alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011252EN.01005001.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/50

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 11 May 2011 — J v Commission

(Case F-53/09) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Social security - Accident insurance and occupational disease - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to recognise the cause of an occupational disease - Obligation to conduct the procedure within a reasonable period)

2011/C 252/106

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: J (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s claim that the disease from which she is suffering should be recognised as an occupational disease, and of the decision to charge her for the fees and costs of the doctor whom she designated and 50 % of the fees and incidental costs of the third doctor on the medical committee

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Orders the European Commission to pay the applicant damages of one euro; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Commission to pay the applicant damages of one euro;

| 2. | Dismisses the other claims in the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the other claims in the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay, as well as its own costs, one quarter of the applicant’s costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay, as well as its own costs, one quarter of the applicant’s costs;

| 4. | Orders the applicant to bear three-quarters of her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the applicant to bear three-quarters of her own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 180, of 01.08.2009, p. 64.

1

---
Thomas David McWATERS, petitioner, v. ARIZONA.

No. 16-9291.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two denied.
## Court of Appeals of the State of Geo rgia
ATLA NTA,

_________________ _ The Court of

Appeals hereby passes

the followi

ng order: A14A1702. ROBERT L. TILLM AN v. THE STATE. This case was docketed by this Court on May 15, 2014, and appellant’ s brief and enumerations of error were du e June 4, 20 14. On June 4, 2014 , appella ntfiled a motion for extension of time to file his brief, and an extension was grantedto allow appellant through and u

ntil June 19, 2014 to file

its brief an d enum erations of error. As of t he date of t his order, appellant still has not

filed a br ief and en umeration of error and has not r

equested a

n additional

ext ension o f tim e in which to do so. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED as abandoned p ursuant to Court of Appeals Rul es 13 and 2 3. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Offi

ce, Atlant a,_______________

___ I certify that th e above is a true extract fro m the minutes of the Court

of Appeals

of Georgia. Witness m

y si gnature and t

he seal of s aid court hereto aff

ixed the day and year last above writt

en. , Clerk. 07/15/2014 July 15, 2014
# C_2009167EN.01002102.xml

| 18.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 167/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/21

---

Action brought on 25 May 2009 — El Jirari Bouzekri v OHIM — Nike International (NC NICKOL)

(Case T-207/09)

2009/C 167/42

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Mustapha El Jirari Bouzekri (Malaga, Spain) (represented by: E. Ragot, lawyer)

Applicants:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 February 2009 in case R 554/2008-2 in so far as it contains an error of law in the interpretation of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 207/2009); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 February 2009 in case R 554/2008-2 in so far as it contains an error of law in the interpretation of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 207/2009); and

| — | Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘NC NICKOL’, for goods in class 9

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘NIKE’ for a range of goods, amongst them goods in classes 9 and 25

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the conditions for the application of the said provision were fulfilled.

Pleas in law:

---
Eitan LEASCHAUER, petitioner, v. Michael P. HUERTA, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration.

No. 16-6446.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until January 30, 2017, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Exhibit 15(a).1 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in RegistrationStatements No. 333–12958, No. 333–11288, No. 333–118619 and No. 333–123666 on Form S–8 and No. 333-145834 on Form F-3 of our reports dated June 30, 2009, relating to the consolidated financialstatements of CDC Corporation and subsidiaries (the Company) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s adoption of Statement Financial Accounting Standards Board InterpretationNo. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes” on January 1, 2007), and the effectiveness of CDC Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of CDC Corporationand subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

*/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP*

Atlanta, GA 

June 30, 2009
**CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND MERGER OF**

** **

**POPBIG, INC.**

**(a Delaware corporation)**

** **

**WITH AND INTO**

** **

**RAVENWOOD BOURNE, LTD.**

**(a Delaware corporation)**

** **

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 253 of Delaware General CorporationLaw, RAVENWOOD BOURNE LTD. (the “Corporation”), a Delaware corporation incorporated on October 11, 2007, does herebycertify:

 

**FIRST:**That the Corporation owns all of the issued and outstandingshares of common stock of PopBig, Inc., a Delaware corporation incorporated on April 18, 2011, pursuant to the Delaware GeneralCorporation Law.

 

**SECOND:** That the Corporation, by the following resolutionof its Board of Directors, duly adopted by unanimous written consent pursuant to 8 Del. C. §141 dated September 12, 2011, determined to and did merge into itself said PopBig, Inc., by the adoption thereof:

 

**RESOLVED,**that the Corporationmerges into itself its wholly owned subsidiary PopBig, Inc. (“PopBig”), and assumes all of the obligations of PopBig(the “Merger”).

 

**RESOLVED,**that the Mergershall become effective on the effective date set forth in the Certificate of Ownership and Merger to be filed with the Secretaryof State of the State of Delaware.

 

**RESOLVED,**that upon effectivenessof the Merger, the name of the Corporation shall be changed to “PopBig, Inc.” and Article I of the Certificate of Incorporationof the Corporation shall be amended to read as follows:

 

“ARTICLE I

 

NAME

 

The name of the Corporation shallbe PopBig, Inc.”

** **

**RESOLVED**that except for the foregoing amendment to Article I, said Certificate of Incorporation shall remain unchanged by the merger andin full force and effect until further amended in accordance with the Delaware General Corporation Law.

 

 

**RESOLVED**that the proper officers of the Corporation be, and they hereby are, directed to make and execute a Certificate of Ownership andMerger setting forth a copy of the resolutions to effect the Merger and to assume its obligations and the date of adoption thereof,and to cause the same to be filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware and to do all acts and things whatsoever,whether within or without the State of Delaware, which may be necessary or proper to effect the Merger and change of name.

 

**THE MERGER HEREIN PROVIDED FOR SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE IN THESTATE OF DELAWARE ON September 30, 2011.**

** **

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the Corporation has caused its corporateseal to be affixed and this certificate to be signed by an authorized officer this 13th day of September, 2011.
II-O0031

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Caitlin O’Brien <cobrien428@yahoo.com>

Saturday, December 11, 2010 4:17 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.

Caitlin O’Brien

13 Sidney ave

spotswood, NJ 08884
# C_2010288EN.01006802.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/68

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Visser-Fornt Raya v European Police Office (Europol)

(Case F-35/09) (1)

(Staff case - Europol employees - Non-renewal of a contract - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

(2010/C 288/127)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Maria Teresa Visser-Fornt Raya (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented initially by P. de Casparis, lawyer, then by W. J. Dammingh and N. D. Dane, lawyers)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by- D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Ms Visser-Fornt Raya a contract of indefinite duration; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Ms Visser-Fornt Raya a contract of indefinite duration;

| 2. | orders Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Europol to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 167, of 18.07.09., p 26

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-31802 and 333-31804) pertaining to the (i) USinternetworking,
Inc. Amended and Restated 1998 Stock Option Plan and (ii) USinternetworking,
Inc. 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of USinternetworking, Inc. of our report
dated August 20, 1998, with respect to the financial statements of International
Information Technology IIT, C.A. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
USinternetworking, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                           /s/ Bassan & Associados S.C.

Caracas, Venezuela
March 27, 2001
Michael B. WHEELER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9520.

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.
# C_2010024EN.01005401.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/54

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 November 2009 — Andersen v Commission

(Case T-87/09) (1)

1

(State aid - Measures in favour of Danske Statsbaner - Public service obligations - Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC - Inadmissibility)

2010/C 24/96

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jørgen Andersen (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Nissen, J. Rivas de Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Martenczuk and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 4776 final of 10 September 2008 to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC in respect of State aid C 41/2008 (ex NN 35/2008), implemented by the Kingdom of Denmark in favour of Danske Statsbaner.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Jørgen Andersen is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Jørgen Andersen is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.

1

---
# C_2012013EN.01001201.xml

| 14.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — bpost v Commission

(Case T-514/09) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - Tendering procedure of the PO - Daily transport and delivery of the Official Journal, books, other periodicals and publications - Rejection of the tender of a tenderer and decision to award the contract to another tenderer - Award criteria - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability)

2012/C 13/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: bpost NV van publiek recht, formerly De Post NV van publiek recht (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Martens, B. Schutyser and A. Van Vaerenbergh, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and N. Bambara, Agents, assisted by P. Wytinck, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, first, for the annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union, communicated by letter of 17 December 2009, to reject the tender submitted by the applicant under invitation to tender No 10234 ‘Daily transport and delivery of the Official Journal, books, other periodicals and publications’ (OJ 2009/S 176-253034) and award the contract to the successful tenderer, and, second, for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders bpost NV van publiek recht to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders bpost NV van publiek recht to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.

1

---
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

R.Q. WARD, D.C. KING, S.A. DOMINGUEZ

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MICHAEL J. HERZOG

PRIVATE (E

- 1), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201400204

SPECIAL COURT

- MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 29 January 2014

. Military Judge: Col M.B. Richardson, USMC

. Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, Headquarters

Battalion, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA

. Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: Maj V.G. Laratta,

USMC

. For Appellant: CDR S abatino F. Leo, JAGC, USN

. For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller , Esq

.

2 8 August 2014

---------------------------------------------------

OPINION OF THE COURT

---------------------------------------------------

After careful consideration of the record, submitted

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
II-O0610

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Frederic McFadden <fandcmcf@sbcglobal.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:32 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.

Frederic McFadden

2004 san nicholas st

Ventura, CA 93001
William Bryon LEONARD, petitioner, v. E.K. McDANIEL, Warden.

No. 15-9429.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.
Arika HAYES, aka Swiss Barbie Bone, petitioner, v. VIACOM INC., et al.

No. 17-7399.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

BARRY LANGAN,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 367 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of May, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
# C_2015016EN.01002602.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Alstom v Commission

(Case T-517/09) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Power transformers market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Effect on trade between Member States - Concept of undertaking - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence by a parent company over the conduct of the subsidiary - Duty to state reasons)

(2015/C 016/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alstom (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented by: J. Derenne and A. Müller-Rappard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: A. Bouquet, N. von Lingen and K. Mojzesowicz, and subsequently by: A. Bouquet, K. Mojzesowicz and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 final of 7 October 2009, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.129 — Power transformers).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 final of 7 October 2009, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.129 — Power transformers), in so far as it concerns Alstom; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 final of 7 October 2009, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.129 — Power transformers), in so far as it concerns Alstom;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.

---