alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               2
<SECURITIES>                                    14,117
<RECEIVABLES>                                       20
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,283
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,601
<PP&E>                                           8,368
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,558
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,039
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,117
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,025
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,982
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,928
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    40
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,448
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    930
<INCOME-TAX>                                       357
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,054
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       573
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
# C_2020061EN.01003601.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft v EUIPO (eVoter)

(Case T-175/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark eVoter - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 61/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: L. Genz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2019 (Case R 1983/2018-5) relating to an application for registration of the word sign eVoter as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft eV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft eV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keithroy Noel CLARKE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-7840.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2009.

Keithroy Noel Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Keithroy Noel Clarke appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. *United States v. Clarke,*No. 2:97-cr-00166-RBS-4 (E.D.Va. filed July 31, 2008; entered Aug. 1, 2008). We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 1 of 23 PageID #:16
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 2 of 23 PageID #:17
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 3 of 23 PageID #:18
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 4 of 23 PageID #:19
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 5 of 23 PageID #:20
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 6 of 23 PageID #:21
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 7 of 23 PageID #:22
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 8 of 23 PageID #:23
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 9 of 23 PageID #:24
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 10 of 23 PageID #:25
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 11 of 23 PageID #:26
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 12 of 23 PageID #:27
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 13 of 23 PageID #:28
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 14 of 23 PageID #:29
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 15 of 23 PageID #:30
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 16 of 23 PageID #:31
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 17 of 23 PageID #:32
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 18 of 23 PageID #:33
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 19 of 23 PageID #:34
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 20 of 23 PageID #:35
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 21 of 23 PageID #:36
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 22 of 23 PageID #:37
Case: 1:01-cv-01364 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/02/02 Page 23 of 23 PageID #:38
EXHIBIT 4.1

DESCRIPTION  OF  COMMON  STOCK

     Abacan  is  authorized  to  issue  an  unlimited number of shares of common
stock,  without  par  value  (the  "Common Stock").  Holders of Common Stock are
entitled  to  one  vote  per  share  on  all  matters  submitted  to  a  vote of
stockholders.  They  are  entitled  to receive dividends when and as declared by
the  board  of  directors out of legally available funds and to share ratably in
the  assets  of  Abacan  legally  available  for  distribution upon liquidation,
dissolution  or  winding  up.

     Holders  of Common Stock do not have subscription, redemption or conversion
rights,  nor do they have any preemptive rights.  Holders of Common Stock do not
have  cumulative  voting  rights.  All  stockholder action is taken by vote of a
majority of voting shares of the capital stock of Abacan present at a meeting of
stockholders  at  which  a  quorum  existing  of  a  majority  of the issued and
outstanding shares of the voting capital stock is present in person or by proxy.
Directors  are  elected  by  a  plurality  vote.

     For  certain  fundamental  changes,  the  corporate legislation under which
Abacan  was  formed  may  require  each  class  of  outstanding  stock  to  vote
separately.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Venechano, Appellant.

Three judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), all rendered January 13, 1984, affirmed *{People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arltonio Fenty, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 884]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County *1076Court, Suffolk County (Braslow, J.), rendered February 23, 2010, as amended February 14, 2011, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; *People v Appling,*94 AD3d 1135 [2012]). This valid waiver also precludes appellate review of his claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness affected the voluntariness of his plea *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d at 255; *People v Duah,*91 AD3d 884, 885 [2012]). To the extent that the defendant contends that ineffective assistance of counsel affected the voluntariness of his plea, the record demonstrates that he pleaded guilty to the charges set forth in the indictment in exchange for a favorable sentencing commitment, and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel *(see People v Duah,*91 AD3d at 885; *People v Yarborough,*83 AD3d 875 [2011]). Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

MICHAEL VENABLE , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1583

[ September 15, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Martin S. Fein

, Judge; L.T. Case No

. 10

- 1384CF10A.

Michael Venable

, Bristol

, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

W ARNER , F ORST and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Clifton Gibbon, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 482]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered January 27, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the cross motion denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we find that there is no competent evidence that he suffered from a disabling medical condition that prevented him from being able to produce a urine sample *(see Matter of Delta Air Lines v New York State Div. of Human Rights,*91 NY2d 65, 72 [1997]). Even assuming that issues of fact exist whether he suffered a medical impairment, plaintiff failed to make any showing that this impairment caused him to be unable to provide a 45-milliliter urine specimen within the required three-hour time period. None of the doctors’ notes and letters upon which he relies is in admissible form, and he points to no competent evidence that may be considered in opposing defendant’s motion *(see Tibbits v Verizon N.Y., Inc.,*40 AD3d 1300, 1302 [2007]). In any event, the doctors’ notes do not establish that plaintiffs alleged benign prostate hyperplasia (BEH) caused him to be unable to produce the required urine specimen. Indeed, plaintiffs treating urologist stated that his possible BEH did not explain his inability to produce an adequate urine sample. Elaintiff s internist’s statement that plaintiff had BEH, “which causes problems with urination,” does not contradict the urologist’s flat assertion that any problems associated with BEH would not prevent the production of an adequate urine sample. The statement by another urologist (consulted nearly two years after the incident by plaintiff’s attorney in connection with a prior lawsuit) that BEH “could prevent” plaintiff from producing an adequate sample is based solely on the urologist’s review of plaintiff’s *461internist’s notes and therefore has no independent probative value.

Moreover, in determining that plaintiff failed to comply with its drug test procedures, defendant was “implementing federal regulations” governing his eligibility for the assistant city highway repairer position *(see*49 CFR part 40), and “cannot have violated state or local discrimination laws by [doing so]” *(Kinneary v City of New York,*601 F3d 151, 158 [2010]; *see also Medard v Doherty,*16 Misc 3d 1127[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51593[U], *3 [2007]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                               CURAGEN CORPORATION
                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                       ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS
                                   (unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                         Three Months Ended                  Six Months Ended
                                                                              June 30,                           June 30,
                                                                     -----------------------------     -----------------------------
                                                                         1999             1998             1999             1998
                                                                     ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------
<S>                                                                 <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>
Net loss                                                            ($ 5,925,143)    ($ 2,499,017)    ($13,132,070)    ($ 5,666,530)
Preferred dividends                                                       --               --               --             (508,435)
                                                                     ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------
Net loss attributable to common stockholders                        ($ 5,925,143)    ($ 2,499,017)    ($13,132,070)    ($ 6,174,965)
                                                                     ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------
Basic and diluted net loss per share attributable to
  common stockholders                                                $     (0.44)     $     (0.19)     $     (0.98)     $     (0.55)
                                                                     ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------
Weighted average number of shares used in computing
  basic and diluted net loss per share attributable to
  common stockholders                                                 13,409,237       13,059,502       13,419,893       11,134,192
                                                                     ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------
</TABLE>
#### Linda Wind, Also Known as Linda W. Di Palo, Respondent, v Orlando Cacho, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In a medical malpractice action, defendant Orlando Cacho appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.) dated April 4, 1984, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed insofar as it asserted against appellant.

Plaintiff alleged that the appellant negligently allowed metallic hemoclips to remain within her abdomen following surgery for removal of a diseased gall bladder and appendix. In his moving papers, Dr. Cacho affirmed that hemoclips were used upon the patient for the purpose of hemostasis, and that the clips were intended to remain within the patient after closure of the operative incision. This treatment, said the appellant, “conformed in every way to good and accepted medical practice”. Such expert opinion evidence from a party defendant which bears a strong factual relationship to the alleged injury requires an expert response from the plaintiff that the practice deviates from accepted medical standards if the plaintiff is to avoid summary judgment *{see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center,*64 NY2d 851). Plaintiff supplied only her own affidavit and an affirmation of counsel which stated that she had con-*809suited with other doctors who informed her that the hemoclips in her body were “unnecessary”.

Her bill of particulars states that according to another consulted physician, adhesions in her body could possibly have been caused by the operation. However, “[t]he burden upon the party opposing a motion for summary judgment is not met merely by a repetition or incorporation by reference of the allegations contained in pleadings or bills of particulars, verified or unverified” *(Indig v Finkelstein,*23 NY2d 728, 729). Except as to matters within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laymen, direct expert medical opinion evidence is required to demonstrate merit in a medical malpractice action *(Fiore v Galang,*64 NY2d 999; *Fileccia v Massapequa Gen. Hosp.,*99 AD2d 796, *affd*63 NY2d 639). While plaintiff has made claims of medical malpractice which, if true, could support a lawsuit, absent expert medical opinion evidence in the plaintiff’s opposing papers, Cache’s motion should have been granted. Mollen, P. J., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 1 of 33 PageID #:21
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 2 of 33 PageID #:22
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 3 of 33 PageID #:23
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 4 of 33 PageID #:24
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 5 of 33 PageID #:25
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 6 of 33 PageID #:26
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 7 of 33 PageID #:27
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 8 of 33 PageID #:28
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 9 of 33 PageID #:29
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 10 of 33 PageID #:30
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 11 of 33 PageID #:31
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 12 of 33 PageID #:32
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 13 of 33 PageID #:33
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 14 of 33 PageID #:34
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 15 of 33 PageID #:35
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 16 of 33 PageID #:36
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 17 of 33 PageID #:37
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 18 of 33 PageID #:38
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 19 of 33 PageID #:39
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 20 of 33 PageID #:40
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 21 of 33 PageID #:41
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 22 of 33 PageID #:42
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 23 of 33 PageID #:43
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 24 of 33 PageID #:44
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 25 of 33 PageID #:45
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 26 of 33 PageID #:46
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 27 of 33 PageID #:47
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 28 of 33 PageID #:48
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 29 of 33 PageID #:49
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 30 of 33 PageID #:50
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 31 of 33 PageID #:51
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 32 of 33 PageID #:52
Case: 1:02-cv-01482 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/09/02 Page 33 of 33 PageID #:53
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         304,190
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  289,852
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,655,370
<PP&E>                                         75,269
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,396,455
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,608,334
<BONDS>                                        1,100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,383,602
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,396,455
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               95,632
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               59,051
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                36,581
<INCOME-TAX>                                   16,550
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            20,031
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   20,031
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>