alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020019EN.01003202.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Košice I (Slovakia) lodged on 30 October 2019 — NI, OJ, PK v Sociálna poisťovňa

(Case C-799/19)

(2020/C 19/33)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Košice I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NI, OJ, PK

Defendant: Sociálna poisťovňa

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 3 of Directive 2008/94/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘employees’ outstanding claims resulting from contracts of employment’ also covers non-material damage suffered as a result of the death of an employee caused by an accident at work? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 3 of Directive 2008/94/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘employees’ outstanding claims resulting from contracts of employment’ also covers non-material damage suffered as a result of the death of an employee caused by an accident at work?

| 2. | Must Article 2 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer be interpreted as meaning that where an action for enforcement has been brought against an employer in connection with a judicially recognised claim for compensation for non-material damage suffered as a result of the death of an employee caused by an accident at work, but the claim is deemed irrecoverable in the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the employer has no funds at its disposal, the employer in question is also deemed insolvent? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 2 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer be interpreted as meaning that where an action for enforcement has been brought against an employer in connection with a judicially recognised claim for compensation for non-material damage suffered as a result of the death of an employee caused by an accident at work, but the claim is deemed irrecoverable in the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the employer has no funds at its disposal, the employer in question is also deemed insolvent?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                     244,556,268
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  867,942
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           246,763,139
<PP&E>                                      24,206,351
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,228,387
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             266,056,518
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,411,343
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       372,326
<OTHER-SE>                                  82,806,758
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               266,056,518
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,619,770
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,702,643
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,574,280
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (18,927,158)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   620,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (18,371,628)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (18,371,628)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.49)


</TABLE>
# C_2013123EN.01002101.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/21

---

Action brought on 1 March 2013 — Vicente Gandia Pla/OHIM — Tesco Stores (MARQUES DE CHIVÉ)

(Case T-128/13)

2013/C 123/35

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vicente Gandia Pla, SA (Chiva, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tesco Stores Ltd (Cheshunt, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims/claim that the Court should:

| — | Declare admissible the here concerned appeal and enclosures; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare admissible the here concerned appeal and enclosures;

| — | Annul the Boards of Appeal Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Boards of Appeal Decision;

| — | Condemn the OHIM and the intervener to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Condemn the OHIM and the intervener to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MARQUES DE CHIVÉ’ for goods in classes 29, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark registration No 9 571 415

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: United Kingdom registration No 1 520 720 of the word mark ‘MARQUES DE CHIVE’ for goods in class 33

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition directed at the application for the goods in class 33 for lack of genuine use

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the application for the goods in class 33

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jenaro Gonzalez, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dachenhausen, J.), rendered May 10, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the summary denial (McMahon, J.), of that branch of defendant’s pretrial motion which sought to suppress physical evidence and the adherence to that determination upon reargument.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant moved, *inter alia,*to suppress items of stolen property found by police in his automobile, claiming that the arresting officers had acted without probable cause. That branch of defendant’s motion was properly denied without a hearing since his motion papers failed to include any sworn allegations of fact as required by CPL 710.60 *(see, People v Roberto H.,*67 AD2d 549). Defendant then moved for reargument of certain branches of his pretrial motion, and included in his motion papers a transcript from a preliminary hearing in this proceeding which contained testimony from the two arresting officers regarding the circumstances of defendant’s arrest. Upon reargument, the court properly adhered to its original determination summarily denying that branch of defendant’s pretrial motion which sought suppression of physical evidence. Since defendant’s motion papers did not controvert any of the facts proven at the preliminary hearing, defendant raised only a legal issue which could be summarily decided by the court *(see,*CPL 710.60 [3]; *People v Webb,*97 AD2d 779; *People v Harry,*65 Misc 2d 553). Even though the *662court’s decision and order failed to set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by CPL 710.60 (6), it is evident from the record that defendant was not entitled to suppression of the physical evidence *(see, People v Acosta,*74 AD2d 640).

Defendant’s vehicle drew the attention of undercover officers on patrol at the parking garage of the Galleria Mall in White Plains, when it was moved from one location to another within the garage. Its several occupants were then seen repeatedly walking back and forth between the mall and the vehicle. None of these persons carried any packages and the clothing of one of the persons appeared bulkier upon his leaving the mall.

Based upon their observations, the police acted properly when they stopped the car to question its occupants *(see, People v Ingle,*36 NY2d 413; *People v Sherman,*106 AD2d 416; *People v Denti,*44 AD2d 44). Defendant was placed under arrest when he failed to produce a valid operator’s license *(see,*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509; *People v Griffin,*116 Misc 2d 751), and the stolen merchandise was found by the officers in plain view on the floor of the vehicle *(see, People v Denti, supra).*Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of The Amanda Company, Inc., a Utah corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Brian Bonar, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 (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.
 
 
 
 
 /s/    Brian BonarBrian Bonar
Chief Financial Officer January 12, 2009
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

In re: § Case No.

§

CHAPTER 13 STANDING TRUSTEE'S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT

Reynolds, Jonte L 10 B 00889

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

§

§

Debtor

Marilyn O. Marshall, chapter 13 trustee, submits the following Final Report and Account of the

administration of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1302(b)(1). The trustee declares as follows:

 1) The case was filed on 01/12/2010.

 2) The plan was confirmed on (NA).

 3) The plan was modified by order after confirmation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1329 

on (NA).

 4) The trustee filed action to remedy default by the debtor in performance under the

plan on (NA).

 5) The case was dismissed on 04/28/2010.

 6) Number of months from filing or conversion to last payment: 0.

 7) Number of months case was pending: 5.

 8) Total value of assets abandoned by court order: (NA).

 9) Total value of assets exempted: $2,100.00.

 10) Amount of unsecured claims discharged without full payment: $0.

 11) All checks distributed by the trustee relating to this case have cleared the bank. 

EASTERN DIVISION

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (09/01/2009)

Case 10-00889 Doc 25 Filed 06/08/10 Entered 06/08/10 17:42:27 Desc Page 1

 of 4
Total paid by or on behalf of the debtor

Receipts:

$0

Less amount refunded to debtor $0

NET RECEIPTS: $0

Attorney's Fees Paid Through the Plan

Expenses of Administration:

$0

Court Costs $0

TOTAL EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION: $0

Trustee Expenses & Compensation $0

Other $0

Attorney fees paid and disclosed by debtor: $0

Scheduled Creditors:

Creditor

Name Class

Claim

Scheduled

Int.

Paid

Claim

Asserted

Claim

Allowed

Principal

Paid

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (09/01/2009)

Case 10-00889 Doc 25 Filed 06/08/10 Entered 06/08/10 17:42:27 Desc Page 2

 of 4
Mortgage Ongoing

Summary of Disbursements to Creditors:

$0

Interest

Paid

Claim

Allowed

Principal

Paid

Secured Payments:

$0 $0

Mortgage Arrearage $0 $0 $0

Debt Secured by Vehicle $9,100.00 $0 $0

All Other Secured $0 $0 $0

TOTAL SECURED: $9,100.00 $0 $0

Domestic Support Arrearage $0

Priority Unsecured Payments:

$0 $0

Domestic Support Ongoing $0 $0 $0

All Other Priority $0 $0 $0

TOTAL PRIORITY: $0 $0 $0

GENERAL UNSECURED PAYMENTS: $3,252.82 $0 $0

Expenses of Administration

Disbursements:

$0

Disbursements to Creditors $0

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS: $0

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (09/01/2009)

Case 10-00889 Doc 25 Filed 06/08/10 Entered 06/08/10 17:42:27 Desc Page 3

 of 4
 This Uniform Form is associated with an open bankruptcy case, therefore, Paperwork 

Reduction Act exemption 5 C.F.R. § 1320.4(a)(2) applies. 

STATEMENT:

 12) The trustee certifies that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5009, the

estate has been fully administered, the foregoing summary is true and complete, and all administrative

matters for which the trustee is responsible have been completed. The trustee requests a final decree

be entered that discharges the trustee and grants such other relief as may be just and proper. 

Date: June 8, 2010

Trustee

By:

/s/ MARILYN O. MARSHALL

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (09/01/2009)

Case 10-00889 Doc 25 Filed 06/08/10 Entered 06/08/10 17:42:27 Desc Page 4

 of 4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0380 IN THE MATTER OF: J.K., Respondent and Appellant. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 15 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 9 2021

08/09/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0380
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo GONZALEZ-MORALES, a.k.a. Ricardo Gonzales-Morales, a.k.a. Jose Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-10302.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed July 1, 2011.

John Robert Lopez, USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Patrick Edward McGillicuddy, I, Esquire, Law Offices of Patrick E. McGilli-cuddy, Jon M. Sands, Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ricardo Gonzalez-Morales appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 38-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 *478S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Gonzalez-Morales’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# C_2021028EN.01005002.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/50

---

Order of the General Court of 20 October 2020 — Ultrasun v EUIPO (ultrasun)

(Case T-805/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark ultrasun - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2021/C 28/77)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ultrasun AG (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 531/2019-4), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign ultrasun as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the order

| 1) | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The action is dismissed.

| 2) | Ultrasun AG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Ultrasun AG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tse Kin Cheung, Also Known as Peter Cheung, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered March 15, 1983, affirmed. *(People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9; *People v Serrano,*15 NY2d 304; *People v Parker,*41 NY2d 21; CPL 400.21 [7] [b]; Penal Law § 70.06 [1] [b] [iv], [v].) Lazer, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 10.9

Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary Sheet



|                                               |  |                         |        | 
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | ------ | 
|Annual Retainer                                |  | $                       | 38,500 | 
|                                               | 
|Type of Meeting                                |  | Amount Paid per Meeting |       
|Board Meeting                                  |  | $                       | 3,850  | 
|Special Meeting                                |  | $                       | 3,850  | 
|Telephonic Board Meeting                       |  | $                       | 1,100  | 
|Compensation & Nominating Committee Meeting    |  | $                       | 1,650  | 
|Audit Committee Meeting                        |  | $                       | 3,300  | 
|Executive Committee Meeting                    |  | $                       | 3,850  | 
|Additional Fee for Chairperson (except Audit)  |  | $                       | 1,650  | 
|Additional Fee for Audit Committee Chairperson |  | $                       | 2,200  |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy Bulzing, Appellant.

judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jaspan, J.), rendered February 19, 1981, convicting him of use of a child in a sexual performance, rape in the third degree (two counts), and sodomy in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s assertion, his actions were sufficient to warrant conviction for use of a child in a sexual performance pursuant to the Penal Law *(see, People v McIntyre,*77 AD2d 810). We have reviewed his other contentions and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Fiber, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal L 338/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 338 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6315 October 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 338

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6315 October 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1476 of 10 October 2020 establishing a fisheries closure for Northern albacore in the Atlantic Ocean, north of 5° N for vessels flying the flag of Ireland | 1 |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1477 of 14 October 2020 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 as regards the temporary extension of exceptional measures to address the consequences caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1478 of 14 October 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1375 as regards sampling, the reference method for detection and import conditions related to Trichinella control (
  1
  ) | 7 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1479 of 14 October 2020 establishing priority lists for the development of network codes and guidelines for electricity for the period from 2020 to 2023 and for gas in 2020 (
  1
  ) | 10 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1476 of 10 October 2020 establishing a fisheries closure for Northern albacore in the Atlantic Ocean, north of 5° N for vessels flying the flag of Ireland

1

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1477 of 14 October 2020 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 as regards the temporary extension of exceptional measures to address the consequences caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (
  1
  )

1

4

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1478 of 14 October 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1375 as regards sampling, the reference method for detection and import conditions related to Trichinella control (
  1
  )

Trichinella

1

7

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1479 of 14 October 2020 establishing priority lists for the development of network codes and guidelines for electricity for the period from 2020 to 2023 and for gas in 2020 (
  1
  )

1

10

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### Deborah MECKLER (Executrix of the Estate of Alton B. Hornback), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2011-5040.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 13, 2011.

Phillip A. Bennett, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, of San Diego, California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Boris Zelkind.

Susan L.C. Mitchell, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With her on the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General and John J. Fargo, Director.

Before BRYSON, CLEVENGER and, LINN, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0064 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. RONALD ALAN HUMMEL,

Defendant and Appellant
.

GRANT Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until May 4 , 2020 to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court March 30 2020

03/30/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0064