alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020137EN.01000701.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2020 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Tesco-Global Áruházak Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-323/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Turnover tax in the store retail trade sector - Progressive tax having a greater impact on undertakings owned by natural or legal persons of other Member States than on national undertakings - Progressive tax bands applicable to all taxable persons - Neutrality of the amount of turnover as a criterion of differentiation - Ability to pay of taxable persons - State aid)

(2020/C 137/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tesco-Global Áruházak Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State that establishes a steeply progressive tax on turnover, the actual burden of which is mainly borne by undertakings controlled directly or indirectly by nationals of other Member States or by companies that have their registered office in another Member State, due to the fact that those undertakings achieve the highest turnover in the market concerned

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.

---
#### Raul Alfredo MUNOZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-72073.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Filed June 16, 2006.

Fabian C. Serrato, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., Jennifer L. Lightbody, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Raul Alfredo Munoz-Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings, as requested by the Attorney General.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, Darwin L. Stump, the Chief Financial Officer of Petroleum Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify that: 

- I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;
- the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

_/s/ Darwin L. Stump                  

Darwin L. Stump

Chief Financial Officer of the 

Managing General Partner of the Registrant

___March  ,  2004_________
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 on Form 10-Q of SinoHub, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarter ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Henry T.
Cochran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his 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.






Dated:
      May 15, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/
      Henry T. CochranHenry
      T. CochranChief
      Executive Officer
# C_2017129EN.01002501.xml

| 24.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/25

---

Action brought on 17 February 2017 — Pelikan v EUIPO — NBA Properties (NEW ORLEANS PELICANS)

(Case T-112/17)

(2017/C 129/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: NBA Properties, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in black and white containing the word elements ‘NEW ORLEANS PELICANS’ — Application for registration No 11 518 487

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2016 in Case R 408/2016-4

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 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13119]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ID-933-1430-EU; I-017096 C, I-517 C, I-4427 C, I-9081 C, I-6941 C]


Termination of Desert Land Entry Classifications, Idaho

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice terminates 5 Desert Land Entry Classifications so 
the land can be patented under Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act of 1976.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 24, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine D. Foster, BLM Idaho State 
Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709, 208-373-3863.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following lands have been classified as 
suitable for Desert Land Entry. The classification and segregation, as 
it affects the following described lands, is hereby terminated:

T. 6 N., R. 5 W., B.M.
    Section 2: SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, SE\1/4\NW\1/4\, W\1/2\SE\1/4\ (I-
017096 C);
    Section 10: S\1/2\NE\1/4\, NE\1/4\SE\1/4\ (I-517 C);
    Section 10: S\1/2\SE\1/4\ (I-9081 C);
    Section 13: SE\1/4\SW\1/4\ (I-6941 C).

    The following lands have been classified as non suitable for Desert 
Land Entry. The classification and segregation, as it affects the 
following described lands, is hereby terminated:

T. 6 N., R. 5 W., B.M.
    Section 10: NW\1/4\SE\1/4\ (I-4427 C);

    The area described above aggregates 440 acres in Payette County.
    At 9 a.m. on May 24, 2001, the Desert Land Entry classifications 
identified above will be terminated. The lands will remain closed to 
location and entry under the public land laws and the general land 
laws, as the lands are currently segregated for exchange.

    Dated: May 11, 2001.
Jimmie Buxton,
Branch Chief, Lands and Minerals.
[FR Doc. 01-13119 Filed 5-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
# C_2017357EN.01001902.xml

| 23.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/19

---

Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Corra González and Others v SRB

(Case T-511/17)

(2017/C 357/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: José María Francisco Corra González (Madrid, Spain) and seven other applicants (represented by: C. de Santiago Álvarez and J. Redondo Martin, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | declare that, by adopting in its executive session of 7 June 2017 Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 establishing the resolution scheme in respect of the financial institution Banco Popular Español S.A., the Single Resolution Board (‘the SRB’) infringed EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by adopting in its executive session of 7 June 2017 Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 establishing the resolution scheme in respect of the financial institution Banco Popular Español S.A., the Single Resolution Board (‘the SRB’) infringed EU law;

| — | consequently, annul that measure, and any subsequent implementing measures too that the SRB may have adopted, with effect ex tunc. |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul that measure, and any subsequent implementing measures too that the SRB may have adopted, with effect ex tunc.

ex tunc

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos

Single Resolution Board

Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL

Single Resolution Board

Comercial Vascongada Recalde

Commission and Single Resolution Board

García Suárez and Others

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Fidesban and Others

Single Resolution Board

Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda

Commission and Single Resolution Board

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6304

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PRESTON MCRAE SMALLS, a/k/a Preston Mitchell,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(2:98-cr-01240-DCN)

Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 16, 2007

Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Preston McRae Smalls, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Preston McRae Smalls appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion to modify his sentence. 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.

Smalls, No. 2:98-cr-01240-DCN (D.S.C. filed Feb. 15, 2007 & entered

Feb. 16, 2007). 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7994
ALONZA GIBSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE COUNTY OF CLARENDON; ROBERT FELDER, jail house worker; JAMES D. JONES, jail house worker; HOLT COLLINS, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1828-6) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 12, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alonza Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). Themagistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
#### Yoder *v.*Mills.1

*Circuit Court, E.*D. *Pennsylvania.*

October 28, 1885.

Patents tor Inventions—Priority—Infringement—-Combination Patent.

The employment of mechanical skill to construct a machine in accordance with ideas furnished by another gives no right to the invention. The entire merit is in him whose inventive suggestiveness conceived the invention.

In Equity.

*William A. Bedding,*for complainant.

*M. Daniel Connolly,*for respondents.

1

 Reported by C. B. Taylor, Esq., of the Philadelphia bax-.

McKennan, I.

The objoet of this suit is a patent to.Lorenzo T. Yoder for an invention relating to the manufacture of caudy, dated December 4, 1883, and numbered 289,488. The patent contains four claims, but no evidence is produced to show any infringement of the first two. The third and fourth claims are the only ones touching which there is any contest. They are both for combinations of mechanical devices, and differ only in that, to the elements specified in the third claim, is ad^ed a “cover, A,” of peculiar construction, and thus the fourth claim is constituted.

ISior is there any substantial controversy between the parties upon the question of infringement. It is clear that the machine made by the defendants is, in every essential feature, identical with that described in the patent.

The only contested inquiry in the case involves the right to the invention itself. All the evidence exhibited relates to it. 13oth parties claim the merit which the patent apparently accords to the complainant, and, without discussing the evidence, it is enough for us to say that, in view of tne decided preponderance of the proofs, it is justly devolved upon him. The conception of the invention belongs to him, and all that the defendants contributed was the necessary mechanical skill, furnished at his request, to embody it in an operative form. He did not lose the merit which is due to inventive suggestivoness, and devolve it upon the mechanic whoso only function was to materialize it. *Watson*v. *Bladen,*4 Wash. C. C. 582; *Blandy*v. *Griffith,*3 Fisher, 609.

But some doubt may be entertained as to the right of the complainant to appropriate the combination covered by the fourth claim of the patent, treating it as an entirety. The cover, A, which is an indispensable constituent of the combination, was not devised by him, but was suggested and constructed solely by one of the defendants. Whether that claim, then, is enforceable against the defendants we do not deem it imperative on us to decide. We will, therefore, adjudge that the patent is valid in so far as the *third*claim is involved, that an injunction issue against the infringement of that claim, and that *822the profits or damages accruing from the past infringement thereof be ascertained by a master; and a decree will be prepared accordingly.
# C_2020068EN.01002401.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/24

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — M-Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M-Sansz Kft.) v European Commission

(Case C-757/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers - Action for annulment - Alleged decisions not to raise objections - Lack of locus standi - Person not individually concerned - Action not brought in order to safeguard procedural rights - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

(2020/C 68/24)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: M Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M Sansz Kft.) (represented by: L. Ravasz, ügyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | M-Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M Sansz Kft.) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

M-Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M Sansz Kft.) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 6 

Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 1-10 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 1-10 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 1-10 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 1-10 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 1-10 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 1-10 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 6 of 6
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13074]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Tuesday, May 29, 2001.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Michelle A. Smith, Assistant to 
the Board; 202-452-3204.

Supplementary Information: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: May 18, 2001.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-13074 Filed 5-18-01; 3:59 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4001-4002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1270]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary of Defense


 Meeting of the DOD Advisory Group on Electron Devices

AGENCY: Advisory Group on Election Devices, Department of Defense.

[[Page 4002]]


ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a 
closed session meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held at 0900, Tuesday, February 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research 
Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Eliot Cohen, AGED Secretariat, 
1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, 
Arlington, Virginia 22202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of the Advisory Group is to 
provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology, to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering 
(DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and 
managing an effective and economical research and development program 
in the area of electron devices.
    The AGED meeting will be limited to review of research and 
development programs which the Military Departments propose to initiate 
with industry, universities or in their laboratories. The agenda for 
this meeting will include programs on Radiation Hardened Devices, 
Microwave Tubes, Displays and Lasers. The review will include details 
of classified defense programs throughout.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended 
(5 U.S.C. App. Sec. 10(d) (1994)), it has been determined that this 
Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) 
(1994), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the 
public.

    Dated: January 10, 2001.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-1270 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M