alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017283EN.01005201.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/52

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — BASF Grenzach ECHA

(Case T-125/17 R)

((Interim measures - REACH - Substance triclosan - Evaluation procedure - Decision of the Board of Appeal of the ECHA - Obligation to provide certain information requiring animal testing - Application for interim measures - No urgency))

(2017/C 283/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BASF Grenzach GmbH (Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany) (represented by: K. Nordlander and M. Abenhaïm, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: W. Broere, T. Röcke and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures to (i) suspend implementation of Decision A-018-2014 of the Board of Appeal of ECHA of 19 December 2016, relating to the substance evaluation of triclosan, and (ii) order the extension of the prescribed period to communicate the results of the tests for the duration of the suspension.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
### NUMBER 13-16-00487-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE JAMES HOLLAND

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides Per Curiam Order Relator, James Holland, filed a petition fo r writ of mandamus and motion to stay execution in the above cause on September 12, 2016 and Sept ember 13, 2016. Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to compel the trial court to vacate an order transferring venue of the underlying suit affect ing the parent-child relationship from DeWitt County, Texas to Hidalgo County, Texas. See generally T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN . §153.001 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). Through his motion to stay execution, relator seeks to transfer venue of this case back to DeWitt County pending resolution of this original proceeding.2 The Court, having examined and fully consider ed the motion to stay execution, is of the opinion that the motion should be denied at this time. The Court requests that the real party in interest, Eliza beth Castillo, or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days fr om the date of this order. See id. R. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. IT IS SO ORDERED. PER CURIAM Delivered and filed this 13th day of September, 2016.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3
No. 333-152833) of Synta Pharmaceuticals Corp. and in the related Prospectus, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-141903) pertaining to
the 2001 Stock Plan, the 2006 Stock Plan and the Non-qualified Stock Option Agreement dated May 27, 2004, and Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-152824) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 2006 Stock Plan of Synta Pharmaceuticals Corp., of our reports dated March 11, 2010, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Synta Pharmaceuticals Corp. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Synta Pharmaceuticals Corp. included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Boston,
Massachusetts
March 11, 2010

---



QuickLinks
#### Redgrave v. The Baptist Church.

1. Practice : *If notice of appeal*from a judgment be served upon the successful party and the clerk not until thirty days have expired from the rendition of the judgment, they are ineffectual to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal.

*D. Gantt*for the motion.

Lake, J.

A motion is made by the plaintiffs to dismiss this case on the ground that the notice of the appeal was not served within the time limited by the law regulating appeals to this court.

It appears that final judgment was rendered in the District Court on the 20th day of January last. The notices of the appeal were served upon the clerk and plaintiff respectively, on the 20th and 21st of the following May.

These notices were clearly insufficient to give this court jurisdiction. They ought to have been served within one month from the rendition of the judgment appealed from. *Sec.*675 *Code R. S. Nebraska.*

The appeal must be dismissed.

Motion sustained.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDMON WASHINGTON, an individual,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES; ERIC OLIVE, Officer, Los Angeles Police Department,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 55622

D.C. No.

2:17

- cv

- 02829

- PA

- FFM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 12, 2019

Pasadena, California

Before: KELLY, * * PAEZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Edmon Washington (“Washington”) appeals the district court’s

grant of summary j udgment on qualified immunity grounds of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action alleging use of excessive force by Defendant Eric Olive (“Olive”), a

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JAN 29 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S . COURT OF APPEALS2

Los Angeles Police Department officer . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 and review de nov o the district co urt’s determination that Olive is entitled

to qualified immunity. Glenn v. Washington Cty. , 673 F.3d 864, 870 (9th Cir.

2011). We affirm.

“In evaluating a grant of qualified immunity, we ask two questions:

(1) whether, taking the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the

officers’ conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was

clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.” Id. We may exercise

our discret ion to decide either prong first

. Pearson v. Callahan , 555 U.S. 223, 236

(2009). We begin with the second.

“The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the rights [he] claims were

‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation.” Robinson v. York , 566

F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2009) (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted).

Washington relies on three decisions : Glen n , 673 F.3d 864

, Deorle v. Rutherford

,

272 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001), and Booke v. C ounty of Fresno , 98 F. Supp. 3d

1103 (E.D. Cal. 2015) . None “ place [] the

. . . constitutional question [ implicated

by Olive’s conduct ] beyond debate. ” 1 Ashcroft v. a l

- Kidd , 563 U.S. 731, 74 1

(2011). Oliv e reasonably believed Washington was armed with an assault weapon

1 Because we conclude Booke does not place the constitutional question beyond debate, we need not consider whether a district court decision can clearly establish

the law.3

and, unlike the officers in Glenn

, Deorle

, or Booke

, here the officers provided

repeated , clear, and specific warnings to Washington that they would use less

lethal force if h e continued to resist their orders to l ie on the ground

. Washington

has not shown that Olive violated clearly established law. See Pearson , 555 U.S.

at 245.

Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Olive on

the basis of qualified immunity

.

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jennifer Domenico, Appellant, v United Way et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Submitted February 8, 2010;

decided March 30, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
#### John W. NAPPER, Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

No. 04-1321.

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Jan. 25, 2007.

Before GREENE, Chief Judge, and HAGEL and MOORMAN, Judges.

*579ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On January 19, 2007, the parties filed a joint motion for remand in which they propose that: (1) the June 22, 2004, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision on appeal be vacated with respect to the denial of service connection for a bilateral leg disability, (2) VA accord Mr. Napper a medical examination conducted by a qualified physician to ascertain the nature and etiology of his current disorder, (3) the Board obtain copies of the Court’s order and the joint motion for remand and incorporate them into Mr. Napper’s claims file, and (4) Mr. Napper be permitted to submit additional evidence and argument.

The Court expresses its appreciation to the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program for securing an amicus curiae in this appeal. The Court also extends its gratitude to attorney Douglas J. Rosinski for serving as amicus curiae in this matter and filing a brief with the Court.

On consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the Board’s June 22, 2004, decision with respect to entitlement to VA benefits for a bilateral leg disability is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED to provide Mr. Napper with a medical examination followed by readjudi-cation of his claim. On remand, Mr. Napper is permitted to submit additional evidence and argument to support his claim. *See Kay v. Principi,*16 Vet.App. 529 (2002). Further, this order and the joint motion for remand will be included in Mr. Napper’s claims file. *See id.; see also Fletcher v. Derwinski,*1 Vet.App. 394 (1991). Under Rule 41(b) of the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this order is the mandate of the Court.
Appeal of--

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

) 

) 

ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc.) 

) 

Under Contract No. NOO 178-04-D-4080 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 61740 

Nicole J. Owren-Wiest, Esq. 

Skye Mathieson, Esq. 

Crowell & Moring, LLP 

Washington, DC 

Craig D. Jensen, Esq. 

Navy Chief Trial Attorney 

Debra E. Rubin, Esq. 

Associate Counsel 

Naval Surface Warfare Center 

Carderock Division 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE THRASHER 

By correspondence dated September 14, 2018, appellant rescinded and 

withdrew its claim which forms the basis for this appeal. Appellant has moved to 

dismiss the appeal as moot and the government does not object. When a claim is 

unequivocally rescinded, the action moots the appeal, leaving the Board without 

jurisdiction to entertain the appeal further. Combat Support Associates, ASBCA 

Nos. 58945, 58946, 16-1 BCA 136,288 at 176,973; Management Resource Associates, 

Inc., ASBCA No. 49620, 96-2 BCA 128,588 at 142,736. Accordingly, the appeal is 

dismissed as moot. 

Dated: October 1, 2018 

(Signatures continued) 

J J. T 

Mministra ve Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I concur 

RICHARD ~--SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

J. REID PROUTY 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61740, Appeal of 

ManTechAdvanced Systems International, Inc., rendered in conformance with the 

Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
# C_2017095EN.01001601.xml

| 27.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/16

---

Action brought on 24 January 2017 — Lotte v EUIPO — Nestlé Schöller (Representation of a koala)

(Case T-41/17)

(2017/C 095/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lotte Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Knitter, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for an EU trade mark: Applicant

Applicant for an EU trade mark:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a koala) — Application for registration No 6 158 463

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2016 in Case R 250/2016-5

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;

| — | reject the opposition in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Rule 22(3) of Regulation No 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rule 22(3) of Regulation No 2868/95;

| — | Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

---
# C_2019255EN.01001001.xml

| 29.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 May 2019 — European Commission v Sabine Tuerck

(Case C-132/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Pensions - Transfer of pension rights acquired in a national pension scheme to the European Union pension scheme - Deduction of the appreciation between the date of the application for a transfer and the actual date of the transfer)

(2019/C 255/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and B. Mongin and by L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Sabine Tuerck (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Election Commission.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATE & TIME:

*Thursday, May 17, 2001.*

*This meeting has been cancelled.*

# DATE & TIME:

*Thursday, May 24, 2001 at 10:00 a.m.*

# PLACE:

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor)

# STATUS:

This meeting will be open to the public.

# ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes.

Final Audit Report on the California State Republican Party.

Administrative Matters.

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 01-12866  Filed 5-17-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2325 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2325

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   100 Calle Alondra in San Juan, Puerto Rico, as the ``65th Infantry 
                    Regiment Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. 65TH INFANTRY REGIMENT POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 Calle Alondra in San Juan, Puerto Rico, shall be known 
and designated as the ``65th Infantry Regiment Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``65th 
Infantry Regiment Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
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 No. EL01-78-000]

Take notice that on May 14, 2001, LG&E Energy Marketing, Inc. (LEM) tendered for filing a complaint in which LEM petitions the Commission to issue an order directing that the transmission service request of Oglethorpe Power Corporation for power generated by the LG&E Power Monroe LLC generating plant has first rights to the East Social Circle to Winder 230 kV transmission line.

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 May 22, 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 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 May 22, 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 on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-12643 Filed 5-18-01; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2017178EN.01002501.xml

| 6.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/25

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

(Case T-143/17 R)

((Application for interim measures - Restrictive measures - Democratic Republic of the Congo - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))

(2017/C 178/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kasa-Vubu, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito and A. Ouannès, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 of 12 December 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2016 L 336 I, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---