alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019044EN.01003801.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi)

(Case T-681/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ‘Khadi’ - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Mark containing badges, emblems or escutcheons - Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose and V. Ellis, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, M. Rajh and D. Walicka, and, subsequently, M. Rajh and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth and R. Briske, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2017 (Case R 2083/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Khadi and Villages Industries Commission and BNP Best Natural Products.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Khadi and Village Industries Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Khadi and Village Industries Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.

---
Case 1:07-cv-05403-AKH     Document 7      Filed 02/06/2008     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-05403-AKH     Document 7      Filed 02/06/2008     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-05403-AKH     Document 7      Filed 02/06/2008     Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH     Document 18      Filed 09/14/2007     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH     Document 18      Filed 09/14/2007     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH     Document 18      Filed 09/14/2007     Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05369-AKH Document 14 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05369-AKH Document 14 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 2 of 2
Maria Alarcon

Manager, Legal October 21, 2022

Re: Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments 

– Updates to Risk Parameters Established by 

ICC Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the 

Commodity Exchange Act and Commission 

Regulation 40.6(d)

VIA ELECTRONIC PORTAL

Mr. Christopher Kirkpatrick

Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20581

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

ICE Clear Credit (“ICC”) hereby submits, pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act and 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) Regulation 40.6(d), a notification of changes to 

risk parameters established by ICC in consultation with the ICC Risk Committee, Trading Advisory Group 

and/or Risk Working Group. ICC is registered with the Commission as a derivatives clearing organization.

The purpose of this notification is to report any changes to the risk parameters established by ICC. During 

the week ending October 21, 2022, changes were made to the following parameters: 

• bid/offer widths for CDX and iTraxx credit indices and single name risk factors

• concentration charge thresholds for North American (“NA”) and European (“EU”) risk factors

• Kendall Tau rank-order correlations for NA, EU, Asia/Pacific (“AP”), and Emerging Market (“EM”)

risk factors

• MAD estimates (inclusive of EWMA) for NA, EU, AP, and EM risk factors

• left and right tail parameters for NA, EU, AP, and EM risk factors

ICC has posted a copy of this submission on its website concurrent with this filling. 

ICC would be pleased to respond to any questions the Commission or the staff may have regarding this 

submission. Please direct any questions or requests for information to the attention of the undersigned at 

maria.alarcon@ice.com or (312) 836-6854.

Sincerely,

Maria Alarcon

Manager, Legal
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyreise D. SWAIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6021.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2013.

Decided: May 28, 2013.

Tyreise D. Swain, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tyreise D. Swain seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Swain has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven DiFalco, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Marasco, J.), rendered September 26, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was for the suppression of his statements to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the suppression court’s determination that his incriminating statements were voluntarily made after being fully advised of his *Miranda*rights is amply supported by the evidence and accordingly will not be disturbed on appeal *(see, People v Armstead,*98 AD2d 726). Moreover, the court’s *Sandoval*ruling permitting the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant about his seven prior convictions did not constitute an abuse of discretion *(see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371).

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People, we find that the evidence is sufficient as a matter of law to support the defendant’s conviction of the crimes charged *(see, People v Lewis,*64 NY2d 1111; *People v Conyers,*130 AD2d 677). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the evidence estab*779lished the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Although we find that the admission into evidence of Richard Abagnale’s hearsay statement against the defendant was improper, the error was harmless in view of the overwhelming proof of his guilt *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Niehoff, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### In Re: Ava Maureen SAWYER, Debtor. Ava Maureen Sawyer, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dean S. Worcester, Defendant—Appellee, and Estate of Preston Conner, Sr., Creditor. In Re: Ava Maureen Sawyer, Debtor. Ava Maureen Sawyer, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dean S. Worcester, Defendant—Appellee, v. Estate of Preston Conner, Movant.

Nos. 09-2131, 09-2133.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 9, 2010.

Ava Maureen Sawyer, Appellant Pro Se. John David Griffin, Deborah Campbell Welsh, Winchester Law Group P.C., Winchester, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Ava Maureen Sawyer seeks to appeal the district court’s orders affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders overruling Sawyer’s objection to the validity of the Appellee’s claim in her Chapter 13 proceeding and denying her motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Sawyer v. Worcester,*Nos. 1:09-cv-00431-LMB-IDD; 1:09-cv-00298-LMB-IDD; 07-13021-RGM (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 26, 2009 *&*entered Aug. 27, 2009; Aug. 31, 2009). The Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeals for failure to prosecute. We deny the motion 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
# C_2009323EN.01002401.xml

| 31.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/24

---

Commission Communication concerning the implementation of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management network (1)

1

(Text with EEA relevance)

(Publication of titles and references of Community specifications under the Regulation)

(Publication of titles and references of Community specifications under the Regulation)

2009/C 323/06

| Organisation | Reference | Edition number | Title of the Community specifications | Edition date |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Eurocontrol (2) | Spec-0136 | 2.0 | EUROCONTROL Specification on the Air Traffic Services Message Handling System (AMHS) (3) | 18.9.2009 |

Organisation

Reference

Edition number

Title of the Community specifications

Edition date

Eurocontrol (2)

2

Spec-0136

2.0

EUROCONTROL Specification on the Air Traffic Services Message Handling System (AMHS) (3)

3

18.9.2009

---

(1)  OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 26.

1

(2)  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation: Rue de la Fusée 96, 1130 Brussels, BELGIUM. Tel. +32 27299011, fax +32 27295190

2

(3)  http://www.eurocontrol.int/ses/public/standard_page/fmtp_spec.html

3

---
# C_2019035EN.01002101.xml

| 28.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Buck-Chemie v EUIPO — Henkel (Cleansing block for toilets)

(Case T-296/17) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a cleansing block for toilets - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2019/C 35/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Buck-Chemie GmbH (Herrenberg, Germany) (represented by: C. Schultze, J. Ossing, R.-D. Härer, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger, C. Brockmann and C. Gehweiler, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 (Case R 2113/2015-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Buck-Chemie and Henkel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Buck-Chemie GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, including the costs necessarily incurred before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Buck-Chemie GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, including the costs necessarily incurred before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center  

#           Eyes on Earth Episode 28 – Peer Reviews      

      By Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center 

## Eyes on Earth

Get every episode

-  Home 
-  Science 
-  Data 
-  Multimedia 
-  Publications 
-  Web Tools 
-  News 
-  Connect 
-  Partners 
-  About 

Eyes on Earth is a podcast on remote sensing, Earth observation, land change and science, brought to you by the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. In this episode, we learn how remote sensing bolstered its credibility through the strength of rigorous peer review.

 

View Media Details

View

View Media Details

Download and Transcript Access

**Summary**: Remote sensing is not an especially venerable scientific discipline, at least in comparison to fields like biology, chemistry or medicine. From its beginnings with aerial photography in the 1920s through the initial stages of satellite-based land imaging in the early 1970s, few peer-reviewed publications were available for scientists to share their ideas and improve their methods. The rise of rigorous peer review in the 1970s through publications like Remote Sensing of Environment (RSE) helped advance the discipline, with leaders such as RSE’s longtime editor Marvin Bauer serving as guides and gatekeepers as space-based remote sensing moved from emergent technology to a critical component of our understanding of Earth.

**Guests**: Marv Bauer, Editor Emeritus, Remote Sensing of Environment

**Host**: Steve Young

**Producer**: John Hult

**Release date**: June 29, 2020

**More on Marvin Bauer, peer reviews and remote sensing**: 
                            - Remote Sensing of Environment
                            - Landsat Agriculture & Forestry Pioneer Honored with Pecora Award
                            - Marvin Bauer Bio

### Contacts
Case 1:07-cv-05860-LTS     Document 17      Filed 08/28/2007     Page 1 of 1
No. 582.

#### The Butler Bros. Shoe Company, Petitioner, *v.*United States Rubber Company.

November 16, 1908.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. *Mr. Charles J. Hughes, Jr.,*for petitioner. *Mr. Henry T. Rogers*for respondent.
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 38 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 38 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 2 of 2
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

XXXXX, 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 -againstXXXXX, 

 Defendants. 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 XX Civ. XXXX (AKH) 

INITIATING COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. __ (“CMO __”) dated June __, 2007 by Hon. 

Alvin K. Hellerstein, U.S.D.J., in In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site 

Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH), Plaintiff(s) hereby submit this Initiating Complaint against the 

above named Defendants and state: 

1. Plaintiff ____________ (XXXX) [Å last 4 digits of social security number] 

currently resides at ______________. 

2. Plaintiff(s) have a claim for injury against the Defendants named above that 

would be encompassed within the scope of the In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan 

Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

3. Plaintiffs will file a fully complete Check-Off Complaint under this docket 

number within 30 days of the filing of this Initiating Complaint. 

Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

Dated: _____ __, 200X 

{law firm name} 

Attorney(s) for 

Plaintiff(s)_______________________ 

By: ________ 

 {name} 

{law firm address} 

Telephone: _______________ 

Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM WYMAN PARK
BANCORPORATION & SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         733,360
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         432,849
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,622,647
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  3,298,020
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         307,399
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           314,638
<LOANS>                                     62,143,224
<ALLOWANCE>                                  (276,400)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,817,077
<DEPOSITS>                                  54,212,295
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,613,033
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,117
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,981,632
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              69,817,077
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,198,467
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               19,259
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               109,252
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,326,978
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             648,263
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             649,820
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          677,158
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  (2,500)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                351,427
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                348,066
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     348,066
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   214,166
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.73
<LOANS-NON>                                    103,339
<LOANS-PAST>                                   103,339
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             (273,900)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            (276,400)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         (276,400)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
SUBMISSION COVER SHEET

Registered Entity Identifier Code (optional) Date: January 12, 2018

I M P O R T A N T: CHECK BOX IF CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT IS REQUESTED. 

ORGANIZATION ICE Trade Vault, LLC

 FILING AS A: DCM SEF DCO X SDR ECM/SPDC 

TYPE OF FILING

 Rules and Rule Amendments 

 X Certification under § 40.6 (a) or § 41.24 (a)

 “Non-Material Agricultural Rule Change” under § 40.4 (b)(5)

 Notification under § 40.6 (d)

 Request for Approval under § 40.4 (a) or § 40.5 (a)

 Advance Notice of SIDCO Rule Change under § 40.10 (a)

 Products

 Certification under § 39.5(b), § 40.2 (a), or § 41.23 (a)

 Swap Class Certification under § 40.2 (d)

 Request for Approval under § 40.3 (a)

 Novel Derivative Product Notification under § 40.12 (a)

RULE NUMBERS

ICE Trade Vault, LLC Fee Schedule

DESCRIPTION

ICE Trade Vault, LLC has amended the ICE Trade Vault Fee Schedule to revise certain 

provisions related to fees accessed to participants classified as Trusted Sources, as defined by 

the ICE Trade Vault Trusted Sources Agreement. The amended Fee Schedule is scheduled to 

be effective on January 29, 2018.
154 So. 918

#### MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. v. WEBB PLANING MILL CO.

5 Div. 149.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 10, 1934.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.