alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010037EN.01005101.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/51

---

Action brought on 22 December 2009 — Allen and Others v Commission

(Case F-103/09)

2010/C 37/80

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: John Allen (Oxford, United Kingdom) and Others (represented by: P. Lasok, I. Hutton, B. Lask, Barristers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

The subject matter and description of the proceedings

The subject matter and description of the proceedings

An application for damages and for the annulment of a decision refusing to pay damages in respect of the loss suffered by each applicant as a result of the fact that each of them was not recruited as a temporary servant of the Communities during the time when they worked at the JET Joint Undertaking.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the Commission’s Decision dated 25 September 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s Decision dated 25 September 2009;

| — | declare that the applicants had a right to, and should have been, treated as “other personnel” and/or recruited as such, in accordance with Article 8 of the original JET Statutes; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the applicants had a right to, and should have been, treated as “other personnel” and/or recruited as such, in accordance with Article 8 of the original JET Statutes;

| — | declare that the Commission discriminated against the applicants without objective justification during their engagement on the JET Project as regards their remuneration, pension rights and related benefits, and security of future employment; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Commission discriminated against the applicants without objective justification during their engagement on the JET Project as regards their remuneration, pension rights and related benefits, and security of future employment;

| — | order the Commission to compensate the applicants for the loss of earnings, pensions, and related benefits and privileges occasioned by the aforesaid breaches of Community law, including interest thereon as appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to compensate the applicants for the loss of earnings, pensions, and related benefits and privileges occasioned by the aforesaid breaches of Community law, including interest thereon as appropriate;

| — | order the costs of this appeal to be paid by the Commission; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the costs of this appeal to be paid by the Commission; and

| — | take such further measures and grant such further relief, under the Statute of the Court of Justice and/or the Rules of procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal as may be necessary, just or equitable. |
| --- | --- |

—

take such further measures and grant such further relief, under the Statute of the Court of Justice and/or the Rules of procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal as may be necessary, just or equitable.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3756 

To ensure that pre-apprenticeship programs are considered when planning 

health professions opportunity grant career pathway demonstration projects. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2019 

Mr. BEYER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To ensure that pre-apprenticeship programs are considered 

when planning health professions opportunity grant career pathway demonstration projects. 

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 ‘‘Pre-apprenticeship 

5 Promotion Act’’. 


Pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3756 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRE-APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS REQUIRED TO 

2 BE CONSIDERED IN PLANNING HEALTH PRO3 FESSIONS OPPORTUNITY GRANT CAREER 

4 PATHWAY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS. 

5 Section 2008 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 1397g) is amended by redesignating subsections (c) and 

7 (d) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively, and by insert8 ing after subsection (b) the following: 

9 ‘‘(c) PRE-APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS REQUIRED

10 TO BE CONSIDERED IN PLANNING DEMONSTRATION

11 PROJECTS.—An application for a grant for a demonstra12 tion project under this section shall include a certification 

13 by the applicant that the development of the project in14 cluded consideration of apprenticeship and pre-apprentice15 ship models registered under the Act of August 16, 1937 

16 (also known as the ‘National Apprenticeship Act’).’’. 

17 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

18 The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 

19 on October 1, 2019. 

Æ 


Pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
# C_2011269EN.01004702.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM — Société de développement et de recherche industrielle (ERGO)

(Case T-220/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ERGO - Earlier Community word mark URGO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 269/103

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A.W. Renck, T. Dolde and J. Pause, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Société de développement et de recherche industrielle (Chenôve, France) (represented by: K. Dröge, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 515/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Société de développement et de recherche industrielle and Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Versicherungsgruppe AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Versicherungsgruppe AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99

                                March 27, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549


Dear Sirs:

        Arthur Andersen has represented to us that their audit of our results
of operations and financial condition for the year ended and as of December 31,
2001 was subject to its quality control system for the U.S. accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there was appropriate
continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the audit and that there was
the availability of national office consultation.  Availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen is not relevant to our audit.


                               Very truly yours,


                               Dobson/Sygnet Communications Company

                               By:   /s/ Everett Dobson
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                     Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
                                     Executive Officer
Phillip C. ELLIS, et ux., petitioners, v. Richard LEMONS, et al.

No. 16-456.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Jamal Martin WALTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-8823.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Melissa QUINTANILLA, Marti Gail McPherson, Michael Scott Cooksey, Latoya Latrice Golden, and David Wayne Frazier, Jr., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6813.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

*1284Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# C_2011145EN.01002601.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-184/09) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector - Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 and Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Assessment of the risk of financial loss to the EAGGF - Principle of proportionality)

2011/C 145/42

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos, E. Leftheriotou and V. Karra, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and A. Markoulli, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/253/EC of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2009 L 75, p. 15), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the context of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.

1

---
# C_2013141EN.01002602.xml

| 18.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/26

---

Order of the General Court of 18 March 2013 — Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Dresden v Commission

(Case T-217/09) (1)

1

2013/C 141/48

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.

1

---
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 28, 2011

t1219 

# Order

December 28, 2011

143595

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143595 COA: 298061 Macomb CC: 2 009-005649-FH CHARLES WILLIAM MALONE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 23, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Elias MORALES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7938.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
#### Frank Choate *v.*The State.

1. Final Judgment.—After reciting the .verdict of guilty, which assessed twenty-five years’ confinement in the penitentiary, the judgment entry proceeded to state that “therefore it is considered by the court that the defendant, Frank Choate, is guilty as found by the jury; ” and then concluded by committing the defendant to jail to await sentence. *Held, not*a final judgment. The entry should have further shown that the defendant was condemned to be punished as determined by the jury, setting out the amount and duration of punishment to which, by reason of the indictment and verdict, he had become liable.

2. Same.—Clerks and prosecuting attorneys are specially referred to the cases of *Mayfield*v. *The State,*40 Texas, 289, and *Anschincks*v. *The State,*43 Texas, 587, for directions how to enter up final judgments in criminal cases.

Appeal from the District Court of Falls. Tried below before the Hon. B. X. Saunders.

The head-note shows the judgment as entered up.

*Herring, Anderson & Kelley,*for the appellant.

Ector, P. J.

The motion of the counsel for the state to dismiss this appeal for the want of.a final judgment must be granted. The entry in the court below, by which it was, doubtless, supposed a final judgment was rendered in the case, does not contain the requisites of a final judgment of conviction, from which only a defendant is allowed to appeal in a criminal case, except in a matter of *habeas corpus.*Pasc. Dig., Art. 3183. See the case of *Mayfield*v. *The State,*40 Texas, 289, and also the case of *Anschincks*v. *The State,*43 Texas, 587.

The. entry in this case at bar, from which we learn the action of the court, shows that. defendant" “is guilty as found by the jury.” It should have been further shown by the entry that the defendant was condemned to be punished as so determined by the jury, setting forth particularly the *303amount and duration of the punishment to which he became subject by reason of the indictment and the verdict.

We would refer the county attorney to the specific directions given by our supreme court in the cases of *Mayfield*v. *The State,*and of *Anschincks*v. *The State,*as to the proper manner in which a final judgment of conviction should be entered, and would suggest, as we have done before, that, if he will see that these directions are observed by the clerk, much time and expense would be saved to the courts and the country.

The appeal is dismissed for the want of a final judgment.

*Appeal dismissed.*
# C_2009069EN.01002402.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/24

---

Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-6/09)

(2009/C 69/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Peere and P. Dejmek, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (1) or, in any case, by not communicating all of them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (1) or, in any case, by not communicating all of them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The deadline for transposition of Directive 2005/60/EC expired on 15 December 2007. When this action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any case, had not communicated them to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15.

1

---
1247.

#### Dolvin & Company *v.*Hicks.

Powell, J.

1. In an attachment case the initial affidavit may be amended by adding one or more additional grounds- of attachment to those-originally alleged. Civil Code, §5122; Fitzpatrick *v.*Flanigan, 106 U. S. 648 (27 *L.*ed. 211, 1 Sup. Ct. 369) ; *Brumby*v. *Rickoff,*94 *Ga.*429 (21 S. E. 232) ; *Collins*v. *Taylor,*128 *Ga.*789 (58 S. E. 446).

2. Testimony that an account made out against a partnership was presented to one of the members thereof, and that he acknowledged its, correctness, is prima facie proof of the correctness of the account; and, in case of a denial of the account by the partnership, is sufficient to make an issue of fact for the jury.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*654Certiorari, from Bibb superior court — Judge Felton. May 26, 1908.

Submitted July 17,

Decided July 31, 1908.

*Nottingham & Cabaniss,*for plaintiffs in error.

*L. D. Moore,*contra.
# C_2009267EN.01007301.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/73

---

Action brought on 27 August 2009 — Müller-Boré & Partner v OHIM — Popp and Other (MBP)

(Case T -338/09)

2009/C 267/132

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Müller-Boré & Partner (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Osterrieth and T. Schmitz, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: E. Popp (Munich, Germany), W. E. Sajda (Munich), J. Bohnenberger (Munich), V. Kruspig (Munich)

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2009 in Case R 1176/2007-4 and amendment of it so as to reject the appeal and objection in their entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2009 in Case R 1176/2007-4 and amendment of it so as to reject the appeal and objection in their entirety;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘MBP’ for services in Classes 35 and 42 (Application No. 1 407 857)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: E. Popp, W. E. Sajda, J. Bohnenberger and V. Kruspig

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘ip_law@mbp.’ for services in Class 42 (Community Trademark No. 667 105) and the special trade name ‘mbp.de.’ under German trade mark law

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1),] since there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
II-01157

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

terry anderson <terryetc@q.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:50 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.

terry anderson

5725 NE 17th Ave

portland, OR 97211
In re Rene RAMON, petitioner.

No. 16-5342.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

MICHAEL GRIDER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1901 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed April 5, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hardee County; Donald G. Jacobsen, Judge. Michael Grider, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
1332, 1333.

#### Tooke *v.*City of Oglethorpe.

Certiorari, from Macon superior court — Judge Littlejohn. May 15, 1908.

Argued June 6,

Decided June 12, 1908.

*Hixon & Greer,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Jule Felton, solicitor,*contra.

Per Curiam.

These eases are controlled by the decision in the case of *McDonald*v. *Town of Ludowici,*3 *Ga. App.*654 (60 S. E. 337).

*Judgment affirmed.*