alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009256EN.01001601.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/16

---

Action brought on 3 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-355/09)

2009/C 256/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt national measures necessary to implement Articles 10 and 12 of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 (1), by failing to communicate those measures pursuant to Article 16 of that Regulation and by failing to adopt the national measures necessary to implement Articles 26(3) and 31 of Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 (2), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 on drug precursors and Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 laying down the rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt national measures necessary to implement Articles 10 and 12 of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 (1), by failing to communicate those measures pursuant to Article 16 of that Regulation and by failing to adopt the national measures necessary to implement Articles 26(3) and 31 of Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 (2), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 on drug precursors and Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 laying down the rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors;

1

2

| — | order Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Member States are required to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the provisions of Regulations, within the time limits laid down in those Regulations, and to notify those measures forthwith to the Commission. The Government of Ireland has failed to adopt and communicate the measures required to implement Articles 10, 12 and 16 of Regulation (EC) no 273/2004 on drug precursors. The Government of Ireland has also failed to adopt measures in accordance with articles 26(3) and 31 of regulation (EC) no 111/2005 laying down the rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors

1

OJ L 47, p. 1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors

2

OJ L 22, p. 1

---
# C_2014015EN.01001401.xml

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Lorenz Shoe Group v OHIM — Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making (Ganeder)

(Case T-374/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark Ganeder - Earlier community word mark Ganter - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 15/18

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lorenz Shoe Group AG (Taufkirchen an der Pram, Austria) (represented initially by M. Douglas, subsequently by N. Hebeis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making Co. Ltd (Cangshan Fuzhou, China) (represented by: A. Paschke, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1289/2008-1), relating to an opposition procedure between shoe fashion group Lorenz AG and Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1289/2008-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1289/2008-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Lorenz Shoe Group AG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Lorenz Shoe Group AG;

| 3. | Orders Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making Co. Ltd to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.

1

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mayra MARTINEZ-PARRA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-10109.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 5, 2012.

Keslie Stewart, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Oakland, CA, Barbara Yalliere, Assis*634tant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jerome Matthews, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mayra Martinez-Parra appeals from the 27-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for escape, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez-Parra contends that her fully consecutive sentence is substantively unreasonable. The consecutive sentence is consistent with the Guidelines. *See*U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
II-00738

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Robert Daigle <bfstudent@wowway.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:50 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

As a retiree with a substantial investment portfolio, I am extremely concerned about proper regulation and transparency in the

financial markets. In particular:

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

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 (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 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.

Robert Daigle

29330 Mine

Warren, MI 48093
IV 

House Calendar No. 259 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1782 

[Report No. 111–694] 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3082) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, 

and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 21, 2010 

Mr. POLIS of Colorado, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 

resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the 

House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill 

(H.R. 3082) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, it 

2 shall be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill 

3 (H.R. 3082) making appropriations for military construcmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HRES 1782 RH 

1 tion, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 

2 agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, 

3 and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment to 

4 the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, 

5 and to consider in the House, without intervention of any 

6 point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule 

7 XXI, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on 

8 Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in 

9 the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the 

10 Senate amendment. The Senate amendment and the mo11 tion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be de12 batable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 

13 chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

14 Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered 

15 as ordered on the motion to final adoption without inter16 vening motion. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

House Calendar No. 259 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1782 

[Report No. 111–694] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amend2010, and for other purposes. cies for the fiscal year ending September 30, partment of Veterans Affairs, and related agen- propriations for military construction, the De- amendment to the bill (H.R. 3082) making ap- ment to the House amendment to the Senate 

DECEMBER 21, 2010 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
# C_2009141EN.01002502.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní Soud v Cheb (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Česká podnikatelská pojišt’ovna, a.s., Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bílas

(Case C-111/09)

2009/C 141/45

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Okresní Soud v Cheb

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Česká podnikatelská pojišt’ovna, a.s., Vienna Insurance Group

Applicants:

Defendant: Michal Bílas

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) (‘the Regulation’) be interpreted as not authorising a court to review its international jurisdiction where the defendant partipates in the proceedings, even when the case is subject to the rules on compulsory jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Regulation and the application is brought contrary to those rules? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) (‘the Regulation’) be interpreted as not authorising a court to review its international jurisdiction where the defendant partipates in the proceedings, even when the case is subject to the rules on compulsory jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Regulation and the application is brought contrary to those rules?

1

| 2. | Can the defendant, by the fact that he partipates in the proceedings, establish the international jurisdiction of the Court within the meaning of Article 24 of the Regulation even where the proceedings are otherwise subject to the rules of compulsory jurisdiction in Section 3 of the Regulation and the application is brought contrary to those rules? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the defendant, by the fact that he partipates in the proceedings, establish the international jurisdiction of the Court within the meaning of Article 24 of the Regulation even where the proceedings are otherwise subject to the rules of compulsory jurisdiction in Section 3 of the Regulation and the application is brought contrary to those rules?

| 3. | If the answer to question (2) is in the negative, may the fact that the defendant participates in the proceedings before a court which otherwise under the Regulation does not have jurisdiction in a case concerning insurance, be regarded as an agreement on jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question (2) is in the negative, may the fact that the defendant participates in the proceedings before a court which otherwise under the Regulation does not have jurisdiction in a case concerning insurance, be regarded as an agreement on jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the Regulation?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1

1

---
***JASPERS
      + HALL, PC***


***CERTIFIED
      PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS***


***9175
      E. Kenyon Avenue, Suite 100***


***Denver,
      CO 80237***


***303-796-0099***















REPORT
      OF
      INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM










Board
      of
      Directors


Health
      Partnership Inc.


Chicago,
      IL








We
      have
      audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Health Partnership Inc.,
      as of December 31, 2005 and the related consolidated statement of operations,
      stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended. These financial
      statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
      responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based
      on
      our audits. The December 31, 2004 financial statements of Health Partnership
      Inc., were audited by another auditor who has ceased operations. That auditor
      expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements in his report
      dated May 6, 2005.





We
      conducted our audits in accordance with standards of the Public Company
      Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we
      plan
      and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
      financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes
      examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures
      in
      the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting
      principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as
      evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our
      audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.





In
      our
      opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly,
      in all material respects, the financial position of Health Partnership Inc.
      as
      of December 31, 2005, and the results of their operations and their cash flows
      for the year then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting
      principles of the United States.





The
      accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming the Company will
      continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 3, conditions exist which
      raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going
      concern unless it is able to generate sufficient cash flows to meet its
      obligations and sustain its operations. Management’s plans in regard to these
      matters are also discussed in Note 3. The financial statements do not include
      any adjustments that might result from this uncertainty.











March
      27,
      2006
II-00805

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

David R. Britton Jr. <commondreams@davidbrittonjr.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:12 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 R. Britton Jr.

2808 Menlo Dr. #8

Carson City, NV 89701
II-00217

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Colleen Spining <cspining@san.rr.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 4:30 PM

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 $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 (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 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.

Colleen Spining

8694 Villa La Jolla Dr., #6

La Jolla, CA 92037
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,074
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,244
<ALLOWANCES>                                       700
<INVENTORY>                                     18,010
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,295
<PP&E>                                          16,279
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,826
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,263
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,926
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,118
<OTHER-SE>                                    (20,970)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,263
<SALES>                                         15,763
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,763
<CGS>                                            8,687
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,687
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,071
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  26
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    979
<INCOME-TAX>                                        98
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                881
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       881
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>