alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019044EN.01003901.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/39

---

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

(Case T-682/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark ‘khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen’ - 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) - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/49)

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 12 July 2017 (Case R 2085/2016-5) 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.

---
144 So. 915

#### BOARD OF REGISTRARS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY et al. v. W. E. CORNING.

6 Div. 169.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 1, 1932.

PER CURIAM.'

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Case 1:07-cv-05296-AKH Document 21 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05296-AKH Document 21 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05296-AKH Document 21 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-04462-AKH Document 30 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-04462-AKH Document 30 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-04462-AKH Document 30 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 3 of 3
# C_2019054EN.01003502.xml

| 11.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/35

---

Order of the General Court of 7 December 2018 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

(Case T-143/17) (1)

(2019/C 54/53)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

---
# C_2017202EN.01002804.xml

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/28

---

Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Yotrio Group v EUIPO (Affixing of a green ring to a support leg)

(Case T-47/17) (1)

1

(2017/C 202/47)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.

1

---
Case 1:07-cv-05558-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05558-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05558-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05558-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05558-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05558-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05558-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
NEX SEF LIMITED 

2 Broadgate

London 

EC2M 7UR

United Kingdom

January 17, 2019

Via Email

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for

FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Acts

Compliance

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20581

Via email: FOIAsubmissions@cftc.gov

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request

Ladies and Gentlemen:

NEX SEF Limited (NEX SEF) has submitted to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

(Commission) a rule certification amendment in NEX SEF-2019-R-2 pursuant to CFTC Reg. 

40.6 in order to certify its revised fee program (the Certification). Attached as Exhibit A to the 

Certification is the Fee Program, and attached as Exhibit B to the Certification is a copy of the 

Fee Program marked to show changes to the version last submitted to the Commission. 

NEX SEF hereby requests that Exhibit A and Exhibit B to the Certification (Confidential 

Information) be treated as confidential in order to prevent disclosure of NEX SEF’s trade 

secrets and confidential commercial and financial information upon a request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). We request the Confidential Information be provided 

confidential treatment for an indefinite period.

Please promptly inform the following of any request for the Confidential Information or its 

contents made pursuant to FOIA or the Commission’s rules so that we may substantiate the 

foregoing request for confidential treatment in accordance with Section 145.9 of the 

Commission’s Regulations: Attention: General Counsel, NEX SEF LIMITED, 2 Broadgate, 

London EC2M 7UR, United Kingdom.

Pursuant to Part 145.9(d)(4) of the Commission’s regulations, we have marked each page of the 

Confidential Information with the words “CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED BY NEX 

SEF LIMITED” and have identified each portion of the Confidential Information with the following 

identifying number and code: NEX SEF-2019-R-2-Exhibit A and NEX SEF-2019-R-2-Exhibit B.
2

Please contact the undersigned at (212) 521-4609 with any questions regarding this matter.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Nirup Ramalingam, Chief Operating Officer

NEX SEF LIMITED

2 Broadgate

London EC2M 7UR

United Kingdom

cc by email: Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission 

ACTIVE 234532781v.1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7742

TITO LAMONT ANDERSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-hc-02061-FL)

Submitted: November 17, 2017 Decided: January 8, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tito Lamont Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tito Lamont Anderson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Anderson relies on the savings clause in 28 

U.S.C. § 2255(e) (2012) to challenge his career offender designation, but we have “not 

extended the reach of the savings clause to those petitioners challenging only their 

sentence.” United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). As such, 

Anderson fails to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) is an 

inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention. See Rice v. 

Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010). 

We thus conclude that the district court properly dismissed without prejudice 

Anderson’s § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. See Anderson v. Andrews, No. 5:15-hc-02061-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 15, 2015). We 

grant Anderson leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 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.

AFFIRMED
First Amendment to Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO NONSTATUTORY STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS
FIRST AMENDMENT TO NONSTATUTORY STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT (the “First Amendment”) is entered as of December 31, 2005 in order to amend that certain Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreement, made in July 2003 (the “Agreement”),
between Nautilus, Inc., a Washington corporation, f/k/a The Nautilus Group, Inc. (“Nautilus”) and Greggory C. Hammann (“Executive”). 
  

RECITALS 
  
 WHEREAS, in July 2003 the parties entered into the Agreement pursuant to which Nautilus granted Executive an option (the Option”) to purchase a total
of 850,000 shares of common stock at $8.39 per share, which is $2 below the fair market value of the common stock on the grant date; and 
  
 WHEREAS, Nautilus and Executive wish to amend the Agreement to avoid certain adverse tax consequences that would otherwise arise under newly enacted
Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code; 
  
 NOW,
THEREFORE, Nautilus and Executive hereby agree as follows: 
  
 AGREEMENT 
  

	1.	The exercise price for any Option shares vesting on or after January 1, 2005 is hereby changed from $8.39 per share to $10.39 per share. The exercise price for Option shares
vesting prior to January 1, 2005 shall remain $8.39 per share. 

  

	2.	During the remaining vesting period, Nautilus will make a payment to Executive on each subsequent vesting date in an amount equal to $2 multiplied by the number of shares that vest
on such date. The payment in respect of those shares that vested on or after January 1, 2005, but prior to the date of this Agreement, shall be delivered upon execution of this Agreement. 

  

	3.	Except as specifically provided for in this First Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the
day and year first above written. 
  

											
	NAUTILUS, INC.	 	 	 	EXECUTIVE
					
	 By:
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 /s/ Greggory C. Hammann

	 	 	 Signature
	 	 	 	 	 	 Greggory C. Hammann

	 	 	 Print Name:
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 


											
	 	 	 Its:
exv10w1



 



Exhibit
10.1



Del Monte Foods Company




Annual Salary Adjustment for Chief Executive Officer

as Approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors

of Del Monte Foods Company on December 14, 2005




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	ANNUAL SALARY	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Effective September 1, 2005
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Cash	 	 
	 	 	Base	 	Perquisite	 	Total
	Name	 	Salary (1)	 	Allowance (2)	 	Annual Salary
	Richard G. Wolford
	 	$	990,000	 	 	$	42,000	 	 	$	1,032,000	 






 





(1) Base Salary reflects the amount of compensation the Company considers eligible salary for
purposes of its Annual Incentive Plan or similar plans, which does not include an executive’s
annual cash perquisite allowance.



(2) No adjustment was made to this executive cash perquisite allowance on December 14, 2005.
600335673

Bloomberg SEF LLC

731 Lexington Avenue

New York, NY 10022

April 2, 2018

Submitted via email and the Portal

Abigail Knauff

Division of Market Oversight

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

via email: aknauff@cftc.gov

Re: Bloomberg SEF LLC – Rule Amendment and Related Request for Freedom of 

Information Act Confidential Treatment

Dear Ms. Knauff,

Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”) and Section 

40.6(a) of the regulations of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the

“CFTC”, or the “Commission”), Bloomberg SEF LLC (“BSEF”), as the operator of a 

swap execution facility, hereby submits to the Commission a rule amendment (the 

“Amendment”).

We have submitted to the CFTC Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) Compliance 

Office a request that for reasons of business confidentiality, the Commission not disclose 

the Confidential Information (as defined below) or its contents in response to any FOIA 

request or otherwise for an indefinite period. We wish to inform you that the 

Confidential Information constitutes, inter alia, privileged and confidential trade secrets 

and commercial or financial information within the meaning of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 

552(b)(4) and Part 145.9(d)(1)(ii) of the Commission’s regulations as well as confidential 

information covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1905.

For your reference, the Amendment set out on Annex A hereto is referred to herein as the 

“Confidential Information.”

Please promptly inform the following of any request for the Confidential Information or 

its contents made pursuant to FOIA or the Commission’s rules so that we may 

substantiate the foregoing request for confidential treatment in accordance with Part 

145.9 of the Commission’s regulations.
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Page 2

600335673

David Levine

General Counsel

Bloomberg L.P.

731 Lexington Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Pursuant to Part 145.9(d)(4) of the Commission’s regulations, we have marked each page 

of the Confidential Information with the words “Confidential Treatment Requested by 

Bloomberg SEF LLC” and have numbered each page of the Confidential Information 

with an identifying number and code, beginning with “BSEF-0418-0001” and ending 

with “BSEF-0418-0348.”

[signature page follows]
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Page 3

600335673

Please contact the undersigned at (212) 617-8302 with any questions regarding this 

matter.

Very truly yours,

Gregory Dumark

Chief Compliance Officer

Bloomberg SEF LLC

731 Lexington Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Enclosures
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Page 4

600335673

Annex A

Confidential Information

Name of Confidential Information Identifying Number and Code

Rule Amendment Self-Certification BSEF-0418-0001– BSEF-0418-

0348
145 So. 131

#### GIBBONS et al. v. NORTON et al.

4 Div. 674.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 22, 1932.

Oscar L. Tompkins, of Dothan, for appellants.

F. W. Fish, of Abbeville, for appellees.

GARDNER, J.

Upon final settlement by L. E. Gibbons, as guardian for the minors named in this proceeding, the court held the guardian responsible and accountable for the sum, of $44.63 on deposit in the Abbeville State Bank, which became insolvent while said sum was on deposit and closed its doors on March 27, 1931.

The evidence wa,s without conflict that, at the time of the deposit and continuing to its failure, the said bank bore a good reputation; the guardian acted in good faith, and with sound discretion in making the deposit, and without notice of any facts indicating insolvency. The money was deposited by said Gibbons in his representative capacity as guardian. The guardian has duly accounted for all funds received and disbursed, all of which has met the approval of the court, with the exception of the above-stated sum on deposit in the Abbeville Bank, now' insolvent.

“Our decisions approve a temporary deposit to a trust account in a responsible bank, by a trustee, acting in good faith and with discretion, and relieve such trustee of any liability by reason of the deposit in the event of a failure of the bank.” First National Bank v. Weaver (Ala. Sup.) 142 So. 420, 421 1— citing approvingly Chancellor v. Chancellor, 177 Ala. 44, 58 So. 423, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 47, where the question is discussed and the authorities noted. See, also, Bates v. Jones, 224 Ala. 82, 139 So. 242.

The ease for the guardian is brought within the influence of this well-recognized princi-' pie, and the decree rendered was therefore grounded in error. The decree is accordingly reversed, and one here rendered relieving the guardian of said sum and discharging him and his surety from further liability on account of said guardianship.

Reversed and rendered.

ANDERSON, O. J., and BOULDIN and FOSTER, JJ„ concur.

1

 Ante, p. 160.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                           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 this Report of AVAX Technologies, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard P. Rainey,
President (as such, the principal executive officer and principal financial
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 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/ Richard P. Rainey
---------------------
Richard P. Rainey
President
(Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer)
May 24, 2004
#### Rogers v. Jones.

1. Prato as to creditors. If an insolvent convert his property into notes, payable to a third party as his assignee, and the transaction is concealed from his creditors, a creditor’s bill will lie to reach the fund, and the plaintiff therein will be entitled to it.

This was a creditor’s bill filed in the District Court for Douglas county, on the seventh of August, 1858. At the March term, 1858, of said court, Rogers recovered a judgment against Jones and Wood for $1,181.79, on which execution was issued and returned unsatisfied. At the time of the recovery of the judgment the defendants were druggists in Omaha, and shortly thereafter dissolved the partnership, Jones continuing the business and Wood leaving the Territory. Soon after this, Jones being insolvent, sold the stock to Ford at the agreed price of $4,100, taking his notes therefor, payable in six, twelve, eighteen and twenty-four months. These notes ran to the order of “Samuel Pease, assignee of James A. Jones,” and were delivered to him. This fact was not communicated to any of the creditors, and did not become known until disclosed by the answer filed in the cause. The question was whether a trust was created here which would defeat the bill. A decree was rendered for the plaintiff, and defendant appealed.

*JR. A.*Howard, for appellant.

*J. M.*WoolwortJi, contra.

The court,

by Hall, Ch. J.,

held that the transaction was fraudulent as to creditors. It was unnecessary to decide, as contended for by the appellant, whether a trust in personalty could be created by parol under our statutes. The case must be determined on its own facts. It would *418open a wide door to fraud to suffer an insolvent to convert his property into notes payable to a friend, and for the parties to, conceal the transaction from all interested. It would give them the best opportunity to apply the money collected on the notes to the benefit of the assignor, without the possibility of the creditors being able to follow the fund.

Decree affirmed.
# C_2019044EN.01004401.xml

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

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — H2O Plus v EUIPO (H 2 O+)

(Case T-824/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark H 2 O+ - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 44/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: H2O Plus LLC (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and F. Kerl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: S. Palmero Cabezas and D. Walicka, then by S. Palmero Cabezas and H.J. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2017 (Case R 499/2017-1), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark H 2 O+.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders H2O Plus LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders H2O Plus LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.

---
FILED

November 24, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

CORETTA SCOTT KING, ]

MARTIN LUTHER KING, III, ]

BERNICE KING, DEXTER SCOTT ] SHELBY CIRCUIT

KING, and YOLANDA KING, ] NO. W1999-00984-SC-S10-CV

]

Plaintiffs ]

]

VS. ]

]

LOYD JOWERS, and other ]

unknown co-conspirators, ]

]

Defendants, ]

]

and ]

]

MEMPHIS PUBLISHING COMPANY, ]

]

Intervenor. ]

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the application for permission to appeal filed by Memphis

Publishing Company in this cause, the Court is of the opinion that the application

should be, and is, hereby granted.

PER CURIAM
# C_2020371EN.01001001.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/10

---

Order of the General Court of 17 August 2020 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-376/17) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Suspension of financial aid - Preliminary recognition aid for groups of producers in the fruit and vegetable sector - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 371/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, B. Paziewska, M. Pawlicka and K. Straś, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis, M. Kaduczak and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of European Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 2104 final of 4 April 2017 extending the suspension of monthly payments to the Republic of Poland concerning preliminary recognition aid for groups of producers in the fruit and vegetable sector within the framework of the European Agriculture Guarantee Fund.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The parties shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

---
Exhibit
32.1











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
ofAM
Oil Resources & Technology Inc.(the"Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Patricia
Traczykowski, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








Dated this 14th day of
August, 2009.





PATRICIA TRACZYKOWSKIPatricia
      TraczykowskiChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer