alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018427EN.01005701.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/57

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Sevenfriday v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENFRIDAY)

(Case T-448/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SEVENFRIDAY - Earlier EU word mark SEVEN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sevenfriday AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Mostardini, F. Mellucci, S. Pallavicini and G. Bellomo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2017 (Case R 2291/2016-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Seven and Sevenfriday.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sevenfriday AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sevenfriday AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BASELINE ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.

,

Appellant,

v.

CHARLES CONDIT

,

Appelle e

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 120

- CV

Appeal from the

358 t h District Court

of Ector County, Texas

( TC# D

- 19

- 09

- 1254

- CV )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appell ant ’s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until September 18, 2020 . NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE THE APPE LLANT ’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ordered that the Hon. Jody S. Sanders

, the Appell ant ’s attorney, prepare the

Appell ant ’s Brief and forward the same to this Court on or before September 18 , 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14 th day of August , 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
#### Dianne M. Haley, Appellant, v Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from the denial at Special Term of *528her application for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to subdivision (5) of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. Plaintiff was injured when she fell down a stairwell in a State University dormitory. Plaintiff offered a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a late notice of claim because her counsel was misadvised by the Attorney-General regarding the proper party defendant *(see, Nordman v East Greenbush Cent. School Dist.,*75 AD2d 958; *Robb v New York City Hous. Auth.,*71 AD2d 1000). Defendant received actual knowledge of plaintiff’s claim shortly after the 90-day statutory period and has failed to establish any prejudice if the motion is granted *(see,*General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; *Barnes v County of Onondaga,*103 AD2d 624, *affd*65 NY2d 664; *Matter of Gerzel v City of New York,*117 AD2d 549; *Matter of Jakubowicz v Dunkirk Urban Renewal Agency,*75 AD2d 1019; *Matter of Wemett v County of Onondaga,*64 AD2d 1025). Under these circumstances it was an abuse of discretion to deny petitioner’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cook, J.—late notice of claim.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Order entered November 26, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00191-CV

BALTASAR D. CRUZ, Appellant

V.

JAMES VAN SICKLE, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-09275

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s November 21, 2013 unopposed motion for an extension of time 

to file a reply brief. Appellant shall file his reply brief on or before January 9, 2014.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
# C_2018436EN.01004601.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — Next design+produktion v EUIPO — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuuna)

(Case T-533/17) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark - Earlier EU word marks NANU and NANU-NANA - Relative ground for refusal - Assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001] - Complementarity of the goods - Principles of autonomy and independence of the EU trade mark - Principles of compliance with the law and sound administration - Legal certainty))

(2018/C 436/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Next design+produktion GmbH (Frankfurt-on-Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2017 (Case R 1448/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp and Next design+produktion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Next design+produktion GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Next design+produktion GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.

---
Amendment to Deposit Account Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.1 

AMENDMENT TO DEPOSIT ACCOUNT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT TO DEPOSIT ACCOUNT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of the
13th day of November, 2008 by and between The Bank of New
York Mellon, in its capacity as trustee of the
CurrencySharesSM Japanese Yen Trust, a trust formed under
New York law (the “Trust”) and the London Branch of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “Bank”). 

W I T N E S S E T H 

WHEREAS, The Trust and the Bank are parties to that certain Deposit Account Agreement dated February 1, 2007 (the
“Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement on the terms and conditions set
forth below. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein, the parties hereto agree
as follows: 
 1. Definitions. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed
thereto in the Agreement. 
 2. Amendment. Section 6.4 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

 “The Bank reserves the right not to accept, and to return without interest to the remitter of funds, the amounts
received for deposit to the Interest Account on any Bank business day, if the aggregate deposit liability of the Bank to the Trust following the deposit of such amounts would exceed the Japanese Yen equivalent of $2.75 BILLION U.S. Dollars
calculated at the Japanese Yen/U.S. dollar exchange rate as determined by WM/Reuters at 4:00 PM (London time) on each Bank business day (the “Closing Spot Rate”) or another recognized market rate for the Japanese Yen if the Closing
Spot Rate is not available on the bank day such deposits are received by the Bank.” 
 3. Counterparts. This
Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 

4. Other. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the terms of the Agreement, the terms of this
Amendment shall control. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 [Signature
Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have signed and delivered this Amendment as of the date
hereof. 
  

			
	CURRENCYSHARES JAPANESE YEN TRUST,
		
	By:	 	The Bank of New York, in its capacity as Trustee of the CurrencyShares Japanese Yen Trust and not in its individual capacity.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Andrew Pfeifer
	Name:	 	Andrew Pfeifer
	Title:	 	Vice President
	
	JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., LONDON BRANCH
		
	By:	 	/s/ Michael G. Davisson
	Name:	 	Michael G. Davisson
	Title:	 	Vice President
# C_2017374EN.01003701.xml

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/37

---

Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Sánchez Valverde e Hijos v SRB

(Case T-515/17)

(2017/C 374/55)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sánchez Valverde e Hijos, SA (Montcada Reixac, Spain) (represented by: E. Silva Pacheco, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, with effect ex tunc, thereby rendering it invalid and devoid of effects; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, with effect ex tunc, thereby rendering it invalid and devoid of effects;

| — | Order the payment of compensation to the applicant in the amount of EUR 508 505,50. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the payment of compensation to the applicant in the amount of EUR 508 505,50.

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

---
(104 So. 340)

#### Ex parte Mark McNARON.

(6 Div. 419.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 14, 1925.)

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

M. B. Grace and E. D. McArthur, both of Birmingham, for petitioner.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Petition of Mark MeNaron for certiorari to Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in McNaron v. State, 20 Ala. App. 529, 104 So. 339.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. *J.,*and SAYRE, GARDNER, and MILLER, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.2



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-127656), relating to the 2005 Stock Option
Plan of Houston American Energy Corp., and on Form S-3 (File No. 333-134756), of
our report dated March 27, 2008 relating to the financial statements of Houston
American Energy Corp. that appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Houston
American Energy for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/ Malone & Bailey, PC

Malone & Bailey, PC
www.malone-bailey.com
HOUSTON, TEXAS
JUNE 19, 2008
RTX Fintech & Research LLC

90 Broad Street, Suite 402

New York, NY 10004

August 31, 2023

By Upload to CFTC Portal

Secretary of the Commission

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

Re: Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments 

Dear Secretary Kirkpatrick:

RTX Fintech & Research LLC (RTX SEF) submits this Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments in 

accordance with 17 CFR 40.6(d). Below is a summary notice of all rule amendments made effective 

during the week of August 28, 2023. These changes are non-substantive revisions under 17 CFR 

40.6(d)(2)(i).

Summary Notice of All Rule Amendments Made Effective the Week of 8/28/23

DOCUMENT AMENDMENT EFFECTIVE DATE

RTX SEF Rulebook Rule 515(c): for the time to reverse and resubmit a trade being carried on 

the books of a DCO in error upon an affirmative finding of the error trade, 

we clarified that a reference to “three days” means “three business days.”

August 30, 2023

RTX SEF Rulebook Rule 603(a)(vii): we changed “®” to “TM” for the “Request for Trade.” August 30, 2023

RTX SEF Rulebook Rules 1301 and 1304: we added language needed to list our products. August 30, 2023

RTX SEF Rulebook Attachment A: after referencing an “Attachment A” in Rule 1304 that 

contains the terms and conditions of our products, we have listed our 

products in this attachment (prior to doing so, we made the appropriate 

filings with the CFTC and website postings)

August 30, 2023

Please direct questions about this submission to RTX SEF’s Chief Compliance Officer Glenn Chaleff at 

(917) 694-4856 or glenn@rtxfintech.com.

Sincerely,

Glenn Chaleff

Chief Compliance Officer
# C_2019148EN.01004801.xml

| 29.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — TK v Parliament

(Case T-446/17) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary agents - Change in the activities assigned - Concept of concern - Invitation to an interview - Concept of proceedings - Allegation of psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Liability - Non-material damage)

(2019/C 148/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TK (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially E. Taneva and M. Rantala, acting as Agents, then E. Taneva, C. González Argüelles and D. Boytha, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the President of the Parliament of 26 August 2016 rejecting the applicant’s requests of 28 April 2016 and compensation for non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as well as annulment of the decision of the General Secretary of the Parliament of 26 April 2017, in so far as it rejects the application for compensation of non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant, and compensation for that damage.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders TK to bear, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders TK to bear, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Jeff ALMOND, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6951.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 30, 2013.

Decided: Oct. 9, 2013.

William Jeff Almond, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Jeff Almond seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion and petition for a writ of eoram nobis.* The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” *Id.*§ 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Almond has not made the requisite showing. Almond raises an unresolved question in this circuit whether § 2255 bars a prisoner from filing a second habeas petition when intervening precedent has vindicated the argument rejected in the prisoner’s first habeas petition. *See Gilbert v. United States,*640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir.2011). In light of the posture of this case, however, we need not and do not reach that question. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 The district court properly concluded that the limited remedy of coram nobis was not available to Almond. *See United States v. Akinsade, 686*F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir.2012).
KPMG

KPMG LLP

Suite 2300

401 South Tryon Street

Three First Union Center

Charlotte, NC 28202-1911

Independent Accountants' Report

 

The Board of Directors

Wachovia Bank National Association:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying report, that the Commercial Real Estate Servicing Division of Wachovia Bank National Association (the Bank) complied with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's (MBA's) Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers, except for minimum servicing standards V.4. and VI.I., which the MBA has interpreted as being inapplicable to the servicing of commercial and multifamily loans, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003. Management is responsible for the Bank's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Bank's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American   Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence   about the Bank's compliance with the minimum servicing standards specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Bank's compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Bank has complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003 is fairly stated, in all material       respects.

KPMG LLP

March 10, 2004

KPMG LLP, KPMG LLP, a US limeted liability partnership, is

A member of KPMG International, a Swiss association
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2306 

To amend titles XI and XIX of the Social Security Act to strengthen the 

Medicaid program in Puerto Rico, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 12, 2019 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́N of Puerto Rico introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend titles XI and XIX of the Social Security Act 

to strengthen the Medicaid program in Puerto Rico, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Puerto Rico Medicaid 

5 Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF STATUTORY FMAP LIMITATION FOR 

7 PUERTO RICO. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1905(b)(2) of the Social 

9 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)(2)) is amended by strik10 ing ‘‘Puerto Rico,’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2306 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to medical assist3 ance furnished in calendar quarters beginning on or after 

4 October 1, 2019. 

5 SEC. 3. INCREASE TO CAP ON AMOUNTS RECOGNIZED 

6 UNDER TITLE XIX FOR PUERTO RICO. 

7 Section 1108(g)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 1308(g)(2)(A)) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘shall not exceed’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘shall not exceed— 

11 ‘‘(i) for a fiscal year before fiscal year 

12 2020, and for fiscal year 2022 and each 

13 subsequent fiscal year,’’; 

14 (2) by striking the semicolon at the end and in15 serting ‘‘; and’’; and 

16 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

17 clause: 

18 ‘‘(ii) for each of fiscal years 2020 and 

19 2021, $2,650,000,000;’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS