alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019044EN.01003501.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese)

(Case T-417/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese - Earlier United Kingdom certification word mark HALLOUMI - Rejection of the opposition - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Papouis Dairies Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2017 (Case R 2650/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 April 2017 (Case R 2650/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 April 2017 (Case R 2650/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies Ltd;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Cyprus; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Cyprus;

| 3. | Orders Papouis Dairies to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Papouis Dairies to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.

---
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 7-3 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 7-3 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 7-3 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 3 of 3
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2




SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE

BOB EVANS FARMS, INC. AND AFFILIATES

THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN




     This Second Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Bob Evans Farms, Inc. and Affiliates Third
Amended and Restated Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) is effective as of August
24, 2010.



     WHEREAS, Bob Evans Farms, Inc. (the “Corporation”) maintains the Plan; and



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.01 of the Plan, the Corporation desires to amend the Plan to
conform the definition of “Cause” contained in the Plan with the definition of “Cause” contained in
the Bob Evans Farms, Inc. 2010 Equity and Cash Incentive Plan; and



     WHEREAS, Section 8.01 of the Plan requires that the Corporation obtain the consent of any
Member (as defined in the Plan) to an amendment if the amendment affects the Member’s vested rights
accrued under the Plan;



     NOW, THEREFORE, subject to the consent of any Member against whom such provision shall be
applied, Section 2.04 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is
substituted therefor:




2.04 Cause. Unless otherwise specified in any employment agreement between the
Member and the Corporation or any other Group Member or in any change in control
agreement between the Member and the Corporation or any other Group Member (but only
within the context of the events contemplated by the employment agreement or change
in control agreement, as applicable), a Member’s:




	 	(1)	 	Willful and continued failure to substantially perform assigned duties;
	 
	 	(2)	 	Gross misconduct;
	 
	 	(3)	 	Breach of any term of any agreement with the Corporation or any other
Group Member, including the Plan;
	 
	 	(4)	 	Conviction of (or plea of no contest or nolo contendre to) (a) a felony
or a misdemeanor that originally was charged as a felony but which was
subsequently reduced to a misdemeanor through negotiation with the charging
entity or (b) a crime other than a felony, which involves a breach of trust or
fiduciary duty owed to the Corporation or any other Group Member; or
	 
	 	(5)	 	Violation of any policy of the Corporation or any other Group Member
that applies to the Member.






Notwithstanding the foregoing, Cause will not arise solely because the Member is absent
from active employment during periods of vacation, consistent with the Corporation’s or
any Group Member’s applicable vacation policy, or other period of absence approved by the
Corporation or other Group Member.

















 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Amendment to be executed by its
duly authorized officer effective as of the date set forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	BOB EVANS FARMS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Joe Eulberg
 	 
	 	 	Joe Eulberg, Executive Vice President – Human Resources
#### In the Matter of: ALPINE PCS, INC., Alpine PCS, Inc., Appellant v. Federal Communications Commission, Appellee.

No. 09-5293.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 21, 2010.

Frederick M. Joyce, Venable, LLP, Washington, DC, Lawrence A. Katz, Vena-ble, LLP, Vienna, VA, for Appellant.

Kelsi Brown Corkran, James Christopher Kohn, Lloyd H. Randolph, H. Thomas Byron, III, William Gordon Kanter, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Martha L. Davis, Office of the United States Trustee, Alexandria, VA, for Appel-lee.

Before: GINSBURG and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges, and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge.

*JUDGMENT*

This appeal was considered on the record and on the briefs and the oral arguments of the parties. Although the issues presented occasion no need for a published opinion, they have been accorded full consideration by the Court. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(d). For the reasons stated below, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

To the extent issues raised here were raised before the district and bankruptcy courts, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons stated in the opinion of the bankruptcy court. Insofar as the appellant argues its request for debt restructuring suspended the automatic cancellation rule, 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)(iv), that argument is not properly before us because the appellant did not argue it until the reply brief. *See MBI Group, Inc. v. Credit Foncier Du Cameroun,*616 F.3d 568, 575 (D.C.Cir.2010). Insofar as the appellant claims a right to offset its debt owed to the Commission from proceeds obtained in the auc*505tion for new licenses to use the same spectrum, we have no occasion to resolve that issue because there are as of yet no such proceeds.

The Clerk is directed to -withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1296

FLORENCE N. GWANYALLA, Petitioner,
v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 26, 2008 Decided: October 31, 2008 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sopo Ngwa, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Glen T. Jaeger, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Florence N. Gwanyalla, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for relief from removal. Gwanyalla first challenges the determination that she failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Gwanyalla fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Gwanyalla cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Gwanyalla failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Cameroon. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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. PETITION DENIED
Refinitiv US SEF LLC

28 Liberty Street – 58th Floor

New York, NY 10005

www.refinitiv.com

1

November 5, 2021

SUBMITTED VIA PORTAL

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20581 

Re: Submission 21-A: Refinitiv US SEF LLC – Notice to Participants 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) Regulation 40.6(a), 

Refinitiv US SEF LLC (“RSEF”) hereby self-certifies the Notice to Participants attached as 

Exhibit B. The Notice to Participants clarifies that RSEF only facilitates the execution of swaps 

(including non-deliverable forwards) listed by RSEF that are not intended to be cleared, and that 

any decision to clear trades executed on RSEF is considered to be made post-trade and without 

Refinitiv SEF’s involvement. The Notice to Participants will become effective on November 19, 

2021.

A concise explanation and analysis of the Notice to Participants and its compliance with applicable 

provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA”) is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the 

Notice to Participants itself is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

RSEF hereby certifies that: (i) the Notice to Participants complies with the CEA and the 

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

concurrently posted on RSEF’s website. No substantive opposing views were expressed with 

respect to the Notice to Participants.

Please contact me using the information below if you have any questions regarding the Notice to 

Participants.

Michael W. Rooney

28 Liberty Street – 58th Floor

New York, NY 10005

Phone: (646) 223-7397

Email: Michael.w.rooney@refinitiv.com
2

Sincerely, 

Michael W. Rooney

Chief Compliance Officer

cc: Nancy Markowitz, Deputy Director, Division of Market Oversight, Market Review 

Branch

Marilee Dahlman, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight

(Commodity Futures Trading Commission)
3

EXHIBIT A

Explanation and Analysis of Notice to Participants

Rule and Explanation Relevant Law, Regulation or

Guidance

Notice to Participants

Clarifies that RSEF only facilitates the execution of swaps 

(including non-deliverable forwards) listed by RSEF that are 

not intended to be cleared, and that any decision to clear 

trades executed on RSEF is considered to be made post-trade 

and without Refinitiv SEF’s involvement.

Core Principle 7
4

EXHIBIT B

Notice to Participants
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATE
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**




**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of NS8 Corporation (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ricardo Rosado, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(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 respect,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






*/s/
                Ricardo Rosado*
              *Principal
                Financial Officer*
              *April
                16, 2007*
ex10-2.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 


As of August [__], 2010












Hoku Corporation


1288 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 220


Honolulu, Hawaii 96814


Attention: Chief Executive Officer







Re:           Financing Costs Reimbursement







Ladies and Gentlemen:







Reference is made to the Credit Agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) dated as of the date hereof between Hoku Corporation, as borrower (“Hoku”) and China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd., New York Branch, as lender (the “Lender”).  Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Credit Agreement.







As an inducement and condition to the Lender’s willingness to provide a term credit facility in an aggregate principal amount of up to $5,000,000 to Hoku on the terms and conditions set forth in the Credit Agreement, Hoku has requested its parent company, Tianwei New Energy Holdings Co., Ltd. (“Tianwei”), and Tianwei has agreed, to procure a standby letter of credit (the “Letter of Credit”) in favor of the Lender to secure Hoku’s obligations to the Lender pursuant to the Credit Agreement.  In addition, Tianwei procured a standby letter of credit (together with the Letter of Credit, the “Letters of Credit”) in favor of the Lender to secure Hoku’s obligations to the Lender pursuant to a Credit Agreement, dated as of August 16, 2010, between Hoku and Tianwei.







In consideration of Tianwei’s procuring the Letter of Credit, Hoku agrees to reimburse Tianwei for all interest, fees and expenses incurred by Tianwei pursuant to the Letter of Credits and all other interest, fees and expenses (including reasonable counsel fees) incurred by Tianwei in connection with the negotiation, execution or performance of the Letter of Credits (collectively, the “Reimbursement Obligations”), by promptly paying all amounts of the Reimbursement Obligations requested by Tianwei in immediately available funds to the bank account specified by Tianwei.







This letter agreement will become effective upon the execution and delivery hereof.  This letter agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of hereof.







This letter agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of the State of New York, without regard to the conflicts of law rules of such state.







[Remainder of page is intentionally blank]









  





  











  






















	 	Very truly yours,	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	
TIANWEI NEW ENERGY HOLDINGS CO., LTD.

	 
	 	
By:

	
/s/ Zhengfei Gao

	 
	 	  	
Name:

	
Zhengfei Gao

	 
	 	  	
Title:

	  	 





 



	 	Agreed and accepted:	 
	 	 	 
	 	
HOKU CORPORATION

	 
	 	
By:

	
/s/ Scott Paul

	 
	 	  	
Name:

	
Scott B. Paul

	 
	 	  	
Title:

	
President and Chief Executive Officer
153 So. 188

#### MONTGOMERY, Superintendent of Banks, v. TUCKER et al.

5 Div. 174.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 1, 1934.

*183Chas. S. Moon, of La Fayette, and Denison & Denson, of Opelika, for appellant.

James W. Strother, of Dadeville, for appellees.

BROWN, Justice.

This is an action of trover for the conversion of five bales of cotton produced by J. F. Higgins during the year 1930, on his farm in Chambers county, covered by a mortgage executed by Higgins to the Chambers -County Bank on the 4th day of January, 1930, to secure an indebtedness due and payable on the 1st day of November,-1930.

The complaint alleges that the cotton was converted by the defendants during the months of September and October, 1930.

The trial was by the court without the intervention of a jury on evidence taken ore tenus, and resulted in a judgment for the defendants.

The evidence shows that the cotton was sold and delivered to the defendants by Higgins in payment, or part payment, of a debt for guano furnished by defendants to Higgins in the year 1930, and that such sale and delivery and the disposition of the cotton by defendants was before *the*law day of the mortgage.

Therefore, in view of the undisputed evidence,'and the law as declared in Albertville Trading Co. v. Critcher, 216 Ala. 252, 112 So. 907; Johnson v. Wilson *& Co.,*137 Ala. 468, 34 So. 392, 97 Am. St. Rep. 52; and Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. First National Bank of Alexander City, 159 Ala. 315, 317, 49 So. 246, holding “that, in order to sustain the action of trover, the plaintiff must have *at the time of the alleged conversion*the right of *property;*that is, title, general or special, and the possession, or an immediate right óf possession,” the plaintiff could not maintain trover. (Italics supplied.)

*184Phillips v. Hartselle, 17 Ala. App. 79, 81 So. 857, was an action of detinue, in which plaintiff was entitled to recover if he show title and the right to possession at the time the suit was brought. This differentiates this case from the principle stated above.

 But regardless of the principle above stated, there was ample evidence to justify the conclusion that the mortgagee, through its cashier, consented that the mortgagor might deliver to the defendants sufficient of-his cotton covered by the mortgage to pay his guano debt, and if this was true the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Albertville Trading Co. v. Critcher, supra. This evidente was admissible under the general issue. Barrett v. City of Mobile et al., 129 Ala. 179, 30 So. 36, 87 Am. St. Rep. 54.

There was nothing in the evidence that tended to support defendants’ plea B, and whether the court erroneously overruled the demurrer to said plea or not, this was error without injury.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1



                            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 Annual Report of Commonwealth Energy Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending July 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Ian B.
Carter, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 result of operations of the Company.


Date: October 29, 2002                       By:       /s/ Ian B. Carter
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                          Ian B. Carter
                                                 Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                                        Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28158-28159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12778]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL01-79-000]


NSTAR Electric & Gas Corp., Complainant, v. Sithe Edgar LLC, 
Sithe New Boston LLC, Sithe Framingham LLC, Sithe West Medway LLC, 
Sithe Mystic, PG&E Energy Trading, Respondents; Notice of Complaint

May 16, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 14, 2001, NSTAR Electric & Gas Corporation 
filed a Complaint against suppliers within the Northeastern 
Massachusetts Area alleging the existence of unmitigated market power 
during period transmission congestion.
    Copies of said filing have been served upon NEPOOL Participants, 
the ISO New England, Inc., as well as upon the utility regulatory 
agencies of the six New England States.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this 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 motions or 
protests must be filed on or before June 4, 2001. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. 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 in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to the 
complaint shall also be due on or before June 4, 2001.
    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

[[Page 28159]]

on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-12778 Filed 5-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 21-4 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 21-4 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 21-4 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 21-4 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit No. 32.1


BTHC XIV, Inc.


File No. 0-52722


Form 10-Q


Quarter ended June 30, 2011








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 of BTHC XIV, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick D. Souter, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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.






Date: August 9, 2011
By:
/s/ Patrick D. SouterPatrick D. SouterChief Executive Officer,and Chief Financial Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BTHC XIV, Inc. and will be retained by BTHC XIV, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.