alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018436EN.01001501.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2018 — Claire Staelen v European Ombudsman

(Case C-45/18 P) (1)

((Appeal - Application for revision - Conditions for admissibility))

(2018/C 436/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Claire Staelen (represented by: V. Olona, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman (represented by: L. Papadias and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ms Claire Staelen to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Claire Staelen to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018

---
#### 1ST MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC., Harmonix Music System, Inc. and Viacom, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2010-1435.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 28, 2010.

Robert P. Greenspoon, Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC, Chicago, IL, for 1st Media, LLC.

Patrick L. Patras, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL, for Electronic Arts, Inc., Har-monix Music System, Inc. and Viacom, Inc.

B. Trent Webb, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Kansas City, MO, for Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc.

Before SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

ON MOTION

ORDER

1st Media, LLC moves without opposition to stay proceedings in this appeal pending this court’s en banc disposition *in Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,*2008-1511.

1st Media asserts that this case and *Therasense*involve the same issue, specifically what standards govern in inequitable conduct cases.

We note that oral argument in *Thera-sense*is currently set for November 9, 2010.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion to stay is granted. 1st Media is directed to inform the court within 30 days of the disposition of *Therasense*how it believes this appeal should proceed. The appellees may also respond within that time.

(2) A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the en banc court to inform it of this related appeal.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Airspace Docket No. 2001-ASW-05]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of a direct final rule which revises the Class E Airspace, Bay City, TX.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

The direct final rule published at 66 FR 16118 is effective 0901 UTC, July 12, 2001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 817-222-5593.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 23, 2001, (66 FR 16118). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a noncontroversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on July 12, 2001. No adverse comments were received, and, thus, this action confirms that this direct final rule will be effective on that date.                

Issued in Fort Worth, TX on May 17, 2001.

Robert N. Stevens,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.

[FR Doc. 01-13308 Filed 5-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### In the Matter of Shawn L. Walker, Respondent, v Jeannie Hamlett, Appellant.

Submitted December 28, 2009;

decided February 16, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain it *(see*CPLR 5602).
---

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David K. Ryan, the Principal Accounting Officer of Yaterra
Ventures Corp. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2009, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                      

| | By:    | /s/
      David K. Ryan       
| | ------ | ------------------------------
| |        |                               
| | Name:  | DAVID K. RYAN                 
| |        |                               
| | Title: | Vice President, Finance       
| |        | (Principal Accounting Officer)
| |        |                               
| | Date:  | July
      15, 2009           

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
#### SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, Appellant v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., In his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et al., Appellees.

No. 11-5256.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Oct. 2, 2013.

Thomas Ryan McCarthy, Bertram Walter Rein, William Spencer Consovoy, Brendan John Morrissey, Esquire, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellant.

Diana Katherine Flynn, Sarah Elaine Harrington, Ronald C. Machen, Jr., Esquire, Linda Frances Thome, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

*2Before: TATEL and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

*JUDGMENT*

Upon consideration of the opinion of the Supreme Court in *Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder,*— U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2612, 186 L.Ed.2d 651 (2013), and the motions of appellant and appellees to govern future proceedings, it is

ORDERED that this court’s judgment filed May 18, 2012, be vacated. It is

FURTHER ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be vacated and the case remanded with instructions to enter a declaratory judgment in favor of Shelby County on its claim that it is unconstitutional to use the Section 4(b) formula to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5, and dismissing Shelby County’s constitutional challenge to Section 5 as moot.

The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
# C_2019093EN.01005001.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 January 2019 — RY v Commission

(Case T-160/17) (1)

((Civil service - Temporary staff - Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - Open-ended contract - Dismissal - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Right to be heard - Burden of proof))

(2019/C 93/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RY (represented initially by J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, and subsequently by J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of 27 April 2016 terminating the applicant’s open-ended contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 27 April 2016 terminating RY’s open-ended contract; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 27 April 2016 terminating RY’s open-ended contract;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CHRISTOPHER M. OLSEN AND

CATHY A. OLSEN,

Appellants,

v.

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS (MERS),

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00258

- CV

Appeal from

126th District Court

of Travis County, Texas

(TC # D

- 1

- GN

- 13

- 003043)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on Appellee Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems’ (MERS) motion to dismiss and concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of thi s Court. We

therefore dismiss the appeal. We further order costs be assessed against the party incurring

same. We further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J., (Senior Judge)

(Barajas, C.J., Senior Judge, sitting by assignment, not participating)
26 May 2023

US Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Attention: FOIA Compliance Office

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

RE: FOIA Request for Confidential Treatment

Dear Sir/Madam:

In accordance with Commission Regulation 145.9(d), LCH SA (“LCH”) respectfully requests 

confidential treatment under the Freedom of Information Act (the “FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for the

following LCH SA document attached to the self-certification submission filed on today: LCH SA 

Liquidity Risk Modelling Framework (V6.0) (the “Information”).

LCH SA is requesting confidential treatment for the Information pursuant to Commission Regulation 

145.9(d)(ii), which provides that confidential treatment may be requested on the grounds that 

disclosure would reveal trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information. LCH

further requests that the Information receives confidential treatment in perpetuity.

This request is not to be construed as a waiver of any other protection from disclosure or confidential 

treatment accorded by law, and LCH will rely on and invoke any such confidentiality protection. LCH

SA requests notification from the Commission in advance of any disclosure of the Information 

pursuant to the FOIA or the Commission’s Rules of Practice so that this request for confidential 

treatment may be substantiated.

Yours sincerely,

Carole Uzan

Chief Compliance Officer

carole.uzan@lseg.com

+33 (0)1 86 47 64 82
# C_2020230EN.01000801.xml

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 April 2020 — Gugler France v Alexander Gugler, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-736/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Figurative mark containing the word element GUGLER - Application for a declaration of invalidity brought by Gugler France SA - Economic link between the party seeking a declaration of invalidity and the proprietor of the contested mark - No likelihood of confusion)

(2020/C 230/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Gugler France (represented by: S. Guerlain, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Alexander Gugler (represented by: M.-C. Simon, Rechtsanwältin), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Gugler France SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Alexander Gugler and by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in relation to the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gugler France SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Alexander Gugler and by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in relation to the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---
#### Katherine WHITE, Appellant, v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; Lockheed Martin Corporation Long Term Disability Plan, Appellees.

No. 09-3630.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 24, 2010.

Filed: June 1, 2010.

Katherine White, Harrison, AR, pro se.

Leigh Anne Yeargan, Mitchell & Williams, Rogers, AR, for Appellees.

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Katherine White appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit arising from the disposition of her claims for short-term-disability (STD) and long-term-disability (LTD) benefits. Upon de novo review, *see Darvell v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.,*597 F.3d 929, 934 (8th Cir.2010) (standard of review), we find that summary judgment was proper on the STD benefits decision, as the record showed that White did not file a timely administrative appeal and thus did not exhaust her administrative remedies, *see Price v. Xerox Corp.,*445 F.3d 1054, 1057 (8th Cir. 2006). As to the denial of LTD benefits, we find no abuse of discretion. *See Jackson v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,*530 F.3d 696, 701 (8th Cir.2008) (plan administrator’s decision should not be disturbed when administrator offers reasonable explanation and decision is supported by substantial evidence) White offered evidence showing that she was diagnosed with, and received ongoing treatment for, interstitial cystitis and fibromyalgia, but she failed to offer sufficient evidence that these conditions rendered her disabled under the terms of her plan. *See Darvell,*597 F.3d at 935 (it is not abuse of discretion for administrator to ignore opinion when physician failed to provide reliable objective evidence to support finding of LTD); *Midgett v. Wash. Group Int'l Long Term Disability Plan,*561 F.3d 887, 897 (8th Cir.2009) (courts may not require plan administrators automatically to give special weight to opinions of claimant’s treating physicians); *see also Rutledge v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston,*481 F.3d 655, 660-61 (8th Cir.2007) (ERISA plan administrator is not bound by Social Security Administration’s determination that plan participant is disabled even if plan defines disability similarly). We decline to consider the arguments White raises for the first time on appeal. *See Cole v. Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am.,*533 F.3d 932, 936 (8th Cir.2008). Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
# C_2018042EN.01003401.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/34

---

Action brought on 1 December 2017 — GE Healthcare v Commission

(Case T-783/17)

(2018/C 042/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: GE Healthcare A/S (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: D. Scannell, Barrister, G. Castle and S. Oryszczuk, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision C(2017) 7941 final of 23 November 2017 suspending the applicant’s marketing authorisations for Omniscan (INN gadodiamide); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision C(2017) 7941 final of 23 November 2017 suspending the applicant’s marketing authorisations for Omniscan (INN gadodiamide);

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to the present matter. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to the present matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1)

1

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the precautionary principle. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the precautionary principle.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of non-discrimination.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is in any event disproportionate. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is in any event disproportionate.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the general principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the general principle of good administration.

---

(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. RP97-369-016 and RP98-39-023]

Take notice that on May 18, 2001, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) submitted worksheets reflecting the distribution of refunds paid to jurisdictional sales customers on February 9, 2001.

Northern states that these refunds are being made pursuant to the Commission's Order in Public Service Company of Colorado, et al., Docket Nos. RP97-369-000, et al., and the Commission's Order Approving Settlement in Northern Natural Gas Company, Docket No. RP98-39-000.

Northern states that a copy of this report is being mailed to each of Northern's affected jurisdictional sales customers and state commissions.

                    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before June 1, 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 proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm*.                

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-13598  Filed 5-30-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M