alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018190EN.01002702.xml

| 4.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 April 2018 — Bielawski v EUIPO (HOUSE OF CARS)

(Case T-364/17) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark HOUSE OF CARS - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty))

(2018/C 190/48)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Marcin Bielawski (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2017 (Case R 2047/2016-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign HOUSE OF CARS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Marcin Bielawski to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Marcin Bielawski to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

1

---
# C_2017277EN.01005901.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/59

---

Action brought on 5 July 2017 — Item Industrietechnik v EUIPO (EFUSE)

(Case T-426/17)

(2017/C 277/83)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Item Industrietechnik GmbH (Solingen, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and M. Vitt, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark including the word element ‘EFUSE’ — Application No 15 463 003

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2017 in Case R 1881/2016-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 21, 2013 

# Order

Clerk 

### November 21, 2013

147515( 91 )

__________________________ _______________ SC: 147515

In re COH, ERH, JRG, KBH, Minors. COA: 309161

Muskegon CC Family Division:

08

- 036989

- NA

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of respondent

- appellee to extend the time

to file her brief on appeal is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted for filing if filed by

5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard T ime on November 29, 2013.
# FCM DATA AUGUST 2006
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 3648]

Pursuant to section 408(a) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of State, under authority delegated by the President, has re-designated the following countries as “countries of particular concern” under section 402(b) of the Act for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom: Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, Sudan.

Dated: April 16, 2001.

Thomas F. Farr,

Office Director for International Religious Freedom, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor U.S. Department of State.

[FR Doc. 01-10833 Filed 4-30-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-18-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1695

MAUREEN A. TRAFT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

AMERICAN THRESHOLD INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District

Judge. (CA-97-162-1-T)

Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 22, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maureen A. Traft, Appellant Pro Se. Grant Beecher Osborne, MCGUIRE,

WOOD & BISSETTE, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* See United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir.

1982).

2

PER CURIAM:

Maureen A. Traft appeals from the district court's order denying her motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 59(e). Our review of the record discloses that this appeal is

without merit. Traft’s motion for reconsideration does not demonstrate that her action was improperly dismissed. We therefore find

that the district court’s denial of her Rule 59(e) motion was not

an abuse of discretion,* and affirm the district court’s order on

the reasoning of the district court. Traft v. American Threshold

Indus., Inc., No. CA-97-162-1-T (W.D.N.C. Apr. 7, 1998). To the

extent Traft raises issues in her informal brief not previously

raised in the district court, including her attempt to raise claims

relating to documents not part of the district court’s record, we

decline to consider such claims or documents on appeal. We deny

Traft’s motion to vacate this court’s order allowing the Appellee

leave to supplement its informal brief and deny as moot Traft’s

petition for order of lis pendens. 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
Supreme Court of Texas

══════════

No. 22-1056

══════════

Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Governor of Texas,

Petitioner,

v.

Fort Bend County,

Respondent

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Petition for Review from the

Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas

═══════════════════════════════════════

PER CURIAM

This case concerns the division of power between the Governor 

and local officials during the response to the coronavirus pandemic. Fort 

Bend County sought and received a temporary injunction against 

enforcement of a gubernatorial executive order that prohibited local 

mask-wearing requirements. The court of appeals affirmed the 

temporary injunction, and the State petitioned for review.

In light of our decision today in Abbott v. Harris County, 22-0124, 

the petition for review is granted, the judgment of the court of appeals 

is vacated, the temporary injunction is dissolved, and the case is 
2

remanded for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in Abbott 

v. Harris County. See TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1.

OPINION DELIVERED: June 30, 2023
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

Class Period: 3/22/06 - 8/8/0690-Day Avg. (8/8/06 - 11/3/06): 23.5589FIFO based loss calculationsOntario Teachers' Pension Plan Board

Transaction Date Shares Price Cost Transaction Date Shares P

opening balance: 2,234,380 Sell 05/11/06 (6,600) 2

Sell 07/21/06 (10,000) 2

Total (16,600)

Buy 04/07/06 8,200 24.6311 $201,975.02 Retained 8,200 2Buy 04/10/06 201,400 24.2533 $4,884,614.62 Retained 201,400 2Buy 04/11/06 10,600 24.1016 $255,476.96 Retained 10,600 2Buy 04/18/06 190,300 24.7375 $4,707,546.25 Retained 190,300 2Buy 04/19/06 12,900 24.6773 $318,337.17 Retained 12,900 2Buy 04/20/06 8,400 24.8350 $208,614.00 Retained 8,400 2Buy 04/21/06 178,400 24.8627 $4,435,505.68 Retained 178,400 2Buy 06/01/06 256,200 24.9832 $6,400,695.84 Retained 256,200 2Buy 06/08/06 210,100 25.1398 $5,281,871.98 Retained 210,100 2Buy 06/09/06 30,100 25.1037 $755,621.37 Retained 30,100 2Buy 06/15/06 219,800 24.9963 $5,494,186.74 Retained 219,800 2Buy 06/16/06 24,400 25.1701 $614,150.44 Retained 24,400 2

Total 1,350,800 $33,558,596.07 1,350,800 

Total FIF

Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 12-4 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 1 of 1
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2109 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in awarding a contract 

for the procurement of goods or services, to give a preference to offerors that employ veterans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2109 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Boosting Rates of 

3 American Veteran Employment Act’’ or the ‘‘BRAVE 

4 Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PREFERENCE FOR OFFERORS EMPLOYING VET6 ERANS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 81 of 

8 title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding after 

9 section 8128 the following new section: 

10 ‘‘§ 8129. Preference for offerors employing veterans 

11 ‘‘(a) PREFERENCE.—In awarding a contract for the 

12 procurement of goods or services, the Secretary may give 

13 a preference to offerors that employ veterans on a full14 time basis. The Secretary shall determine such preference 

15 based on the percentage of the full-time employees of the 

16 offeror who are veterans. 

17 ‘‘(b) ENFORCEMENT PENALTIES FOR MISREPRESEN18 TATION.—(1) Any offeror that is determined by the Sec19 retary to have willfully and intentionally misrepresented 

20 the veteran status of the employees of the offeror for pur21 poses of subsection (a) may be debarred from contracting 

22 with the Department for a period of not less than 5 years. 

23 ‘‘(2) If the Secretary carries out a debarment under 

24 paragraph (1), the Secretary shall commence debarment 

25 action against the offeror by not later than 30 days after 

26 determining that the offeror willfully and intentionally 
3 

•HR 2109 EH

1 misrepresented the veteran status of the employees of the 

2 offeror as described in paragraph (1) and shall complete 

3 debarment actions against such offeror by not later than 

4 90 days after such determination. 

5 ‘‘(3) The debarment of an offeror under paragraph 

6 (1) includes the debarment of all principals in the offeror 

7 for a period of not less than 5 years.’’. 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

9 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 

10 after the item relating to section 8128 the following new 

11 item: 

‘‘8129. Preference for offerors employing veterans.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 24, 2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2109 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorploy veterans. services, to give a preference to offerors that em- ing a contract for the procurement of goods or ize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in award-
# C_2022207EN.01003001.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission

(Case T-342/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of air freight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Obligation to state reasons - Effect on trade between Member States - State coercion - Single and continuous infringement)

(2022/C 207/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany), Lufthansa Cargo AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany), Swiss International Air Lines AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Völcker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and H. Leupold, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

| 3. | Orders Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, Swiss International Air Lines AG to bear their own costs and to pay two thirds of those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, Swiss International Air Lines AG to bear their own costs and to pay two thirds of those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

---
Case 1:07-cv-05355-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05355-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05355-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05355-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05355-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 5 of 5
# C_2019432EN.01003401.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 –ADDE v Parliament

(Case T-48/17) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - European Parliament - Decision declaring certain expenditure of a political party ineligible for the purposes of a grant for 2015 - Decision awarding a grant for 2017 and making provision for pre-financing at the rate of 33 % of the maximum grant amount and an obligation to provide a bank guarantee - Obligation of impartiality - Rights of the defence - Financial Regulation - Rules of application of the Financial Regulation - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 - Proportionality - Equal treatment)

(2019/C 432/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL (ADDE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially by L. Defalque and L. Ruessmann, subsequently by M. Modrikanen and finally by Y. Rimokh, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of the Parliament of 21 November 2016 declaring certain expenditure ineligible for the purposes of a grant for 2015 and, second, of Parliament Decision FINS-2017-13 of 12 December 2016 concerning the award of a grant to the applicant for 2017, in so far as that decision limits the pre-financing to 33 % of the maximum grant amount, subject to the provision of a bank guarantee.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 21 November 2016 declaring certain expenditure ineligible for a grant in respect of financial year 2015; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 21 November 2016 declaring certain expenditure ineligible for a grant in respect of financial year 2015;

| 2. | Dismisses the application for annulment of Parliament Decision FINS-2017-13 of 12 December 2016 concerning the award of a grant to the applicant for the financial year 2017; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the application for annulment of Parliament Decision FINS-2017-13 of 12 December 2016 concerning the award of a grant to the applicant for the financial year 2017;

| 3. | Orders Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL and the European Parliament to bear their own costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL and the European Parliament to bear their own costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2057

BARTOLA J. PACETTI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration; MARY HOLT,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

MARK S. MILLARD, Judge; ALAN CARLSON; STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL; KATHY RICCI,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:11-cv-01293-LO-TCB)

Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: January 2, 2013

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bartola J. Pacetti, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Ann Edelstein, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Bartola J. Pacetti appeals the district court’s orders 

granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss and dismissing his civil 

action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. See Pacetti v. Millard, No. 1:11-cv-01293-LO-TCB (E.D. 

Va. Mar. 27, 2012 & filed Aug. 22, 2012, entered Aug. 23, 2012). 

We deny Pacetti’s motion for a transcript at government expense. 

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
# FCM DATA FEBRUARY 2007
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Annual Report of Baylake Corp. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven D.
Jennerjohn, 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 to the best of my knowledge:

      (3)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(1) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (4)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ Steven D. Jennerjohn
--------------------------
Steven D. Jennerjohn
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
March 20, 2003

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


                                       95
Hennessy Advisors, Inc.

Exhibit 99.1

                Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350

       Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, I, the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer and President of Hennessy Advisors, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that:

       1.   the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
            September 30,2002, (the "Report") fully complies with the require-
            ments of Section 13(a) 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/ Neil J. Hennessy
-------------------------
Neil J. Hennessy

Date:  December 26, 2002
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6687

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARNELL BARNES, a/k/a Imani,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:10-cr-00074-DEM-1)

Submitted: July 18, 2019 Decided: July 23, 2019

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darnell Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darnell Barnes appeals the district court’s order denying his pro se motion seeking 

a sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 

5194. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Barnes, No. 4:10-cr00074-DEM-1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 29, 2019). 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
No. 251.

#### Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Company, Appellant, *v.*City of Louisville, Kentucky.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Kentucky. January 4, 1909. Dismissed with costs, on motion of' counsel for appellant; *Mr. David W. Fairleigh*for appellant. ■ No appearance for appellee.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 27501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12532]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE & TIME: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 at 10 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:
    Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
    Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, 
U.S.C.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
    Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-12532 Filed 5-15-01; 11:18 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M