alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019328EN.01007601.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/76

---

Action brought on 19 August 2019 — Leinfelder Uhren München v EUIPO — Schafft (Leinfelder)

(Case T-577/19)

(2019/C 328/85)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Leinfelder Uhren München GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Lüft, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thomas Schafft (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Leinfelder — EU trade mark No 13 975 461

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 May 2019 in Joined Cases R 1930/2018-2 and R 1937/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as the contested EU trade mark was also revoked for goods in Class 14 (wristwatches) and Class 18 (watch straps); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as the contested EU trade mark was also revoked for goods in Class 14 (wristwatches) and Class 18 (watch straps);

| — | dismiss the cancellation applicant’s appeal in Case R 1930/2018-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the cancellation applicant’s appeal in Case R 1930/2018-2;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs;

| — | in the event that the other party participates in the proceedings as intervener, order him to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the event that the other party participates in the proceedings as intervener, order him to bear his own costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Exhibit 13.1






PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 
 In
connection with this Annual Report of Nordic American Tanker Shipping Limited.
(the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on or about the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Herbjørn Hansson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 
 (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.
  
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.
 
 
 Date:  May
8, 2009
 
 
 
 Herbjørn
Hansson
 Chairman,
Chief Executive Officer and President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Company's Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         15,510
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  26,063
<ALLOWANCES>                                      745
<INVENTORY>                                        41
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               48,905
<PP&E>                                          9,071
<DEPRECIATION>                                  4,963
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 66,231
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           9,420
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           81
<OTHER-SE>                                     54,745
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   66,231
<SALES>                                        27,078<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               52,316
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  45,859
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                8,453<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  538
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (749)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,247)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (308)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (939)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (939)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.12)
<FN>
<F1> Includes software and hardware

<F2> Write-off of acquired in process technology
</FN>





</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Cedric Turner, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, Commissioner of Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 755] —

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Norman R. Bezio, Director of Special Housing/Inmate Disciplinary Program, on behalf of Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, dated January 15, 2010, which affirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated November 12, 2009, made after a tier III disciplinary hearing, finding that the petitioner violated prison rule 113.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i]) by possessing contraband classified as a weapon, and imposing a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

The possibility that “the weapon [in question] could have been placed in the [petitioner’s cell] door track by another inmate” *(Matter of Jimenez v Fischer,*87 AD3d 771, 771 [2011]) did not negate the existence of substantial evidence to support the determination that the petitioner violated prison rule 113.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i]) by possessing contraband classified as a weapon *(id,.; see Matter of Daughtry v Bezio,*84 AD3d 1623 [2011]; *Matter of McEwen v Goord,*32 AD3d 1116 [2006]; *Matter of Hammond v Selsky,*28 AD3d 1000 [2006]; *Matter of Shackleford v Goord,*3 AD3d 622 [2004]; *Matter of Nieves v Goord, 2*AD3d 1173 [2003]; *cf. Matter of Price v Phillips, 4*AD3d 364 [2004]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, A.PJ., Hall, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
# C_2020137EN.01004902.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/49

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — Gerber v Parliament and Council

(Case T-326/19 R)

(Interim measures - EU customs territory - Regulation (EU) 2019/474 - Directive (EU) 2019/475 - Inclusion of the municipality of Campione d’Italia and the Italian waters of Lake Lugano - Application for interim measures - Manifest inadmissibility of the main action - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 137/77)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tibor Gerber (Campione d’Italia, Italy) (represented by: N. Amadei, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and C. Biz, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Lo Monaco and E. Ambrosini, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 278 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation, first, of Regulation (EU) 2019/474 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2019 L 83, p. 38), and, secondly, of Council Directive (EU) 2019/475 of 18 February 2019 amending Directives 2006/112/EC and 2008/118/EC as regards the inclusion of the Italian municipality of Campione d’Italia and the Italian waters of Lake Lugano in the customs territory of the Union and in the territorial application of Directive 2008/118/EC (OJ 2019 L 83, p. 42).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is refused. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is refused.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
# C_2019213EN.01006601.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/66

---

Action brought on 23 April 2019 — Amazon Technologies v EUIPO (ring)

(Case T-270/19)

(2019/C 213/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Amazon Technologies, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: A. Klett and C. Mikyska, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ‘ring’ — Application for registration No 1 401 009

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2019 in Case R 2211/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the respondant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and of the proceedings before the EUIPO Board of Appeal including the necessary expenses of Applicant in both proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and of the proceedings before the EUIPO Board of Appeal including the necessary expenses of Applicant in both proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Having refused protection for the mark in question, the Board of Appeal has infringed Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Having refused protection for the mark in question, the Board of Appeal has infringed Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2020077EN.01005101.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/51

---

Order of the General Court of 21 January 2020 — Deutsche Telekom v Parliament and Council

(Case T-161/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Internal market for electronic communications - Retail price charged to consumers for regulated intra-EU communications - Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 - Legislative act - Applicant not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 77/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: F. González Díaz, B. Langeheine and J. Blanco Carol, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: R. van de Westelaken, M. Peternel and C. Biz, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: O. Segnana and I. Gurov, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 (OJ 2018 L 321, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission.

| 3. | Deutsche Telekom AG shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Deutsche Telekom AG shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene.

| 4. | Deutsche Telekom, the Parliament, the Council, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Commission shall each bear their own respective costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Deutsche Telekom, the Parliament, the Council, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Commission shall each bear their own respective costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.

---
Case: 1:01-cr-00634 Document #: 106 Filed: 07/02/03 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:240

Case: 1:01-cr-00634 Document #: 106 Filed: 07/02/03 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:241

Case: 1:01-cr-00634 Document #: 106 Filed: 07/02/03 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:242

Case: 1:01-cr-00634 Document #: 106 Filed: 07/02/03 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:243

Case: 1:01-cr-00634 Document #: 106 Filed: 07/02/03 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:244
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust II and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding II, L.P. (the
"Partnership") for the period ended September 29, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kathleen Skero, Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General Partner of
the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING II, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ KATHLEEN SKERO
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Kathleen Skero *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: November 8, 2006
_______________________

*  Kathleen Skero functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
# C_2019305EN.01007101.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/71

---

Action brought on 24 July 2019 — Arranz de Miguel and Others v ECB and SRB

(Case T-528/19)

(2019/C 305/81)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Ricardo Arranz de Miguel (Madrid, Spain), Alejandro Arranz Padierna de Villapadierna (Madrid), Felipe Arranz Padierna de Villapadierna (Madrid), Ricardo Arranz Padierna de Villapadierna (Madrid), Nicolás Arranz Padierna de Villapadierna (Madrid) (represented by: R. Pelayo Jiménez and A. Muñoz Aranguren, lawyers)

Defendants: European Central Bank and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | Declare that the ECB and the SRB have incurred non-contractual liability as a result of the infringements specified in the application and order them to pay compensation to the applicants for the damage caused, valued at the asset value of their shares, or in the alternative, order the defendant institutions to pay compensation equivalent to EUR 0.8442 per share. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the ECB and the SRB have incurred non-contractual liability as a result of the infringements specified in the application and order them to pay compensation to the applicants for the damage caused, valued at the asset value of their shares, or in the alternative, order the defendant institutions to pay compensation equivalent to EUR 0.8442 per share.

| — | Increase the amount due with compensatory interest calculated, at a rate equivalent to the annual inflation rate stated by EUROSTAT in relation to Spain, as of 6 June 2017 until the date of delivery of the judgment, plus default interest as of the date of the judgment awarding compensation for the damage suffered until actual payment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Increase the amount due with compensatory interest calculated, at a rate equivalent to the annual inflation rate stated by EUROSTAT in relation to Spain, as of 6 June 2017 until the date of delivery of the judgment, plus default interest as of the date of the judgment awarding compensation for the damage suffered until actual payment.

| — | Order the defendant institutions to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant institutions to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-659/17, Vallina Fonseca v Single Resolution Board (OJ 2017 C 424, p.42).

As regards the European Central Bank, the applicants claim, inter alia, infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and breach of the obligation of due diligence and good administration.

---
**BF** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0 062 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. FRANK MACIEL ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 6 0 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including December 9 , 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief

.

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

October 1 2020

10/01/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0062
# C_2019372EN.01002701.xml

| 4.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/27

---

Appeal brought on 12 September 2019 by Fereydoun Mahmoudian against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2019 in Case T-406/15, Mahmoudian v Council

(Case C-681/19 P)

(2019/C 372/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Fereydoun Mahmoudian (represented by: A. Bahrami, N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

Primarily:

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

—

set aside the judgment under appeal in part;

| — | give final judgment in the matter; |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment in the matter;

| — | order the Council to pay the appellant the sum of EUR 966 581 in respect of material damage and EUR 500 000 in respect of non-material damage, together with default interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the appellant the sum of EUR 966 581 in respect of material damage and EUR 500 000 in respect of non-material damage, together with default interest;

| — | order the Council to pay all of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay all of the costs.

In the alternative:

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

—

set aside the judgment under appeal in part;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | order the Council to pay all of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Concerning the material damage, the General Court, in the first place, erred in law, infringed the principle of full reparation and deprived Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of their practical effect. The standard of proof required by the General Court made any compensation for the harm suffered impossible, despite the existence of a sufficiently serious and flagrant breach of EU law. In the second place, the judgment under appeal was vitiated by an error of law and by contradictory reasoning. In the third place, the General Court distorted the evidence and the facts.

Concerning the non-material damage, the judgment under appeal contains no statement of reasons as regards the criteria taken into account in order to assess ex aequo et bono the amount of the compensation.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeremiah R. Herman, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 882]

— Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), imposed January 18, 2011, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, A.P.J., Skelos, Leventhal, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.
#### ERICKSON, Respondent, v. PETERSON, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Action by Edward Erickson against Charles G. Peterson.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
# C_2020137EN.01005001.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/50

---

Order of the General Court of 2 March 2020 — Datenlotsen Informationssysteme v Commission

(Case T-368/19) (1)

(State aid - Tax advantages and public financing - Complaint - Decision to open the formal investigation procedure - Action for failure to act - Adoption of a position by the Commission putting an end to the failure to act - Decision to close the formal investigation procedure - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 137/78)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Lübbig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 265 TFEU seeking a finding that the Commission, following the complaint lodged on 15 March 2012, unlawfully failed, within a reasonable time, to close the formal investigation procedure by adopting a decision under Article 108(2) TFEU or Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 [TFEU] (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---