alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lilit GORGINYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-70278.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.*

Filed Dec. 26, 2008.

*356Artem M. Sarian, Esq., Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Klemetsrud Puhl, USFA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, District of North Dakota, Fargo, ND, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Lilit Gorginyan and her daughter, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we grant the petition for review and remand the case.

The BIA’s order in this case contains a clear factual error that compromises our review of the decision. In its discussion of petitioner’s past persecution, the decision includes consideration of “the destruction of her store in May 1998 and the other threatening incidents.” These facts are not part of petitioner’s case. Because it is not clear what facts the BIA considered when denying relief, we remand for the BIA to clarify its opinion.

On remand, the government is advised to insure the BIA has a complete copy of the administrative record. The copies received by the court are missing pages AR 255-277.

Based on our conclusion, we decline to reach the remainder of petitioner’s contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
---

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 Tornado Gold
International Corp. a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for
the year ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Earl W. Abbott, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Tornado Gold International Corp., and will be retained
by Tornado Gold International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

/s/ Earl W.
AbbottEarl W. Abbott Chief Executive Officer 
  March 23, 2007

---
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of

- )

)

Kamaludin Slyman CSC ) ASBCA Nos. 62007, 62008

)

Under Contract No. H92237

- 12

- C

- 0131 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Bryant S. Banes, Esq.

Sean D. Forbes

, Esq.

Neel, Hooper & Banes, P.C.

Houston, TX

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq.

Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney

Christopher M. Judge

- Hilborn, Esq.

Kyle E. Gilbertson, Esq.

Trial Attorneys

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PROUTY

The parties have resolved their dispute and request that the Board enter judgment

in favor of appellant.

It is the Board ’ s decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b) , and the

parties ’ stipulation and agreement, that the appeal s are sustained. In the nature of a consent

judgment, the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of $70,000.

Appellant has agreed to waive Contract Disputes Act interest.

Dated: June 8 , 2021

J. REID PROUTY

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

(Signatures continued )2 I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals I concur

MICHAEL N. O’CONNELL

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 62007, 62008

, Appeals of

Kamaludin Slyman CSC , rendered in conformance with the Board ’ s Charter.

Dated: June 14, 2021

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
# C_2020390EN.01003101.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — UE v Commission

(Case T-338/19) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary members of staff - Health problems alleged to have been caused by working conditions - Request for recognition of an occupational disease - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Right to be heard - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Obligation for the person concerned to be heard before the original decision)

(2020/C 390/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UE (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of the Commission, of 1 August 2018, by which the applicant’s request for recognition of an occupational disease, pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, was dismissed as inadmissible.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Office for administration and payment of individual entitlements (PMO) of the European Commission, of 1 August 2018, by which the request by UE for recognition of an occupational disease, pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, was dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Office for administration and payment of individual entitlements (PMO) of the European Commission, of 1 August 2018, by which the request by UE for recognition of an occupational disease, pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, was dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.

---
# C_2020077EN.01003001.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 20 December 2019 — X v Belgian State

(Case C-930/19)

(2020/C 77/41)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Belgian State

Question referred

Does Article 13(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (1) infringe Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it provides that divorce, annulment of marriage or termination of a registered partnership does not entail loss of the right of residence of a Union citizen’s family members who are not nationals of a Member State where, inter alia, this is warranted by particularly difficult circumstances, such as having been a victim of domestic violence while the marriage or registered partnership was subsisting, but only on the condition that the persons concerned show that they are workers or self-employed persons or that they have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State, or that they are members of the family, already constituted in the host Member State, of a person satisfying these requirements, whereas Article 15(3) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, (2) which makes the same provision for the right of residence to continue, does not make its continuation subject to that condition?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77).

(2)  OJ 2003, L 251, p. 12.

---
# C_2021098EN.01002601.xml

| 22.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2021 — Kanyama v Council

(Case T-123/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures - Right to private and family life - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Plea of illegality)

(2021/C 98/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, H. Marcos Fraile, S. Van Overmeire and M.-C. Cadilhac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2018 L 134, p. 47) and, second, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2018 L 314, 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 Célestin Kanyama to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Célestin Kanyama to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
Exhibit 10.53
 SECOND AMENDMENT
TO THE
PLUMAS BANK
EXECUTIVE SALARY CONTINUATION AGREEMENT
DATED JUNE 2, 1994
AND AMENDED FEBRUARY 16, 2000
FOR
DOUGLAS N. BIDDLE
  RECITALS




---



##### 



- 2 -




---



##### 



Executive:
    
    
    
    Plumas Bank/s/ D. N. Biddle
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Daniel E. WestDouglas N. Biddle
    
    
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    Chairman of the Board
 
  - 3 -




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 NOTICE
 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY (BOARD) HAS RESOLVED AND DIRECTED THAT THE DEFERRED
COMPENSATION CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF DOUGLAS N. BIDDLE (EXECUTIVE) UNDER THE ATTACHED EXECUTIVE
SALARY CONTINUATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COMPANY AND EXECUTIVE DATED JUNE 2, 1994, AND AMENDED
FEBRUARY 16, 2000 (GRANDFATHERED AGREEMENT), AND EARNED AND VESTED AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2004 BE
SEGREGATED FROZEN AND GRANDFATHERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE GRANDFATHERED AGREEMENT IN EFFECT
ON OCTOBER 3, 2004 AND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986, AS AMENDED AND IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 409A AS ENACTED BY THE AMERICAN JOBS CREATION ACT
OF 2004; THAT TO PRESERVE SUCH GRANDFATHERING, THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AS IN
EFFECT ON OCTOBER 3, 2004, SHALL NOT BE MATERIALLY MODIFIED (AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE NOTICE 2005-1) AFTER OCTOBER 3, 2004 WITH RESPECT TO DEFERRED COMPENSATION THAT WAS
CREDITED TO EXECUTIVES ACCOUNT AND EARNED AND VESTED AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2004; AND THAT ANY ATTEMPT
TO SO MATERIALLY MODIFY THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AFTER THAT DATE SHALL BE NULL AND VOID.
 
  - 4 -
Amendment No. 12 to Isoprene Sales Contract



 Exhibit 10.97 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER ELEVEN (#12) TO ISPRENE SALES CONTRACT 
 This Amendment (“Amendment”) Number Twelve (#12) is entered into and effective this 11th day of December 2009, by and between Shell Chemical LP (“Seller”) and Kraton Polymers U.S. LLC, f/k/a
Shell Elastomers LLC (“Buyer”). Seller and Buyer may be referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” 
 WITNESSETH: 
 WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer are parties to that certain Sales
Contract dated September 11, 1999, as amended, (“Contract”) pursuant to which Seller sells isoprene to Buyer; and 
 WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Contract as provided herein; 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the
mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows: 
 1. Article 3, PERIOD, of the Contract shall be amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
  

	 	    	 	“PERIOD. The period of this Sales Contract will begin on July 1, 1999 and end on December 31, 2009, but will continue thereafter, subject to
termination effective on such ending date, or at any subsequent time, by either Party giving the other at least nine (9) calendar days prior written notice at any time for any reason, provided that such termination will not take effect before
December 31, 2009.” 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly
authorized representatives as of the date first written above. 
  

									
	SHELL CHEMICAL LP	 		 	KRATON POLYMERS U.S. LLC
					
	By:	 	/S/ VICTOR HAMILTON	 		 	By:	 	/S/ THOMAS O’NEIL
					
	Title:	 	GM C4/C5 OLEFINS	 		 	Title:	 	GLOBAL PROCUREMENT DIRECTOR

 _ 
  

 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1790

PEERLESS INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, as Subrogee of Right 

Touch Interiors, Inc.; EXCELSIOR INSURANCE COMPANY, as 

Subrogee of Southeast Church Furniture, Inc.,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

CITY OF GREENSBORO,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, 

District Judge. (1:13-cv-01104-LCB-LPA)

Submitted: December 31, 2015 Decided: January 14, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jay M. Goldstein, GOLDSTEIN LAW PLLC, Albert S. Nalibotsky, 

SALTZ MATKOV, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellants. 

Bruce P. Ashley, Patrick M. Kane, Lisa W. Arthur, SMITH MOORE 

LEATHERWOOD LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs, Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company and 

Excelsior Insurance Company, appeal the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Greensboro in 

Plaintiffs’ negligence action. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Peerless Indem. Ins. Co. 

v. City of Greensboro, No. 1:13-cv-01104-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C. June 

23, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
* * RECEIVED IN COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS hio DEC 28 2015 JLN THE (LOudT OF CtlhMML RPPlsflLS Abel Acosta, Clerk flVSTlhi) TEXA5 Davjd smith FlLtD \H COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS V. THE 5Jf\-T£ OF Ttf</»5 Abel Acosta, Clerk
From RpftoAl A/o. Q2-/sr-ooDS"3-CK Ttifrl tki)5£ NO i j l3^3U>i»0 D

f\RST MoTlQAf foft gXTFA/5/0A| ofTIME TO PILE Petition for biscneTioM^Ry review 7D TWe HoHoRft&iB. ^t/o&es ofthf coukt of CRim^iM APPEALS ) £o(W$ roouJ} D4W0 3MJTH, PM\*#*RI AtU fi\<S fU'S y^\o* f0*~ fijJ 

### etMFM ofs',^ CUt>) dtp )m UU iv -p;k A fyjfa,, fa frscArioMY 

### Rei/W. Tm So/pod offils moi'i0Ml Aff»>ll#rfshau^s +k<c G>o/frM-faf**'** *t•J0 *

J. Tht fkti+ioNm uufiS <Souv»'cfe<j \ri -fa, 3 b)SWid Count of "J^^ff Cowhj ~T<a&s> ofH* offatsi o$ Possissiorf of A &»iT*>iiGt Sv&sTA/Jce offour 6^M3 or Mone fiuTless TMMZ<x>GMhKs, fimelX I4m<>ri ',jj CAus<ltffr \s33i>t*o P 

## 5+y/*/ 5+«+«.ofTuhsvs. Dwto swt«. -ft* W,»ien ^.J -h #<, C&xkof.fi/jptAJS $VL6*i Sof RWI31X^1 DM,cf9 -p,c e*iSZ iAJfiS a#;*j*<<) Dhl bociMbW 3> LOIS'. JL. THt pReavri-JtAdlitte ~fok -filing fa Mfad 4* PiSctetloM*? tfetW IS

. 5/W*:y 3, 3.0(it, Hz .Mi',oiJ«* A/45 H>&+ fafiwstd /*«"/ vx-hdlc*/ p&M •*©



### /efrfie/fe* u&s loot InfoMtd o4 factz&isiod of- fa Qjoud o-f tytebls jm fifflm'iM KS Qtii? L>«4U D«cc*k* H, Zeis'. 5///C1C fUf f,m A##W«C h*5 JotiAJ 

### Me^ffiH^ -fc> $»:« fal fafiteurtrtleM 'lM fh',5 puff*, fa fyfofiXy *>#e ^,/ 

## 5/e^e JI>M^ ?Ul 'Mfiwd fU'rfMtk fUi hi toiU U<rt /%/*eWfa J "Hot faction f.0n fcAcMloMy Rcvku), 

## \A/mREFOfK£) HfM^Rp^^s CtvdfMtt this nrffaW^UA

&) '&&f T***S fr*/>MTfni»JT &4 C#m'iMLJZ*ticc
CjoIqpMd city, 7o(A5 nH&z*
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                        
                                                RESTATED
<S>                             <C>             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998    JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998    SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                  298          1,350  
<SECURITIES>                         18,999         21,224
<RECEIVABLES>                         8,078          8,131
<ALLOWANCES>                            250            165
<INVENTORY>                               0              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     29,317         30,918
<PP&E>                                6,472          5,385
<DEPRECIATION>                        2,133          1,883
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       33,890         34,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 2,865          4,288
<BONDS>                                   0              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0              0
<PREFERRED>                               0              0
<COMMON>                                 92             88
<OTHER-SE>                           30,933         30,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         33,890         34,420
<SALES>                                   0              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     28,880         32,267
<CGS>                                     0              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        17,335         16,445     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     14,957         12,171 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     (690)          (161)  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (2,722)         3,812
<INCOME-TAX>                         (1,170)         1,380
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (1,552)         2,432
<DISCONTINUED>                            0              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0              0
<CHANGES>                                 0              0
<NET-INCOME>                         (1,552)         2,432
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.17)          0.35   
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.17)          0.30
        


</TABLE>
Amendment - Employment - Mr. Solomon








Exhibit 10.28




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 





This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement (this " Agreement ") is made and entered into as of October 1, 2003, by and between Citadel Security Software Inc., a Delaware corporation (the " Company "), and Steven B. Solomon (the " Employee ").




WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee have entered into an Employment Agreement between the Company and the Employee, dated as of January 1, 2002 (the " Employment Agreement "), and the Company and the Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement.




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth in this Agreement and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:




1.     Bonus.  Following a Change in Control (as defined in the Employment Agreement) of the Company, the Employee shall have the option to require the Company to pay to the Employee a bonus in an amount equal to the exercise price of all or any portion of the options that the Company has granted to the Employee. The Bonus, if any, shall be subject to withholding for all applicable taxes.




2.     No Further Amendment.  Except as amended by this Agreement, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.







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

 

COMPANY




CITADEL SECURITY SOFTWARE INC.

 




By:      ______________________________

Name: ______________________________

Title:   ______________________________







EMPLOYEE 





/s/ Steven B. Solomon 

Print Name:           Steven B. Solomon 

Address:              8750 North Central Expressway, Suite 100
                               Dallas, Texas 75231
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors 

Optical CableCorporation: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in RegistrationStatement No. 333-09433 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-103108 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-115575 on Form S-8, and Registration Statement No. 333-128163 on Form S-8 of Optical CableCorporation of our report dated January 13, 2006, with respect to the balance sheets of Optical Cable Corporation as of October 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for eachof the years in the three-year period ended October 31, 2005, which report is incorporated by reference in the October 31, 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Optical Cable Corporation. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP
# C_2020077EN.01001601.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/16

---

Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by L’Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2019 in Case T-181/16 RENV, L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot

(Case C-588/19 P)

(2020/C 77/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by T. de Haan and P. Péters, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Guinot

By order of 7 October 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.

---