alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020054EN.01000301.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Slovenské elektrárne a.s. v Úrad pre vybrané hospodárske subjekty, formerly Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty

(Case C-376/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Common rules for the internal market in electricity - Directive 2009/72/EC - Scope - Article 3 - Objectives - Principle of non-discrimination - Special levy on the revenue of entities that are holders of an authorisation to carry on activity in regulated sectors - Electricity sector)

(2020/C 54/03)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Slovenské elektrárne a.s.

Defendant: Úrad pre vybrané hospodárske subjekty, formerly Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC and, in particular, Article 3(1) to (3) and (10) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that establishes a special levy on the revenue, with respect to activities performed both nationally and abroad, of undertakings operating, on the basis of an authorisation issued by a public authority, in various regulated activity sectors, including undertakings that hold an authorisation for supplying electricity issued by the competent national regulatory authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

---
# C_2017070EN.01003101.xml

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/31

---

Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Forest Pharma v EUIPO — Ipsen Pharma (COLINEB)

(Case T-36/17)

(2017/C 070/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Forest Pharma BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Holman, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ipsen Pharma SAS (Boulogne Billancourt, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘COLINEB’ — Application for registration No 13 191 671

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 October 2016 in Case R 500/2016-5

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 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, 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.

June 15, 2018

t0612 

# Order

Clerk June 15, 2018

156637

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 156637

COA: 333125

Cass CC: 15

- 010146

- FC

LEON WATSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 22, 2017

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Cass County

Prosecut ing Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after

the date of this order. Specifically, the prosecutor shall address: (1) whether the rape

shield statute, MCL 750.520j, barred evidence of the complainant’s sexual activity wi th

two classmates when offered as proof of an alternative cause of the possible scarring

observed by the sexual assault nurse examiner, see People v Shaw , 315 Mich App 668

(2016); (2) if so, whether that evidence was nevertheless admissible to preserve the

defendant’s constitutional rights to confrontation and to present a defense, see People v

Hackett , 421 Mich 338 (1984); and (3) whether the defendant’s former appellate counsel

rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to raise these iss ues in the Court

of Appeals.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CYCLECOUNTRY ACCESSORIES CORP.

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with this Annual Report of Cycle Country Accessories Corp. (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”), I,Jeffrey M. Tetzlaff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Jeffrey M Tetzlaff                 |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Jeffrey M. Tetzlaff                    |   |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |   |
| May 20, 2010                      |   |

 

----
# C_2017309EN.01003701.xml

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/37

---

Action brought on 26 July 2017 — VKR Holding v EUIPO (VELUX)

(Case T-465/17)

(2017/C 309/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: VKR Holding A/S (Søborg, Denmark) (represented by: J. Heebøll, lawyer)

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 word mark ‘VELUX’ — Recordal application No T 2 299 611

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2017 in Case R 1927/2016-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | overturn the decision of the Board to dismiss the appeal and thereby allow recordal request no. T 2 299 611 relating to EUTM 000651869 (VELUX), |
| --- | --- |

—

overturn the decision of the Board to dismiss the appeal and thereby allow recordal request no. T 2 299 611 relating to EUTM 000651869 (VELUX),

| — | alternatively, refer the case back to the Board. |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, refer the case back to the Board.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 34(2) and Rule 28 of EUTMIR. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 34(2) and Rule 28 of EUTMIR.

---
# C_2017357EN.01002701.xml

| 23.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/27

---

Action brought on 5 September 2017 — Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-598/17)

(2017/C 357/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent and P. Pucciariello, Avvocato dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul, in so far as it is the subject matter of the present action, European Commission Implementing Decision No 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017, notified on the same date, on the exclusion from European Union financing of certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as it is the subject matter of the present action, European Commission Implementing Decision No 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017, notified on the same date, on the exclusion from European Union financing of certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD);

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging breach of Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1) and Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy. (2)

1

2

By that plea, the applicant challenges the application of the financial corrections imposed by the contested decision, in view of the inconsistency of the information.

The applicant also challenges the quantification of those financial corrections, in so far as the actual amount set is disproportionate and clearly illogical, being significantly higher than any damage potentially resulting from the conduct imputed to the Italian authorities.

---

(1)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103.

1

(2)  OJ L 209, 18.8.2005, p. 1.

2

---
# FCM DATA APRIL 2005
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13048]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Notice of Meeting; Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C. App. I), this notice announces a meeting of the Klamath 
River Basin Fisheries Task Force, established under the authority of 
the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 
460ss et seq.). The meeting is open to the public.

DATES: The Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force (Task Force) will 
meet from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on June 21, 2001, and from 8:00 a.m. 
to 11:30 p.m. on June 22, 2001.

PLACE: The meeting will be held at the Shilo Inn, 2500 Almond Street, 
Klamath Falls, Oregon.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Detrich, Project Leader, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1829 South Oregon Street, Yreka, California 
96097, telephone (530) 842-5763.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For background information on the Task 
Force, please refer to the notice of their initial meeting that 
appeared in the Federal Register on July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25639).

Jill Parker,
Acting California/Nevada Operations Manager, California/Nevada Office, 
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 01-13048 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

May 18, 1939 

Bon. George Van Fleet, Potuary 

Board of Inauranoe Comnlssioners 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

Opinion No. O-661 

of April 19, 19 

.$his department 

the purpose of 

set out the 

pt of your letter 

st the opinion of 

in presented. For 

h the State Treaes, which deposit 

ets 4982 to 4986, 

ted Federal Land Bank 

The Bank has 

know whether or not, if they 

o, they may have their bonds 

tamped, as provided in Article 

d Civil Statutes of 1925. 

opinion is respectfully requested 

ether or not the securities ifi question, whioh are deposlted in accordance v:ith 

the articles referred to, may be endoreed or 

stanped as provided for In Artiole 2530, Chapter 1, Title 47, Revised Civil Statutes of 1C25.w 
Hon. George Van Fleet, May 18, 1939, Page 2 

Artioles 4982 to 4986;both inclusive, constitute Seotion 2, Chapter 16, Title 78, Revised 

CIrll Statutes of Texas 1925, end deal with insurance 

companies and the right of oertaln type organizations 

therein described to.assume and exercise additional 

powers and privileges permitted thereby. 

The $50,000.00 In securities deposited with 

the state treasurer by the Second National Bank of 

Houston, Texas, were de ited In accordanoe with the 

requirement 

t 

or Article % 4, Revised CIiil Statutes, 

for the pur ose of enabling such bank to qualify to 

exeroise the additional rights end privileges~afforded 

by Article 4982, Revised Civil Statutes. 

Paragraph (3) of Article 2530, Revised Civil 

Statutes of Texas 1925, reads in part es follows: 

"Any bank making deposits of bonds or 

other securities with the treasurer 

under the provisions of this act may 

Cause such bonds or other securities 

to be endorsed or stamped, as they may 

deem proper, so as to show that they 

are deposited as collateral and not 

transferable, except as herein provided." 

It Is to be noted that It Is specifically provided that the act of endorsing or stamping securities 

is limited to a bank making deposits "under the provisions 

of this act.* 

Article 2530, above quoted from, is a part of 

Chapter 1, Title 47, dealing with state depositories. It 

is apparent therefore, that the phrase "under the provisions of this act* has reference only to Title 47, Revised Civil Statutes, dealing Qith deposftories and has 

no oonneotion uIth Section 2, Chapter 16, Title 78, 

Revised Civil Statutes of Texas. 

It is therefore the opinion of this department 
Hon. George Van Fleet, May 18, 1939, Page 3 

and you are so advised that the provisions for endorsing 

or stamping bonds contained fn Article 2530, supra, have 

no applicat ion to the eecurlties required by Article 

4983. aunra and that the Second Netional Bank of Houston, 

Texas, will'not be privileged to avail itself of such 

pight. 

Trusting that this satisfactorily.- answers 

your inquiry, we are 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEY CXrERAL OF TEXAS 

(signed) Lloyd Armstrong 

BY 

Lloyd Armstrong 

Assistant 

LA:AW 

APPROVED: 

(signed) Gerald C. Mann 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
To :
Board of Directors

    Infosmart
Group, Inc.

    
 

    Date : 27
August 2010

    


    RESIGNATION

    


    I hereby
tender my resignation as Director and Chief Financial Officer of Infosmart Group
Inc. with immediately effect due to my personal reasons.

    


    Yours
faithfully,

    


    
      	
              /s/ Fan
      Chun Wang

            	 
      
	
              Fan
      Chun Wang
# C_2019305EN.01002601.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/26

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — CS and Others v České aerolinie a.s.

(Case C-502/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(1)(c) - Article 7(1) - Right to compensation - Connecting flights - Flights consisting of two flights operated by different air carriers - Long delay in relation to the second flight with points of departure and arrival outside the European Union and operated by a carrier established in a non-Member State)

(2019/C 305/32)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Městský soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CS, DR, EQ, FP, GO, HN, IM, JL, KK, LJ, MI

Defendant: České aerolinie a.s.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read together with Article 3(5) of Regulation No 261/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of connecting flights, where there are two flights that are the subject of a single reservation, departing from an airport located within the territory of a Member State and travelling to an airport located in a non-Member State via the airport of another non-Member State, a passenger who suffers a delay in reaching his or her destination of 3 hours or more, the cause of that delay arising in the second flight, operated, under a code-share agreement, by a carrier established in a non-Member State, may bring his or her action for compensation under that regulation against the Community air carrier that performed the first flight.

---

(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.

---
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER01-1989-001]

      ( print page 28160)    
Take notice that on May 10, 2001, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) tendered for filing a supplement to the tariff changes submitted on May 7, 2001, in Docket No. ER01-1989-000.

Copies of this filing have been served on all affected state commission, SPP customers, and SPP members.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

Linwood A. Watson, Jr., 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-12784 Filed 5-21-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 10.1







EXHIBIT 10.1




FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE

CREDIT CARD PROGRAM AGREEMENT




This Fifth Amendment to the Credit Card Program Agreement (“Fifth Amendment”) is made and entered into as of
August 31, 2010 (“Effective Date”) by and between HSBC Bank Nevada, National Association (“HSBC” or “Bank”), and The
Bon-Ton Stores, Inc. (“Bon-Ton”) and amends that certain Credit Card Program Agreement dated as of June 20, 2005, as
previously amended (“Agreement”).



WHEREAS, the undersigned parties desire to amend the Agreement.



NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements set forth below and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, HSBC and Bon-Ton do hereby
agree as follows:



1. Section 20 of the Third Amendment to the Credit Card Program Agreement is deleted and replaced in its entirety to
read as follows:




	 	(20)	 	Subject to the provisions of Schedule 3-20, attached hereto, (a) either party may terminate this
Third Amendment (the “Opt Out Right”) by providing written notice to the other party (the “Opt Out
Notice”) no earlier than January 1, 2011 and no later than January 31, 2011 and (b) this Third Amendment
shall terminate and be of no further force or effect on the 14th day following delivery of the
Opt Out Notice (the “Opt Out Effective Date”). The entry into and, if applicable, subsequent termination
of this Third Amendment in accordance with this paragraph shall not impact any rights of any party to the
Agreement existing prior to the date of this Third Amendment.






2. In consideration of the signing of this Fifth Amendment, Bank agrees to withdraw and revoke the Opt Out Notice dated
August 31, 2010 (“Revoked Notice”) that it sent to Bon-Ton. The parties agree that this Fifth Amendment supersedes all
prior communications regarding the Opt Out, and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties. In the
event that this Fifth Amendment is executed after Bank sends the Opt Out Payment, as defined in Schedule 3-20 of the
Third Amendment, to Bon-Ton pursuant to the Revoked Notice, Bon-Ton agrees to remit such payment back to Bank within
five (5) business days of the Effective Date hereof. If not received within such timeframe, Bon-Ton agrees that Bank
may deduct an amount equal to the Opt Out Payment from amounts owing from Bank to Bon-Ton in the course of the daily
settlement process.



3. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning afforded them in the Agreement, as
amended.



4. Except as otherwise modified herein, the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as amended, remain in full force and
effect.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby execute this Fifth Amendment by their authorized representatives.



The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc.



HSBC Bank Nevada, National Association



By: /s/ KEITH E. PLOWMAN



By: /s/ BRIAN D. HUGHES



Authorized Signature



Authorized Signature




Keith E. Plowman



Brian D. Hughes



Name (Type or Print)




Name (Type or print)




Executive Vice President & Chief



Executive Vice President



Financial Officer


Title




Title