alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011038EN.01001502.xml

| 5.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2010 — Wind v OHIM-Sanyang Industry (Wind)

(Case T-451/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Wind - Earlier national figurative mark Wind - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of similarity of the goods and of the services)

2011/C 38/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Harry Wind (Selfkant, Germany) (represented by: J. Sroka, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sanyang Industry Co., Ltd (Hsinchu, Taïwan)

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

Re:

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2009 (Case R 1470/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Harry Wind and Sanyang Industry Co., Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Harry Wind to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Harry Wind to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.

1

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3743 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require that certain information with respect to nutrition assistance programs be annually disclosed, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 12, 2019 

Ms. FUDGE (for herself, Mrs. HAYES, and Ms. ADAMS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 

that certain information with respect to nutrition assistance programs be annually disclosed, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supporting Trans5 parency to Overcome Poverty and Campus Hunger Act’’ 

6 or the ‘‘STOP Campus Hunger Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3743 IH

1 SEC. 2. STUDENT ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION FOR NUTRI2 TION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. 

3 (a) INFORMATION DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES.— 

4 Section 485(a)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

5 (20 U.S.C. 1092(a)(1)) is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (U), by striking the ‘‘and’’ 

7 at the end; 

8 (2) in subparagraph (V), by striking the period 

9 at the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(W) the most recent relevant student eli12 gibility guidance with respect to the nutrition 

13 assistance programs established under— 

14 ‘‘(i) section 4 of the Food and Nutri15 tion Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014); and 

16 ‘‘(ii) section 17 of the Child Nutrition 

17 Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786); 

18 ‘‘(X) the contact information for the State 

19 agencies responsible for administration of the 

20 programs specified in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub21 paragraph (W); and 

22 ‘‘(Y) the food pantries and other food as23 sistance facilities and services available to stu24 dents enrolled in such institution.’’. 

25 (b) COLLEGE NAVIGATOR WEBSITE.—Not later than 

26 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 3743 IH

1 Secretary of Education shall make available and annually 

2 update on the College Navigator Website the most recent 

3 relevant student eligibility guidance with respect to the nu4 trition assistance programs established under— 

5 (1) section 4 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 

6 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014); and 

7 (2) section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 

8 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
1226.

#### BUCK *v.*TIFTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

A materialman who has furnished articles to a contractor for the improvement of the real estate of another can not maintain a separate. action at law against the landowner, until he has first obtained a judgment against the contractor.

Foreclosure of lien, from city court of Tifton — Judge Eve. May 16, 1908.

Submitted July 17,

Decided August 4, 1908.

*J. B. Murrow, J. J. Murray, T. H. Parker,*for plaintiff in error.

*Fulwood & Murray,*contra.

Powell, J.

The materialmen furnished articles to a contractor who was erecting a building for the landowner: The contractor lived in Colquitt county, the landowner in Tift. The materialmen brought suits, on the account against the contractor, and on the lien against the landowner, by separate simultaneous actions in the counties of their respective residences. The landowner demurred to the petition in the ease against him, on the ground that no prior judgment had been obtained against the contractor; the court overruled the demurrer, and the defendant excepts.

In the ease of *Castleberry*v. *Johnston,*92 *Ga.*499 (17 S. E. 772), the following language occurs: “According to the ruling of this court in *Lombard*v. *The Trustees &c.,*73 *Ga.*322, the lien of a materialman for lumber furnished upon the employment of a contractor could not be foreclosed by a direct suit against the owner of the premises, without previously or concurrently suing the contractor to whom the lumber was furnished.” Looking to the decisions both prior and subsequent to the one quoted, we are *696satisfied that the word “concurrently” is here used as the equivalent of the phrase “in the same suit,” so far as actions strictly at law are concerned. Except in those cases where, by reason of the fact that both reside in the same county, the contractor and the landowner can be joined in the same suit, or where special reasons permit of recourse to a court of equity, the materialman should reduce his claim against the contractor to judgment before he sues upon it to establish a lien as against the landowner. The requirement of the Civil Code, §2804, par. 3, that suit to recover the claim must be commenced within twelve months, relates to the action against the contractor, and not to the subsequent proceeding against the landowner. *Lombard*v. *Trustees,*supra. The suit against the contractor is in personam, the one against the landowner is in rem. On the general subject, see *Mauck*v. *Rosser,*126 *Ga.*268, 274 (55 S. E. 32) ; *Clayton*v. *Farrar Lumber Co.,*119 *Ga.*37 (45 S. E. 723); *Philip Carey Mfg. Co.*v. *Viaduct Place,*1 *Ga. App.*707, (58 S. E. 274). *Judgment reversed.*
Stablecoins

Tommaso Mancini-Griffoli

tmancinigriffoli@imf.org

CFTC Technology Advisory Committee

Washington DC, February 26, 2020

1
Q: How will you pay?
A: With a stable store

 of value!
What is stability? Two facets

Exchange 

stability

Price 

stability

Private money

Used for payment

Price

In unit of account

Coffee
Types of private monies? A basic distinction

Collateralized Noncollateralized

Stablecoins

Cryptoassets

(Cash)

Bank deposit
Denomination

Exchange 

pledge

Backstop

Settlement 

technology

Backing asset

Own

Variable @ 

mkt value

Private

Decentralized

I-money

Mixed

Same as 

banks

Private

Centralized

Safe & liquid

Closedloops

Same as 

banks

Private

Decentralized

Safe & liquid

Coins

Unit of 

account

Fixed @ face 

value

Government

Mixed

Centralized

B-money

Same as 

banks

Private

Mixed

sCBDC

CB reserves

E-money

Exchange stability
Denomination

Exchange 

pledge

Backstop

Settlement 

technology

Exchange stability

Same as 

banks

Private

Mixed

sCBDC

Same as 

banks

Private

Decentralized

E-money

Own

Variable @ 

mkt value

Private

Decentralized

I-money

Unit of 

account

Fixed @ face 

value

Government

Backing asset Mixed

Centralized

CB reserves Safe & liquid Mixed

Same as 

banks

Private

Centralized

Safe & liquid

Closedloops Coins

B-money

STABLECOINS 
Public Policy Objectives

Financial 

stability

Privacy: data & 

confidentiality

Competition & 

efficiency

Financial 

integrity

Consumer 

protection

Monetary 

policy control
Risks to consumers from stablecoins

Private 

company

Private 

backing

Claim? Default Market FX Liquidity
Stablecoins

Tommaso Mancini-Griffoli

tmancinigriffoli@imf.org

CFTC Technology Advisory Committee

Washington DC, February 26, 2020

1
**Exhibit 15(a).1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333–12958, No. 333-11288, No. 333-118619and No. 333-123666 on Form S–8 and No. 333-145834 on Form F-3 of our reports dated June 30, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements of CDC Corporation and subsidiaries (the Company) (which report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding a change in the Company’s method of accounting for noncontrolling interests in consolidated subsidiaries and the retrospective adjustment of all periods presented in theconsolidated financial statements), and the effectiveness of CDC Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of CDC Corporation and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31,2009. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Atlanta, GA 

June 30, 2010
# C_2011238EN.01003502.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/35

---

Order of the General Court of 10 June 2011 — Gemmi Furs v OHIM — Lemmi-Fashion (GEMMI)

(Case T-522/09) (1)

1

2011/C 238/61

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.

1

---
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Notices 34165

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 01–14]

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense

Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is

publishing the unclassified text of a

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.

This is published to fulfill the

requirements of section 155 of Public

Law 104–164 dated July 21, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604–

6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to

the Speaker of the House of

Representatives, Transmittal 01–14 with

attached transmittal, policy justification,

and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: June 21, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5001–08–M

34166 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Notices 34167

34168 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Notices 34169

34170 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Notices

[FR Doc. 01–16036 Filed 6–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–08–C
Frederick H. PERRY, petitioner, v. MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 17-7117.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied.
# C_2009129EN.01001101.xml

| 6.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 3 April 2009 — Smit Reizen BV v Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat

(Case C-124/09)

2009/C 129/18

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Smit Reizen BV

Appellant:

Respondent: Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Against the background of Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (1) of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 (2) of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport, how must the term ‘operating centre,’ as referred to in paragraph 21, and elsewhere, of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-297/99 Skills Motor Coaches Ltd [2001] ECR I-573, be interpreted? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Against the background of Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (1) of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 (2) of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport, how must the term ‘operating centre,’ as referred to in paragraph 21, and elsewhere, of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-297/99 Skills Motor Coaches Ltd [2001] ECR I-573, be interpreted?

1

2

Skills Motor Coaches Ltd

| 2. | For the assessment as to what constitutes rest for the purposes of Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport, does it make any difference whether the driver concerned drives himself to a place where he is to take over a vehicle in which a tachograph must be installed or is driven there by someone else? |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the assessment as to what constitutes rest for the purposes of Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport, does it make any difference whether the driver concerned drives himself to a place where he is to take over a vehicle in which a tachograph must be installed or is driven there by someone else?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 8).

2

---
# C_2010051EN.01003701.xml

| 27.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/37

---

Action brought on 16 December 2009 — Carlyle v OHIM — Mascha & Regner Consulting (THE CARLYLE)

(Case T-506/09)

2010/C 51/71

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Carlyle, LLC (St. Louis, United States) (represented by: E. Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mascha & Regner Consulting KEG (Vienna, Austria)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2009 in case R 240/2009-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2009 in case R 240/2009-4; and

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the request for revocation: The word mark ‘THE CARLYLE’, for goods and services in classes 3, 25 and 42

Registered Community trade mark subject of the request for revocation:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party requesting the revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Party requesting the revocation of the Community trade mark:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partially rejected the request for revocation

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Revoked the Community trade mark concerned

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erroneously employed a too restrictive interpretation of the concept of genuine use. Moreover, the Board of Appeal failed: (i) to take into consideration properly the evidence of use submitted by the applicant before the Cancellation Division; (ii) to assess correctly the scope of the said evidence of use; and (iii) to make an overall assessment thereof.

Pleas in law:

---
Order entered June 6, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00369-CV

SATFRAZ TAJ AND ZUBEDA TAJ, Appellants

V.

HIGHLANDER COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INVESTMENT, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-02669-2018

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from the trial court’s March 21, 2019 order denying 

appellants’ request for a temporary injunction. Before the Court are appellee’s motion for 

dismissal for want of jurisdiction, appellants’ response, and appellee’s reply. We DENY the 

motion. 

As both the clerk’s and reporter’s records have been filed, we ORDER appellants to file 

their brief on the merits no later than June 26, 2019.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
Joshua Lamont SUTTON, petitioner, v. Matthew VAN LEEUWEN, et al.

No. 17-7696.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Leroy BUHL, petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.

No. 16-6393.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Johner Taylor WILSON, petitioner, v. Lon W. SHULTZ.

No. 16-9426.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.
Edric Norvell ROBINSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7788.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Steven KADONSKY, petitioner, v. Stephen JOHNSON, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

No. 15-9304.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Ana Maribel RAMIREZ-GOMEZ, petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General.

No. 16-6552.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Ricardo ZAMORA, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-7436.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), I, Chung-Lun Yang, certify that:

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Annual Report of ACL Semiconductors Inc. (the Company) on Form
 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report), as filed with the
 Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof, fully complies with
 the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
 1934; and
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
 material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
 Company.                                                                                                                                                                   

|      |                 |                             | 
|----- | --------------- | --------------------------- | 
|Date: | March 31,
 2011 | /s/
 Chung-Lun Yang         | 
|      |                 |                             | 
|      |                 | Chung-Lun
 Yang            
|      |                 | Chief
 Executive Officer of
|      |                 | ACL Semiconductors
 Inc.   

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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

---
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 2ND DISTRICT COURT OF CHEROKEE COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 5th

day of August, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

JIMMY DESHAWN MOSLEY, JR., Appellant

NO. 12-14-00305-CR; Trial Court No. 18,611

By per curiam opinion.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the 

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court 

below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 29th day of September, 2015.

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC., et al., petitioners, v. NEW HAMPSHIRE.

No. 17-633.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

*1262Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire denied.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.