California, notwithstanding its conflicts of law
     provisions.

4.   EXECUTIVE ACKNOWLEDGMENT. Executive acknowledges (a) that he has consulted
     with or has had the opportunity to consult with independent counsel of his
     own choice concerning this Amendment, and has been advised to do so by the
     Company, and (b) that he has read and understands this Amendment, is fully
     aware of its legal effect, and has entered into it freely based on his own
     judgment.

5.   COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts,
     all of which taken together constituted one and the same agreement.


<PAGE>

     Executed by the parties as of the day and year first above written.

                                                     NANOGEN, INC.

                                                 By:  /s/ KIERAN GALLAHUE
                                                    --------------------------
                                                        Kieran Gallahue
                                                        President and

                                                 EXECUTIVE
                                                      /s/ HOWARD C. BIRNDORF
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                          Howard C. Birndorf
# C_2019383EN.01003702.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/37

---

Appeal brought on 14 June 2019 by Stada Arzneimittel AG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 4 April 2019 in Case T-804/17, Stada Arzneimittel AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-460/19 P)

(2019/C 383/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (represented by: A.K. Marx, R. Kaase, J.-C. Plate, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 1 October 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
Exhibit 32.2







CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 American Commerce Solutions, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel L. Hefner, Chief Executive Officer, President and 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, to my knowledge:





(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 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Daniel L. HefnerDaniel L. HefnerChief Executive Officer, President and Director
# C_2020215EN.01003901.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Cognac Ferrand v EUIPO (Shape of braiding on a bottle)

(Case T-172/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of braiding on a bottle - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 215/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Cognac Ferrand (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Régnier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2019 (Case R 1640/2018-2) relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign constituted by the shape of braiding on a bottle as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cognac Ferrand to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cognac Ferrand to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Databases
                        Alfalfa Transcription Factor Database
                                    iPhyClassifier - Phytoplasma Sequence ClassificationSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory Docs







Showcasing viral nanotechnology techniquesheadline bar **Showcasing viral nanotechnology techniques** Nanotechnology techniques are constantly changing and being revised and modernized.The associated research and applications are equally diverse (depending of the field of research).We teach nanotechnology techniques to other scientists and we have produced a video and protocol paper at the invitation of the Journal of Visulized Experiment. http://www.jove.com/video/50084/analysis-solvent-accessibility-cysteine-residues-on-maize-rayado-fino


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
# C_2019348EN.01000601.xml

| 14.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Potsdam (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2019 — Möbel Kraft GmbH & Co. KG v ML

(Case C-529/19)

(2019/C 348/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Potsdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Möbel Kraft GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: ML

Question referred

Is the right of withdrawal under Article 16(c) of the Consumer Rights Directive (Directive 2011/83/EU) (1) also excluded where goods are made to the consumer’s specifications but the seller has not yet begun to manufacture the goods and would be making adjustments to them itself at the consumer’s premises, not through a third party? Does the answer depend on whether it would be possible to return the goods to the state they were in before customisation with only low dismantling costs, such as some 5 percent of the value of the goods?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).

---