alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010288EN.01003902.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Icebreaker v OHIM — Gilmar (ICEBREAKER)

(Case T-112/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ICEBREAKER - Earlier national word mark ICEBERG - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Partial refusal to register - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2010/C 288/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Icebreaker Ltd (Wellington, New Zealand) (represented by: L. Prehn, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Gilmar SpA (San Giovanni in Marignano, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2009 (Case R 1536/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Gilmar SpA and Icebreaker Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Icebreaker Ltd to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Icebreaker Ltd to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.

---
II-00967

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

David Thomas <thomasdc@mindspring.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:37 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

David Thomas

Creekview Rd

Summertown, TN 38483
# C_2011252EN.01005003.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/50

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Sukup v Commission

(Case F-73/09) (1)

1

(Civil service - Remuneration and allowances - Dependent child allowance - Education allowance - Retrospective award)

2011/C 252/108

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Sukup (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the European Commission’s Office for administration and payment of individual rights refusing to grant the applicant dependent child allowance or education allowance

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Sukup to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Sukup to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, of 07.11.2009, p. 84.

1

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3701 

To establish a statute of limitations for certain actions of the Securities 

and Exchange Commission, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 11, 2019 

Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To establish a statute of limitations for certain actions of 

the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMISSION 

4 ACTIONS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 21 of the Securities Ex6 change Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u) is amended by adding 

7 at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(j) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.— 

9 ‘‘(1) CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES.— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3701 IH

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—An action or pro2 ceeding brought or instituted by the Commis3 sion under any provision of the securities laws 

4 for a civil monetary penalty may be brought not 

5 later than 10 years after the alleged violation. 

6 ‘‘(B) EXCLUSION.—The period of limita7 tions in subparagraph (A) does not run during 

8 any time when an alleged violator is absent 

9 from the United States or has no reasonably as10 certainable place of abode or work within the 

11 United States. 

12 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this sub13 section, the term ‘civil monetary penalty’ means re14 lief sought by the Commission under— 

15 ‘‘(A) subsection (d)(3), section 10A(d), 

16 section 21A(a), section 21B(a), or subsection 

17 (b), (c)(1)(B), or (c)(2)(B) of section 32 (15 

18 U.S.C. 78j–1(d), 78u–2(a), 78ff(b), 

19 78ff(c)(1)(B), or 78ff(c)(2)(B)); 

20 ‘‘(B) section 8A(g)(2) or section 20(d)(2) 

21 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77h– 

22 1(g)(2), 77t(d)(2)); 

23 ‘‘(C) section 9(d)(1) or 42(e)(1) of the In24 vestment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 

25 80a–9(d)(1), 80a–41(e)(1)); 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3701 IH

1 ‘‘(D) section 203(i)(1) or 209(e)(1) of the 

2 Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 

3 80b–3(i)(1), 80b–9(e)(1)); or 

4 ‘‘(E) section 304(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley 

5 Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7243(a)).’’. 

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 21A(d) of 

7 the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u– 

8 1(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (5). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
1085.

#### Carr *v.*The State.

Indictment for robbery, from Bibb superior court — Judge Feb ton. March 3, 1908.

Powell, J.

1. Tlie charge on the subject of alibi, taken in its entirety, is substantially in accord with what this court approved in the case of *Smith*v. *State,*3 *Ga. App.*803 (61 S. E. 737).

'2. Where the question of personal identity and the fact of alibi are virtually the same defense, a charge on the one substantially covers the other. *Dale*v. *State,*88 *Ga.*553 (6), (15 S. E. 287).

3. A slip of the tongue by the trial judge, in stating the general designation of the offense with which the prisoner stands charged, is cured by an immediate correction, in which not only the true designation is given, but also the full nature of the offense as set out in the indictment.

•4. No error appears. *Judgment affirmed.*

*333The instructions of the court to the jury on the subject of alibi were as follows: “Evidence has been introduced as to an alibi, by the defendant. The word alibi means elsewhere. That is the English definition of the Latin word alibi. In its legal sense and when used as a defense, it involves the impossibility of the prisoner’s presence at the scene of the offense at the time of its commission; and the range of evidence in respect to the time and place must be such as to reasonably exclude the possibility of the-presence of the defendant. It is not required that the evidence or conviction of the impossibility of the prisoner’s presence should be more strong or full than would be sufficient to prove any other fact in the case. Any evidence, however, of an alibi is to be considered on the general case, with the rest of the testimony, and, if a reasonable doubt of guilt be raised by the evidence as a whole,, the doubt should be given in favor of innocence.” In the motion for a new trial an extract from these instructions was complained of “because it put the burden of proof upon the defendant to establish his alibi as fully and strongly as any other fact in the-case; which . . meant proof of his alibi bej'ond a reasonable doubt.” It was also alleged that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury upon the defendant’s contention as to the failure of the State to identify him as being the person who committed, the alleged offense.

*Richard Curd, Glawson & Fowler,*for plaintiff in error.

*William Brunson, solicitor-general, Roland Ellis,*contra.
II-00240

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Jeremy Huffman <electrojerm@gmail.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 11:42 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Jeremy Huffman

814 7TH ST

Hood River, OR 97031
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 The Bank of Kentucky Financial
Corporation ("BKFC") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Robert D. Fulkerson, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary of BKFC,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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 conditions and results of operations
          of BKFC.


                                           /s/ Robert D. Fulkerson
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Robert D. Fulkerson
                                              Treasurer and Assistant Secretary
                                              March 27, 2003
# C_2009055EN.01001903.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/19

---

Action brought on 8 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-5/09)

(2009/C 55/32)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and M. Karanassou-Apostolopoulou)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005, and in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005, and in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2005/68/EC of 16 November 2005 into domestic law expired on 10 December 2007.

---

(1)  OJ L 323 of 9.12.2005, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
The Board of Directors
General Magic, Inc.:
 
     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
Nos. 33-93648, 333-12667, 333-33329, 333-45751 and 333-71781 on Form S-8 and
Nos. 333-67683, 333-59723 and 333-51685 on Form S-3 of General Magic, Inc. of
our report dated January 22, 1999, except as to note 17 which is as of March 30,
1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of General Magic, Inc. and
subsidiary (a development stage enterprise) as of December 31, 1998 and 1997,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity
(deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1998, which report appears in the December 31, 1998, annual report
on Form 10-K of General Magic, Inc.
 
/s/ KPMG LLP
 
Mountain View, California
March 29, 1999
Michael T. RAND, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-526.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00589-CV

Margarita MALDONADO,

Appellant

v.

Trenton FRANKLIN and Karina Franklin,

Appellees

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-CI-24167

Honorable Rosemarie Alvarado, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is REVERSED. 

We DISSOLVE the injunction and REMAND this cause to the trial court for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. Costs of court for this appeal are taxed against appellees Trenton and 

Karina Franklin. 

SIGNED February 6, 2019.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IIB 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 375 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 16, 2019 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into 

trust for Indian Tribes, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

HR 375 RFS

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY REAFFIRMED. 

2 (a) REAFFIRMATION.—Section 19 of the Act of June 

3 18, 1934 (commonly known as the ‘‘Indian Reorganization 

4 Act’’; 25 U.S.C. 5129), is amended— 

5 (1) in the first sentence— 

6 (A) by striking ‘‘The term’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘Effective beginning on June 18, 1934, the 

8 term’’; and 

9 (B) by striking ‘‘any recognized Indian 

10 tribe now under Federal jurisdiction’’ and in11 serting ‘‘any federally recognized Indian Tribe’’; 

12 and 

13 (2) by striking the third sentence and inserting 

14 the following: ‘‘In said sections, the term ‘Indian 

15 tribe’ means any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, 

16 band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the 

17 Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an 

18 Indian tribe.’’. 

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 this section shall take effect as if included in the Act of 

21 June 18, 1934 (commonly known as the ‘‘Indian 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

HR 375 RFS

1 Reorganization Act’’; 25 U.S.C. 5129), on the date of the 

2 enactment of that Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 15, 2019. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1751 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1751

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      December 7, 2010.
Whereas, on December 2, 2010, a forest fire began in the Carmel region of 
        Israel;
Whereas the fire quickly spread and became the worst fire in Israel's history;
Whereas over 40 people have been killed by the blaze;
Whereas more than 17,000 people have been displaced by the fire;
Whereas more than 4,000,000 trees have already burned in the fire;
Whereas Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared December 2, 2010, a 
        national day of mourning in Israel;
Whereas Israel has exhausted its supplies and equipment necessary to sustain the 
        firefighting effort;
Whereas United States Ambassador to Israel James Cunningham rapidly issued a 
        disaster declaration, prompting significant coordination within the 
        United States Government to identify and provide Israel with 
        firefighting assistance;
Whereas President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton 
        have pledged significant United States assistance to address this 
        disaster;
Whereas the United States has already provided Israel with technical assistance, 
        over 110 metric tons of fire suppressant, 3,800 gallons of fire 
        retardant concentrate, and other needed assistance to fight this fire;
Whereas State and local governments in the United States have mobilized to send 
        firefighting supplies to Israel; and
Whereas Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, 
        Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Jordan, the Netherlands, Norway, 
        Romania, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the 
        Ukraine are among the other nations that have provided assistance or 
        offered assistance to Israel to fight this fire: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) mourns the loss of life and extends condolences to the families 
        affected by the fire in northern Israel that began on December 2, 2010;
            (2) supports the Obama Administration's offer of, and rapid efforts 
        to provide, United States firefighting assistance to Israel in response 
        to this disaster;
            (3) recognizes the efforts of foreign governments that have provided 
        assistance or offered assistance to Israel;
            (4) commends State and local governments in the United States that 
        have offered and provided assistance to Israel; and
            (5) reaffirms United States support for the people and State of 
        Israel in their time of need.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
II-O0081

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

sam eisenbach <salmonsoup@hotmail.com>

Monday, December 6, 2010 2:06 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

sam eisenbach

13040 90th ave

mecosta, MI 49332
David L. LUCAS, petitioner, v. ALABAMA.

No. 17-7185.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama denied.