alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019357EN.01001401.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/14

---

Appeal brought on 8 July 2019 by Maria Alvarez y Bejarano and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2019 in Joined Cases T-516/16 and T-536/16, Alvarez y Bejarano and Others v Commission

(Case C-517/19 P)

(2019/C 357/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Maria Alvarez y Bejarano, Ana-Maria Enescu, Lucian Micu, Angelica Livia Salanta, Svetla Shulga, Soldimar Urena de Poznanski, Angela Vakalis, Luz Anamaria Chu, Marli Bertolete, Maria Castro Capcha, Hassan Orfe El, Evelyne Vandevoorde (represented by: S. Orlandi, T. Martin, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union, European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul the decision no longer to allow the appellants, as of 2014, travelling time or reimbursement of annual travel expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision no longer to allow the appellants, as of 2014, travelling time or reimbursement of annual travel expenses;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a number of errors of law.

Firstly, the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 67 and 75 of the judgment in limiting the extent of the judicial review it is required to carry out to ‘manifest’ cases.

Secondly, the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 70 to 73 of the judgment in finding that the appellants were not in a comparable situation to staff members who retained the benefit of travelling time and reimbursement of their annual travel expenses.

Thirdly, the General Court erred in law in finding, in paragraphs 69 and 80 to 86 of the judgment, that the regulations at issue do not infringe the principle of proportionality.

---
# C_2019337EN.01002001.xml

| 7.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/20

---

Action brought on 16 August 2019 – Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO – Mystic Products Import & Export and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-574/19)

(2019/C 337/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: A. Odle, lawyer and J. St Ville, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain), Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 1431 829-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2019 in Case R 1002/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | alter the contested decision to: (i) allow the applicant’s appeal; (ii) dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicants’ applications ICD 10292 and ICD 10689 to declare the RCD an issue invalid; (iii) order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division; (iv) alternatively remit to the Invalidity Division to address Article 4(1) CDR. |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision to: (i) allow the applicant’s appeal; (ii) dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicants’ applications ICD 10292 and ICD 10689 to declare the RCD an issue invalid; (iii) order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division; (iv) alternatively remit to the Invalidity Division to address Article 4(1) CDR.

| — | order the payment the appellant’s fees and costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment the appellant’s fees and costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1) and of Recital 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1) and of Recital 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


19 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 Constitution Mining Corp. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kenneth Phillippe, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
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.








/s/Kenneth Phillippe


Kenneth
Phillippe
 Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Financial and Principal
Accounting Officer)


Date:  March
31, 2010






A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Constitution Mining Corp. and
will be retained by Constitution Mining Corp. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Jerome L. Reide, Petitioner.

Application by petitioner, Jerome L. Reide, a person who has been certified by the State Board of Law Examiners as having successfully passed the examination for admission to the Bar of the State of New York, for admission to the Bar of the State of New York.

Application denied. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Gibbons, Thompson and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1457

In Re: SAMUEL H. SLOAN, a/k/a Ismail Sloan, 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (6:09-cv-00005-NKM) 

Submitted: August 6, 2009 Decided: August 26, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Samuel H. Sloan, Petitioner Pro Se.

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

 Samuel H. Sloan has filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus or prohibition with this court, requesting we remove 

Judge Norman K. Moon from further adjudicating Sloan’s civil 

action in the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia. Mandamus relief is available only when 

the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. United 

States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 517 (4th Cir. 2003). 

Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in 

extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 516. Mandamus may not be 

used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 

F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). 

 Similarly, a writ of prohibition should not issue 

unless it “clearly appears that the inferior court is about to 

exceed its jurisdiction.” Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 167, 176 

(1886). A writ of prohibition, like mandamus, a drastic remedy, 

should be granted only where the petitioner’s right to the 

requested relief is clear and indisputable. In re Vargas, 723 

F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983); In re Missouri, 664 F.2d 178, 

180 (8th Cir. 1981). Further, a writ of prohibition should be 

granted only where the petitioner has no other adequate means of 

relief, In re Banker’s Trust Co., 775 F.2d 545, 547 (3d Cir. 

1985), and a writ of prohibition may not be used as a substitute 

for the normal appellate process. Missouri, 664 F.2d at 180. 

2 
3 

 Our review of the record indicates that Sloan’s action 

has been dismissed by the district court and no motions remain 

outstanding. Sloan v. Smith, No. 6:09-cv-00005-NKM (W.D. Va. 

Feb. 24, Apr. 23, 2009). Accordingly, while we grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Sloan’s petition as moot. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
Offer Letter



 Exhibit 10.33 
 

 
 December 22, 2008 
 Mr. Mark Stejbach 
 RE: Tengion, Inc.

 Dear Mark: 
 As you may be aware, in
2007 the Internal Revenue Service issued regulations under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”), which become effective on January 1, 2009. Section 409A establishes strict rules for payment of deferred
compensation. Failure to comply with the regulations can result in significant adverse tax consequences for you. 
 Under the terms of your
employment offer letter dated June 24, 2008, you are eligible for an annual merit bonus based upon your achievement of certain company and personal objectives, which are set annually by Tengion’s Board of Directors. Your offer letter does
not, however, specify the time period in which such merit bonus must be paid. So as to exempt such amounts from the requirements of Section 409A, all such amounts will be paid by Tengion no later than two (2) months following the year of
service to which the amount relates. This merely memorializes our historical practice. 
 Additionally, under the terms of your employment offer
letter, you are eligible for certain severance payments upon an involuntary termination of employment. In order to exempt such amounts from the requirements of Section 409A, each monthly payment shall be considered a separate payment, and to
the extent necessary, any amount in excess of two times the lesser of your annual compensation or the Code section 401(a)(17) limit (which for 2008 is $230,000), shall be paid no later than two (2) months following the end of the calendar year
in which your termination of employment occurs. 







 Mark Stejbach 
 December 22, 2008 
 Page 2 of 2 
 Please countersign sign this letter acknowledging your acceptance of the above modification to your offer letter. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. 
 Sincerely, 
  

	
	
	/s/    Steven A. Nichtberger, M.D.
	Steven A. Nichtberger, M.D.

 President and Chief Executive Officer 
 Agreed and Acknowledged this 23 day of 
 December, 2008 
  

	
	
	/s/    Mark Stejbach
	Mark Stejbach
‘Minote Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Nam signe Sitting Judge if Other H ‘
vs Maske sae Ronald A. Guzman anassiene i ied Sidney I. Schenkier
CASE NUMBER 02 C 4989 DATE 3/6/2003
CASE Lynn A. Joy vs. Hay Group, Inc., et al.
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.]

ql)

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY: j

qd) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) o Brief in support of motion due

@) o Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer |

(4) oO Ruling/Hearing on___—_sset ffor___—_at

(5) Qo Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor___—_at

(6) im Pretrial conference[held/continued to] (set for/te-set for] on___ssetfor_— at.

(7) Oo Trial{set for/re-set for]on___—_at.

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto__—_at

(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without ‘costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) (Local Rule 41.1 [2 FRCP41(a)(1)’ Ol FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) a {Other docket entry] Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated in open court on the record, the Court respectfully

recommends that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (dog? # 21-1] be denied without prejudice; the Court further
recommends that HG Bermuda’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue be denied without
prejudice, The Courts comments on the record shall stand as its report in connection with these recommendations. Specific
written objections to this report and recommendation may be served and filed within 10 business days from the date that this
order is served. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Failure to file objections with the district court within the specified time will result in a
waiver of the right to appeal all findings, factual and legal, made by this Court in the report and recommendation. See Video
Views, Inc, v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 598, ‘8 Cir, 1986). All matters. subject to the referral having been concluded,
the referral is hereby terminated. ls

oO [For further detail see order (oiWreverse side/of/attached to) the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

notices required.
No notices requi sumber of notices

ov | Notices mailed by judge’s statf. MAR Q q 1003
Notified counsel by telephone. ” ‘ wh le docked
Docketing to mail notices. iynod Laqussia's'n
Mail AO 450 form. WY3IW

Y | Copy to judge/magistrate judge. ‘QL

He: Hd 9 - UH cu
courtroom
uK Seputy's o1 a3-G33
initials
Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 139 (Friday, July 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 39051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15744]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; NINDS BRAIN Review Meeting (U01 
and R01 Applications).
    Date: August 12-13, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Mir Ahamed Hossain, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, Neuroscience 
Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Rockville, MD 
20852, (301) 496-9223, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bdd0d4cfdcd5dcd0d8d993d5d2cecedcd4d3fdd3d4d593dad2cb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5934302b383138343c3d7731362a2a38303719373031773e362f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 20, 2021.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-15744 Filed 7-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bryan Dale, Appellant.

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bianchi, J.), rendered July 23, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Defendant asserts that a verdict of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell is repugnant to a verdict of not guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and that the guilty verdict was based on insufficient evidence. Inasmuch as these claims were not raised in the court of first instance, they are not preserved for appeal *(see, People v Satloff,*56 NY2d 745) and the verdict should not be disturbed. Even if we were to address the merits, reversal would not be warranted *(see, People v Tucker,*55 NY2d 1; *People v Williams,*47 AD2d 262; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620). Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.
FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JULY 14 2000 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK

* Honorable Myron H. Bright, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. [PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

__________ No. 99-11767

__________ D.C. Docket No. 98-08541-CV-KLR FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TODAY, INC., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus OSF HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

__________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

__________ (July 14, 2000) Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and BRIGHT * , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This case presents the question of pers onal jurisdiction in a diversity case in which the Appellant, Future Technology Today, Inc. ("FTT"), a Florida corporation,2 brought an action for breach of contract and conversion against the Appellee, OSF Healthcare Systems ("OSF"), an Illinois co rporation. The contract in question required FTT to remediate OSF's computer systems to obtain year 2000 ("Y2K") compliant status. OSF operates various h ealth care facilities in the Midwest (seven in Illinois, one in Michigan, and one in Io wa). It does no busine ss in the usual sense in any other state. The factual predicate for a personal juri sdictional dispute between the parties rests on circumstances indicating that, wh ile FTT agreed to remedy the computer systems located in Illinois, it performed, or attempted to perform, its remedial work on data transmitted by the Internet from O SF to Appellant's workplace in Boca Raton, Florida. Prior to Appellee declaring the contract in default, the par ties dealt with FTT personnel who came to OSF's headquarters inPeoria, Illinois. Other communication occurred between Peoria headquarters a nd Boca Raton by regular, first-class mail, electronic mail, facsimile, or telephone. After FTT filed its action in federal district court in Florida, the Appellee moved for a dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court considered the motion on affidavits, as we ll as by conducting an evidentiary hearing. At the conclusion, the district court gran ted the motion and dismissed the action in an3 Order dated May 17, 1999. Th e Appellant contends that personal jurisdiction over the Illinois corporation exists under Florida long-arm statutes, Fla. Stat. § 48.193(a) (carrying on a business or business venture in Florida); Fla. Stat. § 48.193(b) (committing a tort in Florida); and Fla. Stat. § 48.193(g) (breaching a contract by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in Florida). We affirm the district court. We ha ve carefully considered the record, the briefs, and the oral arguments of the partie s. We conclude that the district court opinion by the Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskam p fully and fairly discusses the issues and has reached the correct result in the case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM on the basis of the district court opinion in District Court Case No. 98-8541-CIV-RYSKAMP, attached as an appendix hereto, dismissing the action.
LOCK-UP
AGREEMENT

     

    November
26, 2009

     

    EXCEED
COMPANY LTD.

    Xidelong
Industrial Zone

    Jinjiang,
Fuijan Province, PRC

     

    Ladies
and Gentlemen:

     

    The
undersigned hereby agrees that, without the prior written consent of Exceed
Company Ltd. (the “Company”), the undersigned will not, during the six-month
period from October 21, 2009, through and including April 20, 2010, sell or
otherwise transfer or dispose of any ordinary shares of the Company (“Ordinary
Shares”) or any securities convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for
Ordinary Shares, or enter into any swap or other agreement that transfers, in
whole or in part, the economic consequences of ownership of Ordinary Shares. The
foregoing sentence shall not apply to (a) Ordinary Shares acquired in open
market transactions after the effectiveness of the Registration Statement on
Form F-1 (File No. 333-163280) first filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 23, 2009, (b) transfers or distributions of Ordinary
Shares to affiliates, limited partners, members or shareholders of the
undersigned, provided
that in the case of clause (b), each transferee shall sign and deliver a
lock-up agreement substantially in the form of this lock-up agreement or (c) a
liquidation, merger, stock exchange or other similar transaction which results
in all of the Company’s shareholders having the right to exchange their Ordinary
Shares for cash, securities or other property.

     

    The
undersigned hereby represents and warrants that the undersigned has full power
and authority to enter into this lock-up agreement.

     

    This
lock-up agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of New York, without regard to the conflict of laws principles
thereof.

     

    
      
        
          	 
      	
                  Very
      truly yours,

                
	 	 
	 
      	
                  WISETECH
      HOLDINGS LIMITED

                
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                  By:

                	
                  /s/Tsui Yuk Mei

                
	 
      	 
      	
                  Name:Tsui
      Yuk Mei

                
	 
      	 
      	
                  Title:Director