alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020137EN.01000402.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 January 2020 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-122/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2011/7/EU - Combating late payment in commercial transactions - Commercial transactions where the debtor is a public authority - Obligation of Member States to ensure that the period for payment imposed on public authorities does not exceed 30 or 60 days - Obligation to achieve a specified result)

(2020/C 137/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by S. Fiorentino and F. De Luca, avvocati dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by not ensuring that its public authorities effectively comply with the periods for payment prescribed in Article 4(3) and (4) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not ensuring that its public authorities effectively comply with the periods for payment prescribed in Article 4(3) and (4) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.

---
# C_2017144EN.01005802.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/58

---

Action brought on 21 March 2017 — W&O medical esthetics v EUIPO — Fidia farmaceutici (HYALSTYLE)

(Case T-178/17)

(2017/C 144/79)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: W&O medical esthetics GmbH (Oberursel, Germany) (represented by: A. Finkentey, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘HYALSTYLE’ — EU trade mark No 11 645 471

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2017 in Case R 872/2016-1

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 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2017168EN.01003301.xml

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/33

---

Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Romantik Hotels & Restaurants v EUIPO — Hotel Preidlhof (ROMANTIK)

(Case T-213/17)

(2017/C 168/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Romantik Hotels & Restaurants AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: S. Hofmann and W. Göpfert, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hotel Preidlhof GmbH (Naturns, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ROMANTIK’ — EU trade mark No 2 527 109

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2017 in Case R 1257/2016-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as the declaration that EU trade mark No 2 527 109 ‘ROMANTIK’ (a word mark) is invalid is confirmed in that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as the declaration that EU trade mark No 2 527 109 ‘ROMANTIK’ (a word mark) is invalid is confirmed in that decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) thereof;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 52(2) thereof. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 52(2) thereof.

---
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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) by CapSource Financial, Inc.
(Registrant), I, Fred C. Boethling, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Registrant, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, 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, as amended, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has
been provided to CapSource Financial, Inc. and will be retained by CapSource Financial,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|Date: November 16, 2005 | By: | /s/ Fred C. Boethling                    
|----------------------- | --- | -----------------------------------------
|                        |     |                                          
|                        |     | Fred C. Boethling
Chief Executive Officer

---
#### Columbus Cooper, Petitioner for leave to enter an Appeal from a decree of the Judge of Probate.

An appeal lies from the judgment of the Probate Court, giving an allowance to the widow — though the amount to be allowed is a matter of discretion in the Judge.

This was a petition for leave to enter an appeal .from a decree of the Judge of Probate.

The facts appear in the opinion of the Court.

*May,*for the petitioner.

*Emery,*for the respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

There is no doubt an appeal lies from every decision of the Judge of Probate. This Court are disposed to respect the exercise of the sound discretion of the Judge of Probate, in all cases. The allowance, *to*the widow, in this case, was one thousand dollars. We think the Judge of Probate was not in. the full possession of all the facts in relation to the outstanding debts, sufficient for the exercise of a sound discretion — and that he erred in the allowance made.
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.
 Small Business Administration [Declaration of Disaster #3339]
 As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on May 11, 2001, I 
                    ( print page 27721)
                    find that Buffalo, Burnett, Crawford, Douglas, Grant, La Crosse, Pepin, Pierce, St. Croix, Trempealeau and Vernon Counties in the State of Wisconsin constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by flooding occurring between April 10, 2001 and continuing. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on July 10, 2001 and for economic injury until the close of business on February 11, 2002 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308. In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the following contiguous counties in Wisconsin may be filed until the specified date at the above location: Barron, Bayfield, Dunn, Eau Clair, Iowa, Jackson, Juneau, Lafayette, Monroe, Polk, Richland, Sauk, Sawyer and Washburn; and Carlton, Chisago, Dakota, Goodhue, Houston, Pine, St. Louis, Wabasha, Washington and Winona Counties in the State of Minnesota. The interest rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
6.625Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.312Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
8.000Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Others (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
7.125For Economic Injury:Businesses and Small Agriculture Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 333906. For economic injury the numbers assigned are 9L6900 for Wisconsin and 9L7000 for Minnesota. Iowa counties and Illinois counties contiguous to the above named primary counties are not listed here because they have been previously declared. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008) Dated: May 14, 2001. Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 01-12584 Filed 5-17-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# C_2018013EN.01002702.xml

| 15.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/27

---

Action brought on 30 October 2017 — Trasys International and Axianseu Digital Solutions v EASA

(Case T-741/17)

(2018/C 013/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Trasys International GEIE (Brussels, Belgium) and Axianseu Digital Solutions SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: L. Masson and G. Tilman, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The parties claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision taken on 28 August 2017 for the European Aviation Safety Agency by its director, in the context of the contract entitled ‘EASA.2017.HVP.08: IT Application & Infrastructure Management Services — ITAIMS’ ...; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken on 28 August 2017 for the European Aviation Safety Agency by its director, in the context of the contract entitled ‘EASA.2017.HVP.08: IT Application & Infrastructure Management Services — ITAIMS’ ...;

| — | consequently, annul the implied decision not to award the various framework contracts to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul the implied decision not to award the various framework contracts to the applicants;

| — | order the EASA to pay the entire costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EASA to pay the entire costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons in the contested decision, with a price which appears to be abnormally low.

---
Exhibit
32.2


Certification
of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) of United States 12 Month Oil Fund, LP (the
“Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Howard Mah, the Chief Financial Officer of United States Commodity
Funds LLC, General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my
knowledge, that:




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




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




Date:  November
      9, 2010
                  By:
                  /s/
      Howard MahName:
                    Title:
                  Howard
      Mah
                    Chief
      Financial Officer
                    United
      States Commodity Funds LLC,
                    General
      Partner of United States 12 Month Oil Fund,
LP
# C_2018022EN.01005601.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/56

---

Action brought on 21 November 2017 — Septona v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (welly)

(Case T-763/17)

(2018/C 022/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Septona AVEE (Oinofyta, Greece) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

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: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘welly’ — Application for registration No 13 085 519

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 in Case R 1525/2016-1

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.

---
600365904 

Bloomberg SEF LLC 731 Lexington Avenue Tel +1 212 318 2000 

New York, NY 10022 bloombergsef.com 

November 24, 2021 

Submitted via Portal 

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

Re: Bloomberg SEF LLC – Certification 2021-R-09 (Notice to Participants) 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

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 “Commission”), 

Bloomberg SEF LLC (“Bloomberg SEF”) hereby notifies the Commission that Bloomberg SEF 

released the Notice to Participants attached hereto on November 24, 2021 (the “Notice”). 

The Notice informed Participants about upcoming changes to Bloomberg SEF LIBOR contracts. 

BSEF hereby certifies that: (i) the amended Rulebook complies with the Act and the 

Commission’s regulations thereunder, and (ii) a notice and copy of this submission was posted 

on the Bloomberg SEF’s website. There were no substantive opposing views to the Notice to 

Participants. 

The Notice is effective as of December 09, 2021. 
Please contact the undersigned at (212) 617-8302 with any questions regarding this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

 

Gregory Dumark 

Interim Chief Compliance Officer 

Bloomberg SEF LLC 

731 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Enclosures
Bloomberg SEF LLC 2021-1 

Notice to Participants 

Bloomberg SEF CHF LIBOR, GBP LIBOR, JPY LIBOR 

Please note that effective December 05, 2021, the following contracts will be ineligible for 

clearing and will be delisted on BSEF: 

 CHF LIBOR Fixed-to-Floating Swap Contract 

 JPY LIBOR Fixed-to-Floating Swap Contract 

Please also note that effective December 19, 2021, the following contract will be ineligible for 

clearing and will be delisted on BSEF: 

 GBP LIBOR Fixed-to-Floating Swap Contract 

Capitalized terms used, but not defined herein, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the 

Bloomberg SEF Rulebook. 

Effective Date: December 09, 2021
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12923]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel.
    Date: May 25, 2001.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn Hotel, 30 Whalley Avenue, New Haven, CT 
06511.
    Contact Person: Michael A Oxman, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4112, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301/435-3565, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b1dec9dcd0dfdcf1dcd0d8dd9fdfd8d99fd6dec7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="741b0c19151a193419151d185a1a1d1c5a131b02">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine, 93.306; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 16, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-12923 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40040 Conference Calendar

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARNOLD G. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:89-CR-178-2

- - - - - - - - - - (October 17, 1995) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Arnold G. Thomas appeals the denial of an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 484 to the Sentencing Guidelines. In the alternative, Thomas argues that Amendment 371 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.11 should have been used to calculate his sentence. Amendment 484 changed application note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 by explaining that the term "mixture or substance" does notNo. 95-40040 -2- include materials that must be separated from the controlled substance before the controlled substance can be used. U.S.S.G. App. C. amend. 484 (Nov. 1993). Amendment 484 has been given retroactive effect. Id. ; see § 1B1.10(d) (Nov. 1993). However, Thomas's base offense level was determined by the amount of drugs that could have been produced from the 550 pounds of phenylacetic acid that the conspiracy sought to purchase. Thomas did not contend that the phenylacetic acid contained waste products. Amendment 484 is not applicable to Thomas's case. Thomas's § 2D1.11 argument was not raised in the district court. "[I]ssues raised for the first time on appeal are not reviewable by this court unless they involve purely legal questions and failure to consider them would result in manifest injustice." Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991) (internal quotations and citation omitted). In any event, the argument is meritless. See United States v. O'Leary , 35 F.3d 153, 154-55 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Bellazerius , 24 F.3d 698, 703 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 375 (1994). The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.