alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010221EN.01004501.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/45

---

Order of the General Court of 21 June 2010 — Meister v OHIM

(Case T-284/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Public service - Officials - Staff report - Late drawing up of assessment reports - Subject-matter of the action at first instance - Late reply to complaints - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2010/C 221/74

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Herbert Meister (Muchamiel, Spain) (represented by: H.-J Zimmermann, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero and G. Faedo, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and E. Winter, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 May 2009 in Joined Cases F-138/06 and F-37/08 Meister v OHIM [2009], not yet published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Meister

OHIM

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed;

| 2. | Herbert Meister shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in connection with these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Herbert Meister shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in connection with these proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 31**

I, Russ George certify that: 

1.     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB/A (“Report”) of Planktos Corp.; 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report; 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the period presented in this Report; 

4.     I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared; 

b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and 

c)     Disclosed in this Report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.     I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

Date: April 17, 2007 

/s/ Russ George 

Russ George 

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 

**26**

----
EXHIBIT 11

                           Earnings Per Share Schedule


Calculation of net income under the modified treasury stock method:

                                                       THREE            NINE
                                                       MONTHS          MONTHS
                                                     -----------    -----------
Primary
   Net (loss) income applicable to common stock      $  (101,216)   $ 1,257,439
   Assumed interest expense reduction                       --           30,178
                                                     -----------    -----------
                                                     $  (101,216)   $ 1,287,617
                                                     ===========    ===========

   Weighted average common stock outstanding           6,518,627      6,497,745
   Common stock equivalents                                 --        1,060,156
                                                     -----------    -----------
                                                       6,518,627      7,557,901
                                                     ===========    ===========

       Net (loss) income per share                   $      (.02)   $       .17
                                                     ===========    ===========

Fully diluted
   Net (loss) income applicable to common stock      $  (101,216)   $ 1,257,439
   Preferred stock dividends                                --            1,969
   Assumed interest expense reduction                       --           30,178
                                                     -----------    -----------
                                                     $  (101,216)   $ 1,289,586
                                                     ===========    ===========

   Weighted average common stock outstanding           6,518,627      6,497,745
   Common stock equivalents                                 --        1,060,156
   Assumed conversion of preferred stock                    --           18,750
                                                     -----------    -----------
                                                       6,518,627      7,576,651
                                                     ===========    ===========

       Net income per share                          $      (.02)   $       .17
                                                     ===========    ===========

The assumed conversion of the redeemable preferred stock was antidilutive,
therefore it was excluded from the fully diluted calculations
II-00403

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Sophia Bicoy <sophiabicoy@earthlink.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:27 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.

Sophia Bicoy

3142 Bear Springs Dr.

San Antonio, TX 78245
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2047/2004

of 29 November 2004         

fixing the corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 15(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The corrective amount referred to in Article 1(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 which is applicable to export refunds fixed in advance except for malt shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 December 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 November 2004.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

(2)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1431/2003 (OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 16).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 29 November 2004 fixing the corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals

----
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

December 19, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly 131035(86) Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices HARVEY GRACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 131035

v COA: 257896 Oakland CC: 2002-045572-NM BRUCE LEITMA N and BRUCE LEITMAN, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.

________________ ______________
AMENDMENT TO ORDER

On order of the Court, the order of D ecember 17, 2007 is amended to correct a clerical error. The statement following the te xt of the order is corrected to read as follows:

“Kelly and Young, Jr., JJ., would grant reconsideration.”

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.

December 19, 2007

Clerk
**Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2009 – Z v Commission**

**(Case T-173/09 R)**

Interim measures – Access by a third party concerned to a Commission decision imposing a fine but not yet published – Application for interim measures – No need to adjudicate – No urgency

1.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima
facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved – Order of examination and method of verification
– Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the
Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 12-13)*

2.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious
and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Materialisation of the damage dependent on future and uncertain events (Arts 242
EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 17-18, 24)*

3.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency
– Main head of damage not materialising (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
(see para. 27)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for access to the Commission’s decision of 28 January 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/G/39.406 – Marine hoses) and deletion of the applicant’s name from the text of that decision. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The application for interim measures is dismissed insofar as it has not already become devoid of purpose. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | This order annuls and replaces the order of 6 May 2009. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | The costs are reserved. |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1,000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                          Dec-31-1998
<CASH>                                                 6
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        228
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                      174,968
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 200,569
<PP&E>                                           540,390
<DEPRECIATION>                                   270,553
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   648,399
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             85,377
<BONDS>                                          125,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             159
<OTHER-SE>                                       326,370
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     648,399
<SALES>                                          967,949
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 967,949
<CGS>                                            898,494
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    898,494
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   1,131
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                22,221
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (435)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (578)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  143
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                         143
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.01
        

</TABLE>
Vester JOHNSON, petitioner, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden.

No. 16-9275.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# C_2011186EN.01002002.xml

| 25.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2011 — Olymp Bezner v OHIM — Bellido (Olymp)

(Case T-203/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark OLYMP - Earlier national figurative mark OLIMPO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 186/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Olymp Bezner GmbH & Co. KG (Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany) (represented by: M. Eck and J. Dönch, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Miguel Bellido, SA (Manzanares, Spain)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2009 (Case R 531/2008-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Miguel Bellido SA and Olymp Bezner GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Olymp Bezner GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Olymp Bezner GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.

1

---
II-00230

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

elizabeth zenker <eazenker@gmail.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 2:10 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.

elizabeth zenker

45442 hqy 96

Orleans, CA 95556
II-01218

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Keith Kraustok <kkraustok@yahoo.com>

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 12:35 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.

Keith Kraustok

29324 Park Street

Wickliffe, OH 44092
# C_2012118EN.01000302.xml

| 21.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Söll GmbH v Tetra GmbH

(Case C-420/10) (1)

1

(Placing on the market of biocidal products - Directive 98/8/EC - Article 2(1)(a) - Concept of ‘biocidal products’ - Product causing flocculation of harmful organisms without destroying or deterring them or rendering them harmless)

2012/C 118/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Söll GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Tetra GmbH

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1) — Classification, as a ‘biocidal product’, of a product causing flocculation of harmful organisms, without destroying them, deterring them or rendering them harmless — Anti-algae agent containing the substance aluminium chlorohydrate — Concept of ‘biocidal product’

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘biocidal products’ set out in Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market must be interpreted as including even products which act only by indirect means on the target harmful organisms, so long as they contain one or more active substances provoking a chemical or biological action which forms an integral part of a causal chain, the objective of which is to produce an inhibiting effect in relation to those organisms.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010

1

---