alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009282EN.01003303.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-5/09) (1)

1

2009/C 282/61

Language of the case: Greek

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

1

---
Abigail ROSS, petitioner, v. UNIVERSITY OF TULSA.

No. 17-969.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
# C_2011232EN.01002701.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICOCENTER)

(Case T-480/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BRICOCENTER - Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2011/C 232/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented initially by P. López Ronda, G. Macias Bonilla, H. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, and subsequently by F. Brandolini Kujman, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and G. Mannucci, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bricocenter Italia Srl (Rozzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Ghidini, M. Mergati and C. Signorini, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2009 (Case R 1045/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 September 2009 (Case R 1045/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 September 2009 (Case R 1045/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders ATB Norte, SL, Bricocenter Italia and OHIM each to bear their own costs incurred during the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders ATB Norte, SL, Bricocenter Italia and OHIM each to bear their own costs incurred during the proceedings before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.

---
# C_2011311EN.01004002.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Deutsche Bahn v OHIM — DSB (IC4)

(Case T-274/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark IC4 - Earlier Community word mark ICE and earlier national figurative mark IC - Criteria for assessing likelihood of confusion - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the services - Similarity of the signs - Distinctive character of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 311/72

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Bahn AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: E. Haag, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: DSB (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: T. Swanstrøm, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2009 (Case R 1380/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Bahn AG and DSB

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 30 April 2009 (Case R 1380/2007-1) and the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 26 July 2007; |
| --- | --- |

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 30 April 2009 (Case R 1380/2007-1) and the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 26 July 2007;

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Deutsche Bahn AG for the purposes of the present judicial proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Deutsche Bahn AG for the purposes of the present judicial proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| 3. | Orders OHIM and DSB to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM and DSB to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.

1

---
Ronald BOYAJIAN, plaintiff, v. His Excellency Om YENTIENG, et al.

No. 16M70.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Motion for leave to file a Bill of Complaint denied.
II-00730

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Jim Smith <p51.pilot@milwpc.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:55 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.

Jim Smith

1786 Corvallis Ct.

De Pere, WI 54115
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

I, David J. Surette, the Chief Financial Officer of Global Axcess Corp. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter
ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 5, 2004

                                      /s/ David J. Surette
                                          ------------------
                                          Name: David J. Surette
                                          Title: Chief Financial Officer
II-00590

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

charlotte elsner <charlros@msn. com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:52 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.

charlotte elsner

1133 Boynton Ave

Westfield, NJ 7090
II-00325

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Chuck Donegan <chucknet@optonline.net>

Friday, December 3, 2010 2:21 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.

Chuck Donegan

231 N. Evergreen Dr.

Selden, NY 11784
Derry SANDERS, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 15-9480.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District denied.
SEC, CFTC Joint Public Roundtable to Discuss Issues Related to Capital and Margin for 

Swaps and Security-Based Swaps

Margin Panel

1. Bill Wollman – FINRA

2. Bill Woodard – Williams 

3. Dan Driscoll – National Futures Association

4. Elliot Chambers – Chesapeake Energy 

5. Jim Heis – Noble Energy, Inc.

6. John Nicholas – Newedge 

7. Mark Holloway – Goldman Sachs

8. Mark Tourangeau – NextEra Energy, Inc.

9. Randall Dodd – Financial Policy Forum 

10. Robert Reilley – Shell Energy, North America

11. Russell Wasson – National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

12. S. “Vish” Viswanathan – Duke University, The Fuqua School of Business

13. Steve Corneli – NRG Energy

14. Steve O’Connor – Morgan Stanley

15. Tony Leitner – AJ Leitner & Associates 

16. Yves Denize – TIAA-CREF

Capital Panel

1. Bill Tirrell – Bank of America 

2. Dan Driscoll – National Futures Association

3. James Collins – JP Morgan

1 
2 

4. Ralph Mattone – Nomura Securities International

5. Ralph Silva – Goldman Sachs

6. Randall Dodd – Financial Policy Forum 

7. Robert Reilley – Shell Energy, North America

8. S. “Vish” Viswanathan – Duke University, The Fuqua School of Business

9. Tim Newman – Williams 

10. Tom Gillis – Newedge
Antonneo R. BOYCE, petitioner, v. ARIZONA.

No. 17-6282.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
Thomas C. RUBEY, petitioner, v. Valerie A. VANNETT.

No. 15-1394.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Minnesota denied.
Geomar QUINTERO, aka Wilfredo Cuellar-Suazo, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6046.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
#### Artis ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. BURNS, Director of Health Services, Dr. Scalone, Dental Department Specialist, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-11051

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 11, 2008.

Artis Robinson, Belle Glade, FL, pro se.

Before BIRCH, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

State prisoner Artis Robinson, proceeding *pro se,*appeals the district court’s *sua sponte*dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil complaint. The court dismissed his claim on the basis of *res judicata*and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, due to the expiration of the relevant statute of limitations period.

On appeal, Robinson submits copies of (1) the complaint he filed with the district court in the present case, (2) his objection to summary judgment (which he filed in the previous case, 9:05-cv-80861), and (3) grievance forms dated from 1999 to 2003 (which he filed with the Department of Corrections). He makes no new arguments and presents no specific reasons for his appeal. Liberally construed, his submission may be interpreted as an argument that neither *res judicata*nor the statute of limitations bars his claim, as-these were the district court’s two bases for dismissing the present case. See *Tannenbaum v. United States,*148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir.1998) (“Pro *se*pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.”).

However, it is clear that *res judicata*bars this action and the district court correctly found that Robinson delivered his complaint to prison officials after the expiration of the statute of limitations period.

AFFIRMED.
ACCEPTED 04-15-00238-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 11/25/2015 6:02:06 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-86,150-01

EX P ARTE RAYMOND CLINTON HAMMER, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 14-08-9586CR IN THE 25T H DISTRICT COURT F ROM LAVAC A COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Te x . C ri m . App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ag g ravated assault and sentenc ed to five y ear s’ i m prisonment. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals aff irmed hi s conviction. Hamme r v. State , No. 13-15-00165- CR (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi – Edinburg (Oc t. 29, 2015) (not desig nated f or publication). Applica n t contends that his trial counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance beca use counsel failed to strike a juror who stated during voir dire that she would expect Applicant to testify on his own beha lf bec ause he “committed a c rime.”2

Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). I n these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim o f i n ef fec tive assistance of counsel. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). I n the appropr iate ca se, the trial c ourt may rely on its personal re collection. Id

. I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall dete rmine whe ther Applica nt is indi g ent. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the t ri al court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial co u rt shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether the perf ormanc e of Applicant’s trial counsel was defic ient and, if so, wh et h er counsel’s defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for habea s corpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues sh al l b e re s o l ved within 90 day s of this order

. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hear ing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of the date of t his order

. Any extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.3

Filed: January

11, 2017 Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,145
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,555
<ALLOWANCES>                                       647
<INVENTORY>                                     32,095
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,825
<PP&E>                                          48,232
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,688
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,961
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   116,437
<SALES>                                         66,889
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           53,620
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,064
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   117
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 444
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,644
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,385
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,259
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,259
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
        

</TABLE>
Jennifer Marie MORRISON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7554.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
II-00049

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

HenriDeE DeBardeleben <henridee@att.net>

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 6:46 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.

HenriDeE DeBardeleben

2715 Tenth Avenue North

Bessemer, AL 35020