alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009167EN.01002801.xml

| 18.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 167/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/28

---

Action brought on 20 May 2009 — Lebedef v Commission

(Case F-54/09)

2009/C 167/56

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of several decisions concerning the deduction of 39 days of the applicant’s leave entitlement for 2008.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decisions of 12 February 2008, 1 April 2008, 10 April 2008, 20 May 2008 and 14 July 2008 concerning the deduction of 39 days of the applicant’s leave entitlement for 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions of 12 February 2008, 1 April 2008, 10 April 2008, 20 May 2008 and 14 July 2008 concerning the deduction of 39 days of the applicant’s leave entitlement for 2008;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---
# C_2010234EN.01001801.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/18

---

Order of the Court of 26 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Eis.de GmbH v BBY Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH

(Case C-91/09) (1)

1

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Trade marks - Internet - Keyword advertising - Display, on the basis of a keyword identical to a trade mark, of an advert of a competitor to the proprietor of that trade mark - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5(1)(a))

2010/C 234/26

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eis.de GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: BBY Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof Karlsruhe — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Inscription of a sign similar to a trade mark with a service provider operating an Internet search engine in order automatically to have displayed on the screen, after entry of that sign as a search term, adverts for goods or services identical to those for which the trade mark in question was registered (‘keyword advertising’) — Absence of authorisation from the proprietor of the trade mark — Classification of that use of the mark as ‘use’ within the meaning of the provision cited above

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to prohibit an advertiser from advertising, on the basis of a keyword identical with that trade mark which that advertiser has, without the consent of the proprietor, selected in connection with an internet referencing service, goods or services identical with those for which that mark is registered, in the case where that advertisement does not enable an average internet user, or enables that user only with difficulty to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to therein originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.

1

---
# C_2012126EN.01001302.xml

| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-236/09) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - External service provision for development, studies and support of information systems - Rejection of a tenderer’s bids - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Transparency - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability)

2012/C 126/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. Bambara and subsequently by E. Manhaeve, Agents, and by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 27 March 2009 rejecting the applicant’s tenders for, respectively, lot 1, ‘On-site development expertise (intra muros)’, and lot 2, ‘Off-site development (extra muros)’, in Call for Tenders RTD-R4-2007-001 on external service provision for development, studies and support of information systems for the Commission (OJ 2007 S 238), and the decisions to award the lots to other tenderers and, second, for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.

1

---
II-01025

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Alan Teig <at714@optonline.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:00 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

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

3235-AK65, SEC File Number S7-12-10)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 (PIN 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 theDodd-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 FinancialStability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and

opaque markets.

Alan Teig

47 Greycourt Rd

Chester, NY 10918
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying amended annual report on Form 10-KSB of
Roanoke Technology Corp. for the period ended October 31, 2003, David L. Smith,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Roanoke Technology Corp.
hereby certifies 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. Such amended annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended October 31,
2003, 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 such amended annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the period ended October 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Roanoke Technology Corp..

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


ROANOKE TECHNOLOGY CORP.

Dated:  February 17, 2004

/s/ David L. Smith
----------------------------------------
David L. Smith Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer
1125.

#### Miller v. State.

Accusation of vagrancy, from city court of Ashbum — Judge Hawkins. April 4, 1908.

Submitted May 5,

Decided May 18, 1908.

*R. L. Tipton,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. A. Comer, solicitor,*contra.

Russell, J.

This case is controlled by the decision of this court in *Jacobs*v. *State,*1 *Ga. App.*519 (1), (57 S. E. 1063). A conviction for vagrancy is unauthorized where testimony that at certain times the defendant was seen not to work is opposed by positive and unimpeached testimony that he worked, especially where the evidence for the State wholly fails to show that he did not have visible means of support.

*Judgment reversed.*
Mikeal G. STINE, petitioner, v. Charles E. SAMUELS, Jr.

No. 16-6724.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Jeremy J. QUINN, Jr., petitioner, v. Jay FORSHEY, Warden.

No. 15-9531.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

July 30, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 136859 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 136859 COA: 280024 Genesee CC: 98-002306-FC DEXTER DURRELL COOPER, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 27, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE th at order of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATE the stay imposed by the Court of Appe als on August 27, 2007.

C AVANAGH
, J., would deny leave to appeal.

K ELLY , J., would deny leave to appeal becaus e she does not believe that the stay should be reinstated.

p0729 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2008

Clerk
II-00865

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ronald Partridge <raturon@sbcglobal.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:33 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.

Ronald Partridge

6490 Twin Circle Lane #3

Simi Valley, CA 93063
Victoria McGee HARRIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6096.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
    (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>    0000852447
<NAME>                                      EUROMED INC
<MULTIPLIER>                                1
<CURRENCY>                                  $US
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JUN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                             1
<CASH>                                      786,828
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               300,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            1,092,828
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,086,828
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       57,000
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    14,300
<OTHER-SE>                                  1,021,528
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,092,828
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            0
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               78,119
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (78,119)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (78,119)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                (78,119)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
969.

#### FORD *v.*HARRIS.

1. Where a motion for a new trial is made before a judge other than the one who presided at the trial, the same breadth of presumption is not indulged in favor of the correctness of the grant as in cases where the judge who actually presided at the trial grants the new trial.

2. In this ease the verdict rendered was supported by the evidence; a verdict, if rendered in favor of the opposite party, would not have been so. The judge, therefore (who did not preside at trial), erred in granting a new trial.

Trover, from Gwinnett superior court — Judge Brand. December 5, 1907. (See 130 *Ga.*273.)

Argued April 21,

Decided July 8, 1908.

*O. A. Nix,*for plaintiff in error.

*N. L. Hutchins, J. A. Perry,*contra.

*468Powell, J.

Mrs. Harris sued Ford for certain personal property, chiefly household goods, formerly belonging to Mrs. Holmes, who was the mother of the plaintiff and the grandmother of the defendant. At the first trial of the case the plaintiff had a finding in her favor, and this was set aside by the presiding judge, upon motion for new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. At the second trial Judge Kimsey presided. There was a verdict for the defendant, and a motion for new trial was filed. This motion came on to be heard before Judge Brand, who had in the meantime been elected judge of the superior court of the circuit including the county of Gwinnett, where the trial occurred. Upon this motion, which contained only the general grounds, Judge Brand granted a new trial, and the defendant excepts.

1. While any judge, in passing on a motion for a new trial, must exercise a sound discretion, still, where the judge who is acting upon a motion is not the same judge who presided at the trial, the reason for the rule that every presumption should be indulged in favor of the legality of the grant does not prevail. *Shannon*v. State, 57 *Ga.*482.

*2.*
      **The plaintiff’s case rested upon a gift to her of the goods by her mother in the year 1895. The defendant showed a gift from the same source two years prior to the date just mentioned, and possession of the property for about seven years before the bringing of suit. The plaintiff also attempted to aid her case by proof of the declarations of the mother, made after she had parted with her title to the defendant. These declarations were mere hearsay, and were not admissible in evidence. On the other hand, her declarations (she having died) against her interest were admissible in favor of the defendant, under the rule that the declarations of a deceased person against his interest are not subject to the objection that they are hearsay. The plaintiff and the defendant both showed title from the same source; the defendant’s, being prior in point of time, was entitled to prevail.

Russell, J.,

though not legally disqualified, declined to participate in the decision, having presided at the first trial of the case in the court below. *Judgment reversed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE PEPSI
BOTTLING GROUP, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001076405
<NAME> THE PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-2000
<CASH>                                             318
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      838
<ALLOWANCES>                                        42
<INVENTORY>                                        281
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,584
<PP&E>                                           5,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,710
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              967
<BONDS>                                          3,271
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,644
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,736
<SALES>                                          7,982
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,982
<CGS>                                            4,405
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,405
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     2
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 192
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    364
<INCOME-TAX>                                       135
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                229
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       229
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.53


</TABLE>
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. EL01-93-000]

Take notice that on June 20, 2001, Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, L.P., Mirant New England, LLC, Mirant Kendall, LLC and Mirant Canal, LLC (the Mirant Parties) tendered for filing a complaint pursuant to Sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act against the ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) in connection with ISO-NE's proposed revisions to procedures for mitigation of generation resources run or used out of economic merit order during transmission constraints.

The Mirant Parties have served copies of the complaint upon the ISO-NE and the New England Power Pool.

                    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 29, 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 29, 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. 01-16062  Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M