alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011030EN.01003701.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2010 — Vidieffe v OHIM — Ellis International Group (GOTHA)

(Case T-169/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GOTHA - Earlier Community figurative mark gotcha - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 30/65

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vidieffe Srl (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: M. Lamandini, D. De Pasquale and M. Pappalardo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings, Ltd (Nassau, Bahamas)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 February 2009 (Case R 657/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Perry Ellis International Group Holdings, Ltd and Vidieffe Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 February 2009 (Case R 657/2008-1), in so far as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division, inasmuch as that decision rejected the opposition, first, in respect of ‘[leather and imitations of leather] goods (not included in other classes); trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks’ in Class 18 and, second, in respect of all the goods in Class 25. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 February 2009 (Case R 657/2008-1), in so far as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division, inasmuch as that decision rejected the opposition, first, in respect of ‘[leather and imitations of leather] goods (not included in other classes); trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks’ in Class 18 and, second, in respect of all the goods in Class 25.

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Vidieffe Srl. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Vidieffe Srl.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

1

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (on Form S-8 Nos. 333-134906, 333-125456,333-112322, 333-102769, 333-99629, 333-90778, 333-69706, 333-67332 and 333-95797 and on Form S-3 Nos. 333-140365, 333-135015 and 333-112323) of Sequenom, Inc., and in the related prospectus of our report dated March 16, 2007, with respect tothe consolidated financial statements and schedule of Sequenom, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

San Diego, California 

March 26, 2007
Robert L. VANN, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-5451.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
II-00451

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kathleen Wolfe <catlight45@msn.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 6:19 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.

Kathleen Wolfe

28701 Sixth Place South #201

Des Moines, WA 98198
Ricky Lee WHEELDON, petitioner, v. Sherman CAMPBELL, Warden.

No. 16-9499.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Steven C. CHUDIK, petitioner, v. Andrei IANCU, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office.

No. 17-1072.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                        471,519
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 3,887,131
<ALLOWANCES>                  71,924
<INVENTORY>                   828,211
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              5,396,313
<PP&E>                        631,568
<DEPRECIATION>                163,450
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                23,677,261
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         16,137,572
<BONDS>                       100,175
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   3,214,084
<COMMON>                      15,151
<OTHER-SE>                    4,117,067
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  23,677,261
<SALES>                       31,303,170
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              31,303,170
<CGS>                         22,796,823
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 6,260,819
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              46,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            1,149,481
<INCOME-PRETAX>               1,110,435
<INCOME-TAX>                  382,057
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           728,378
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  728,378
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0.02
        


</TABLE>
Chima Columbus AKOBUNDU, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8037.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Tyrosh BROWN, petitioner, v. CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, et al.

No. 17-1141.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
----

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION1350)

  

In connection with the Annual Reportof Empyrean Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), onAmended Form 10-KSBfor the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Lee, President of the Company, certify,pursuant to Sect. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sect. 1350), that tomy knowledge: 

  

(1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

  

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company. 

  

***/s/ Robert Lee           ***

Robert Lee

President and Chief Financial Officer

Date:        May 18, 2005

----
<PAGE>

                                                               EXHIBIT 23.2


              INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS CONSENT AND REPORT ON SCHEDULE


The Board of Directors
Breakaway Solutions, Inc.;


         The audits referred to in our report dated February 4, 2000, except
for paragraph five of note 6, which is as of March 7, 2000, included the
related consolidated financial statement schedule as of December 31, 1999,
and for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999,
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K. The consolidated financial
statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on the consolidated financial
statement schedule based on our audits. In our opinion such consolidated
financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic
consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all
material respects the information set forth therein.

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement (No. 333-88537) on Form S-8 of Breakaway Solutions, Inc. of our
report dated February 4, 2000, except for paragraph five of note 6, which is
as of March 7, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Breakaway
Solutions, Inc. as of December 31, 1998 and 1999, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, statements of stockholders' equity and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1999, and the related schedule, which report appears in the December 31,
1999, Annual Report on Form 10-K of Breakaway Solutions, Inc.

                                                                 /s/ KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 30, 2000
II-00550

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Martha Schwartz <activist@cruzio.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 3:05 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.

Martha Schwartz

130 Tree Frog Lane

Santa Cruz, CA 95060
# C_2009153EN.01004102.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/41

---

Action brought on 9 April 2009 — Trelleborg Industrie v Commission

(Case T-147/09)

2009/C 153/81

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Trelleborg Industrie SAS (Clermont Ferrand, France) (represented by: J. Joshua, Barrister and E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul in part Article 1 of the contested decision insofar as it relates to the applicant and in any event at least insofar as it finds the commission of any infringement by the applicant prior to 21 June 1999; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Article 1 of the contested decision insofar as it relates to the applicant and in any event at least insofar as it finds the commission of any infringement by the applicant prior to 21 June 1999;

| — | reduce the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2 so as to correct the manifest errors in the decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

reduce the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2 so as to correct the manifest errors in the decision;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 428 Final of 28 January 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA in Case COMP/39406 — Marine Hoses insofar as it holds it liable for participation in a single and continuous infringement in the marine hose sector in the EEA, which consisted of allocating tenders, fixing prices, fixing quotas, fixing sales conditions, geographic market sharing, and the exchange of sensitive information on prices, sales volumes and procurement tenders. Furthermore, it seeks the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its claims.

First, it submits that the Commission’s power to impose fines for any period before 21 June 1999 is time barred under Article 25(1) of Regulation 1/2003 as the applicant argues that the Commission made manifest error in fact and law in finding that the applicant had committed a single and continuous infringement.

Second, it claims that the Commission has no legitimate interest in making a declaratory finding of infringement for the first period which had come to an end in May 1997.

Third, alternatively, the applicant argues that the Commission has unlawfully discriminated against it in treating it differently from another addressee as regards liability for a corporate predecessor and has breached the right to be heard and the obligation to give reasons.

---
H. R. 3847 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 117 West 

Poythress Street in Hopewell, Virginia, as the ‘‘Reverend Curtis West Harris 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. REVEREND CURTIS WEST HARRIS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located 117 West Poythress Street in Hopewell, Virginia, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Reverend Curtis West Harris 

Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Reverend Curtis West Harris Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                    [LETTERHEAD OF BARRY L. FRIEDMAN, P.C.]




To Whom It May Concern:                                        January 21, 2000

The firm of Barry L. Friedman, P.C., Certified Public Accountant consents to the
inclusion of their report of January 21, 2000, on the Financial Statements of
Sierra Resource Group, Inc., as of December 31, 1999, in any filings that are
necessary now or in the near future with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.



Very truly yours,



/s/ BARRY L. FRIEDMAN
---------------------------
Barry L. Friedman
Certified Public Accountant
EXHIBIT 13.2

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

I, Margo Kaufmann, Chief Financial Officer of Titan Trading Analytics Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of may knowledge:

(i)

the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2004 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/ Margo Kaufmann





Name:

Margo Kaufmann

Title:

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Accounting Officer)

Date:

May 2, 2005

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
# C_2011038EN.01001202.xml

| 5.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Commission v Petrilli

(Case T-143/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Staff cases - Auxiliary contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Rules on the maximum duration for employing non-permanent staff in the Commission services - Decision to refuse renewal of the contract)

2011/C 38/19

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and B. Eggers, Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Nicole Petrilli (Woluwé-Saint-Étienne, Belgium) (represented: initially by J.-L. Lodomez and J. Lodomez, and subsequently by D. Dejehet and A. Depondt, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 January 2009 in Case F-98/07 Petrilli v Commission ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Petrilli

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mrs Nicole Petrilli in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mrs Nicole Petrilli in these proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 153 of 4.7.2009.

1

---
# C_2012343EN.01001301.xml

| 10.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2012 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-333/09) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Modulation - Allocation between the Member States of savings made - Distinction between the old Member States and those which acceded to the European Union in 2004 - Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Solidarity - Equal treatment - Duty to state reasons)

2012/C 343/18

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by M. Dowgielewicz, and subsequently by M. Szpunar, B. Majczna and D. Krawczyk, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and M. Owisany-Hornung, Agents)

Defendant: European

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2009/444 of 10 June 2009 allocating the amounts resulting from the modulation provided for in Articles 7 and 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 to the Member States for the years 2009 to 2012 (OJ 2009 L 148, p. 29) in so far as Annex I allocates to Member States for 2012 the amounts resulting from the modulation provided for in Article 9(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

1

---