alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019295EN.01008601.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/86

---

Action brought on 16 July 2019 — Asolo v EUIPO — Red Bull (FLÜGEL)

(Case T-509/19)

(2019/C 295/112)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Asolo LTD (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: W. Pors, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark FLÜGEL — European Union trade mark No 637 686

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2019 in Case R 201/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity;

| — | order EUIPO and Red Bull to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Red Bull to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
**Exhibit
      10.19**





Director
      Fee Arrangements





Fees
      for
      the non-employee directors of ITLA Capital Corporation (the “Company”) for 2007
      will continue to be $1,000 per Board or board committee meeting attended, plus
      a
      monthly retainer of $2,250. In addition, Preston Martin, the Chairman of the
      Audit Committee, will receive an annual retainer of $15,000 for his service
      in
      that capacity. Individual directors may also receive honorariums for additional
      work performed on behalf of the Company. The honorariums paid to directors
      for
      2006 were as follows: (i) an honorarium of $5,000 to Director Robert Reed for
      his active assistance with legislative matters; (ii) an honorarium of $5,000
      to
      Director Jeffrey Lipscomb for his Chairmanship of the Compensation Committee
      and
      active assistance with compensation matters; and (iii) an honorarium of $15,000
      to Director Hirotaka Oribe for his extensive work with the Executive Committee
      and large loan approval process.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 193 

Honoring the bicentennial of the City of Astoria. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 19, 2011 

Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the bicentennial of the City of Astoria. 

Whereas Astoria is a scenic gem on the coast of Oregon, and 

the residents of Astoria have long represented the essence 

of what it means to be an Oregonian; 

Whereas the site of Astoria, located at the mouth of the Columbia River where the Columbia River meets the Pacific 

Ocean, marks the endpoint of the epic Lewis and Clark 

expedition to explore the American West, and was founded by fur traders in 1811; 

Whereas Thomas Jefferson recognized Astoria as the Nation’s first significant claim to the West and noted that 

were it not for the settlement of Astoria, the United 

States may have ended at the Rocky Mountains; 

Whereas Astoria evolved from being a fur trading hub to 

serving as the ad-hoc capital of Oregon Country, and 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 193 ATS 

later became a prominent leader in the fishing and timber industries and an important port city; 

Whereas Astoria was incorporated in 1856, and today is a 

center for manufacturing, art, tourism, and fishing; 

Whereas settlers from Scandinavia and China were among 

the first to come to Astoria, and the presence of their descendants has contributed to a town rich in both history 

and culture; 

Whereas Astoria is a vibrant tourism destination that has 

chronicled its remarkable history with the establishment 

of superb museums and well-preserved historical sites; 

Whereas citizens of Astoria and visitors from around the 

country and the world enjoy boating, fishing, and hiking 

in one of the most beautiful areas on the West Coast; 

and 

Whereas the natural beauty of the region has been noted by 

many artists, filmmakers, and writers, serving as the 

backdrop for many stories, including the beloved film 

‘‘The Goonies’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 

2 (1) Astoria’s bicentennial should be observed 

3 and celebrated; 

4 (2) the people of Astoria should be thanked for 

5 their many pioneering contributions to the State of 

6 Oregon and the United States; and 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 193 ATS 

1 (3) an enrolled copy of this resolution should be 

2 transmitted to the State of Oregon for appropriate 

3 display. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tammy Lynn CADOTTE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30259.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 8, 2011.

Eric Vincent Carroll, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Palmer A. Hoovestal, Hoovestal Law Firm, Helena, MT, for Defendant>-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Tammy Lynn Cadotte appeals from the 20-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for misprision of felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*798Cadotte contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable because it does not reflect the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including mitigating factors related to Ca-dotte’s history and characteristics. The district court considered Cadotte’s mitigation evidence, including testimony regarding abuse by her husband, and concluded that a 20-month sentence was warranted. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, this was not an abuse of discretion. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Whitehead,*532 F.3d 991, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (no abuse of discretion where the sentence is based on facts, including defendant’s credibility, as found by the district court at the sentencing hearing).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 10.8

Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary Sheet



|                                               |  |                         |        | 
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | ------ | 
|Annual Retainer                                |  | $                       | 39,655 | 
|                                               | 
|Type of Meeting                                |  | Amount Paid per Meeting |       
|Board Meeting                                  |  | $                       | 3,965  | 
|Special Meeting                                |  | $                       | 3,965  | 
|Telephonic Board Meeting                       |  | $                       | 1,130  | 
|Compensation & Nominating Committee Meeting    |  | $                       | 1,700  | 
|Audit Committee Meeting                        |  | $                       | 3,400  | 
|Executive Committee Meeting                    |  | $                       | 3,965  | 
|Additional Fee for Chairperson (except Audit)  |  | $                       | 1,700  | 
|Additional Fee for Audit Committee Chairperson |  | $                       | 2,265  | 
|                                               |  |                         |        |
#### State of New York, Respondent, v Webster Publishing Company, Ltd., et al., Appellants.

—Order affirmed, with costs. All concur, Callahan, J. not participating. Memorandum: Special Term properly denied respondents’ motion to compel discovery *(see, People v Bestline Prods.,*41 NY2d 887). Moreover, Special Term properly exercised its discretion in ordering the examination in Buffalo, New York, of respondent George Hoskins, president of both corporate respondents and a resident of Canada (CPLR 3110 [1]). The proceeding is pending in Erie County, the locale where respondents transacted the type of business activities complained of by petitioner, and approximately 100 miles from Hoskins’ residence *(see, Kahn v Rodman,*91 AD2d 910; *Oneto v Hotel Waldorf-Astoria Corp.,*65 AD2d 520). Finally, the materials and information respondents are directed to produce are material and necessary and directly relevant to petitioner’s cause of action that respondents violated General Business Law § 396-m (3) (f). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kane, J.— discovery.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary L. Montz, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The issue on this appeal is whether the information contained in the search warrant application was stale. The informant’s in camera testimony before the Magistrate disclosed that the informant observed the sale of drugs by the defendant from October 2, 1983 through October 31, 1983. The search warrant was issued on October 31, 1983 based upon this testimony and affidavits of two police officers.

The determination to issue a search warrant rests on the particular facts and circumstances of each case as presented to the Magistrate at the time of the warrant application (CPL 690.40 [2]; *People v Nieves,*36 NY2d 396, 402).

We conclude after a review of the in camera testimony that the trial court determined that the informant had testified to continuous criminal conduct on the part of defendant at his apartment up until October 27, 1983, four days before the issuance of the warrant; thus the search warrant was valid *(see, People v Teribury,*91 AD2d 815, 816). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Forma, J. — attempted criminal possession of controlled substance, fourth degree.) Present —Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
II 

Calendar No. 51 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 990 

To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the 

Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2011 

Ms. LANDRIEU introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

MAY 16, 2011 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small 

Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 990 PCS

1 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AU2 THORIZATION OF PROGRAMS UNDER THE 

3 SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE SMALL BUSI4 NESS INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1 of the Act entitled ‘‘An 

6 Act to extend temporarily certain authorities of the Small 

7 Business Administration’’, approved October 10, 2006 

8 (Public Law 109–316; 120 Stat. 1742), as most recently 

9 amended by section 1 of Public Law 112–1 (125 Stat. 3), 

10 is amended by striking ‘‘May 31, 2011’’ each place it ap11 pears and inserting ‘‘May 31, 2012’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 subsection (a) shall take effect on May 30, 2011. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 51 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 990 

A BILL 

To provide for an additional temporary extension of 

other purposes. Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for programs under the Small Business Act and the 

MAY 16, 2011 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,718
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,547
<ALLOWANCES>                                       950
<INVENTORY>                                      8,335
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,591
<PP&E>                                          13,434
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,177
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,483
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,469
<BONDS>                                          3,125
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           24,009
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,403
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,483
<SALES>                                          4,078
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,103
<CGS>                                            2,499
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    91
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (54)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,244)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        36
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,280)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,280)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.95)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 3.1.2








CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT


TO


RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION


OF


NEOMAGIC CORPORATION





(Pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware)








NeoMagic Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, hereby certifies as follows:





The Board of Directors of the Corporation duly adopted a resolution, pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, setting forth an amendment to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation and declaring such amendment to be advisable. The stockholders of the Corporation duly approved such proposed amendment by written consent in accordance with Sections 228 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, and written notice of such consent has been given to all stockholders who have not consented in writing to such amendment. The resolution setting forth the amendment is as follows:





RESOLVED: That the text of the first paragraph of Article FOURTH of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation be, and it hereby is, amended in its entirety to read as follows:








"1. The Corporation is authorized to issue 200,000,000 shares of Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share (the "Common Stock"), and 2,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 per share (the "Preferred Stock")."








[Signature Page Follows]


- 1 -





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment to be signed by its duly authorized President and Chief Executive Officer on this 1st day of June,2010.








NEOMAGIC CORPORATION








By:/s/ Syed Zaidi


President and Chief Executive Officer
WILL WI&SON

ATI-CBRNEY GENERAL December 31, 1962

Honorable William A. Harrison State Board of Insurance Austin, Texas

Dear Sir: Opinion No. WW-1512 Re: Whether the State Board of Insurance may continue to supply rating data onthe basis described inview of the enactment ofSenate Bill 344, Acts 1961, 57th Legislature, Regular Session. You have asked our opinion concerning the payment offees for data used in computing rates for the rating plans prescribed inArticles 5.77, 5.78 and 5.79 ofthe Texas Insurance Code. You state that you wish to know the effect ofthe enactment of Senate Bill 344, Acts 1961, 57th Legislature, R.S. onthe payment offees for copies of such data.

Senate Bill 344 amended Article 3913, V. C.S. Article 3913 prior to this amendment, set out the fees required for furnishing copies ofany papers, documents, or records (to anyone except officers ofthe state. ) Article 3913 specifically applied only to certain officers including the Commissioner of Insurance. Senate Bill 344 amended this article but dropped specific reference to the Commissioner of Insurance. Senate Bill 344 states:

“Each officer named above and all other officers ofthe State and heads ofState departments shall cause to be collected the following fees for the services mentioned, except as otherwise provided by law. ” (Emphasis Added) Article 3920, V. C.S. ,provided for specific fees to be charged by the Board of Insurance Commission. This article was codified by Senate Bill 236, Chapter 491, 52nd Legislature, 1951, R.S., into the Insurance Code... . -

Hon. William A. Harrison, Page 2 (WW-1512)

Section 4.07 ofthe Insurance Code incorporated the provision ofArticle **3920** concerning fees. Article 4.07 was in effect at the time the 57th Legislature passed Senate Bill 344.

Itis apparent that Senate Bill 344 was not intended toaffect fees charged by officers not named inthe bill when the fee schedule of such officers was otherwise provided by law. Thus Section 4.07 ofthe Insurance C~odeis still in effect and is determinative ofthe fees to be charged by the Insurance Board for services rendered.

Article 4.07 ofthe Insurance Code makes itmandatory that the Board ofInsurance Commissioners charge and collect “for every copy ofany paper filed inthe Department of Insurance, for each 100words, not to exceed $. 20”
. Also, this Article requires that a $1.00fee be charged for affixing your official seal toany papers furnished. Itis the opinion ofthis office that your department should charge $. 20per copy of each page of such rating data, irrespective ofthe person to whom it is furnished.
SUMMARY Fees for copies of rating data should be collected by the State Board of Insurance pursuant to Article 4. 07 ofthe Texas Insurance Code. Very **truly** yours, WILL WILSON Attornev General of Texas

/Assistant Attorney General SAO:br’Hon. William A. Harrison, Page 3 (WW-1512)

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman SrimWilson Grady Chandler Pat Bailey Vernon Teofan REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Leonard Passmore
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    Exhibit 10.2



Supplement to Pooling Agreement, dated November 30, 1996

Dietmar Hopp, Oliver Hopp and the Dietmar Hopp Stiftung hold, in connection with
the Pooling Agreement, a total of 11,861,600 SAP Ordinary Shares.

In particular:

<TABLE>
<S>                              <C>       
-- Dietmar Hopp                   1,920,500
-- Oliver Hopp                      602,000
-- Dietmar Hopp Stiftung          9,339,100
                                 ----------
                                 11,861,600
</TABLE>

The Pooling Shareholders hereby agree that transfers of shares among the three
parties hereto named above are permitted, provided that the total number of
shares subject to the Pooling Agreement shall not fall below 11,861,600.

The same provisions shall also apply to Dr. Tschira and the Klaus Tschira 
Stiftung.


Walldorf, October 12, 1998

To the extent that this Agreement is signed on behalf of any party by a
representative who also represents other parties hereto, such representative is
freed from Section 181 of the German Civil Code.

/s/ Dietmar Hopp                
------------------------------
Dietmar Hopp

/s/ Oliver Hopp                   
------------------------------
Oliver Hopp

/s/ Dietmar Hopp                
------------------------------
Dietmar Hopp Stiftung, a limited liability company, represented by its managing
director, Dietmar Hopp, who is empowered to act alone

/s/ Hasso Plattner               
------------------------------
Dr. h.c. Hasso Plattner

/s/ Klaus Tschira                
------------------------------
Dr. h.c. Klaus Tschira

/s/ Klaus Tschira               
------------------------------
Klaus Tschira Stiftung, a non-profit limited liability company, represented by 
its managing director Dr. h.c. Klaus Tschira, who is empowered to act alone