alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009244EN.01000601.xml

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/6

---

Action brought on 17 July 2009 — Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer v OHIM (CHROMA)

(Case T-281/09)

2009/C 244/09

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer AG (Frechen, Germany) (represented by J. Albrecht, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Fourth Board of Appeal) of 8 May 2009, in so far as the application for registration of the mark in respect of the requested goods in Classes 19 and 11 was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Fourth Board of Appeal) of 8 May 2009, in so far as the application for registration of the mark in respect of the requested goods in Classes 19 and 11 was rejected;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CHROMA’ for goods and services in Classes 11, 19 and 37 (Application No 6 731 103)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Registration rejected in part.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) in that the word ‘CHROMA’ has no directly descriptive meaning.

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

---
# C_2011089EN.01001302.xml

| 19.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/13

---

Order of the President of the Court of 9 November 2010 — KEK Diavlos v European Commission

(Case C-251/10 P) (1)

1

2011/C 89/26

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.

1

---
# C_2011340EN.01001701.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — La Sonrisa de Carmen and Bloom Clothes v OHIM — Heldmann (BLOOMCLOTHES)

(Case T-118/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BLOOMCLOTHES - Earlier national word mark BLOOM - 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 340/32

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: La Sonrisa de Carmen, SL (Vigo, Spain); and Bloom Clothes, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: S. Míguez Pereira, lawyer)

Applicants:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Harald Heldmann (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: E. Günther, 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 Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2009 (Case R 695/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Harald Heldmann and, on the other, La Sonrisa de Carmen, SL and Bloom Clothes, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders La Sonrisa de Carmen, SL and Bloom Clothes, SL to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Harald Heldmann; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders La Sonrisa de Carmen, SL and Bloom Clothes, SL to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Harald Heldmann;

| 3. | Orders Mr Heldmann to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Heldmann to bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

1

---
# C_2010063EN.01002202.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 December 2009 — Lothar Lohmeyer v Finanzamt Minden

(Case C-501/09)

2010/C 63/36

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lothar Lohmeyer

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Minden

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the term ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ in Category 1 of Annex H to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) to be interpreted as covering only ‘take-away’ foodstuffs as typically sold in the grocery business, or does it also cover dishes and meals which have been prepared by boiling, grilling, roasting, baking or other means for immediate consumption? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the term ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ in Category 1 of Annex H to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) to be interpreted as covering only ‘take-away’ foodstuffs as typically sold in the grocery business, or does it also cover dishes and meals which have been prepared by boiling, grilling, roasting, baking or other means for immediate consumption?

1

| 2. | In the event that ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ within the meaning of Category 1 of Annex H to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes also covers dishes or meals for immediate consumption:
  Is the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted as covering the sale of freshly prepared dishes or meals which the customer does not take away, but consumes on the spot making use of facilities for consumption such as counters, tables for standing at or the like? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ within the meaning of Category 1 of Annex H to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes also covers dishes or meals for immediate consumption:

Is the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted as covering the sale of freshly prepared dishes or meals which the customer does not take away, but consumes on the spot making use of facilities for consumption such as counters, tables for standing at or the like?

---

(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
                                                                   Exhibit 11

                       AZTAR CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
              For the periods ended July 3, 1997 and June 27, 1996
         ---------------------------------------------------------------
                      (in thousands, except per share data)

<CAPTION>
                                       Second Quarter        Six Months     
                                     ------------------  ------------------ 
                                       1997      1996      1997      1996   
                                     --------  --------  --------  -------- 
<S>                                  <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>  
Net income                           $  3,429  $     40  $  6,106  $    809 
Deduct: preferred stock dividend 
 and losses on redemption (net of 
 income taxes credited to retained 
 earnings)                               (154)     (164)     (328)     (324)
                                     --------  --------  --------  -------- 

Net income applicable to 
 computation                         $  3,275  $   (124) $  5,778  $    485 
                                     ========  ========  ========  ======== 
Weighted average common shares 
 assuming no dilution                  45,121    38,411    45,063    38,348 
  Common equivalent shares
   Additional shares applicable to 
     stock options based on the 
     weighted average market price        625     1,283       695     1,116 
                                     --------  --------  --------  -------- 
Weighted average common shares 
 applicable to net income per 
 common and common equivalent 
 share                                 45,746    39,694    45,758    39,464 

   Shares applicable to stock 
     options based on exercises 
     during the period and/or 
     the market close price at 
     the end of the period                 --        23        (4)      207 

  Conversion of preferred stock at 
   the stated rate                        915       967       922       973 
                                     --------  --------  --------  -------- 
Weighted average common shares 
 assuming full dilution                46,661    40,684    46,676    40,644 
                                     ========  ========  ========  ======== 

Net income per common and common 
 equivalent share                    $    .07  $     --  $    .13  $    .01 

Net income per common share 
 assuming full dilution              $    .07  $     --  $    .12  $    .01 
</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3785 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to change the residency requirements 

for certain officials serving in the District of Columbia, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 16, 2019 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to change the residency requirements for certain officials serving in the 

District of Columbia, 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 ‘‘District of Columbia 

5 Federal Officials Residency Equality Act of 2019’’. 


Pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3785 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN OFFI2 CIALS SERVING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUM3 BIA. 

4 (a) CIRCUIT JUDGES.—Section 44(c) of title 28, 

5 United States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘Except in the District of Co7 lumbia, each’’ and inserting ‘‘Each’’; 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘his appointment’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘his or her appointment’’; and 

10 (3) by striking ‘‘state’’ and inserting ‘‘State’’. 

11 (b) DISTRICT JUDGES.—Section 134 of title 28, 

12 United States Code, is amended— 

13 (1) in the first sentence of subsection (b)— 

14 (A) by striking ‘‘the District of Columbia, 

15 the Southern District of New York, and’’ and 

16 inserting ‘‘the Southern District of New York 

17 and’’; and 

18 (B) by striking ‘‘for which he’’ and insert19 ing ‘‘for which he or she’’; and 

20 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘his’’ each 

21 place it appears and inserting ‘‘his or her’’. 

22 (c) UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.—Section 545(a) of 

23 title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the 

24 first sentence and inserting ‘‘Each United States attorney 

25 shall reside in the district for which he or she is appointed, 

26 except that those officers of the Southern District of New 


Pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3785 IH

1 York and the Eastern District of New York may reside 

2 within 20 miles thereof.’’. 

3 (d) UNITED STATES MARSHALS.—Section 561(e)(1) 

4 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read as 

5 follows: 

6 ‘‘(1) the marshal for the Southern District of 

7 New York may reside within 20 miles of the district; 

8 and’’. 

9 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall take effect on the date that is one year 

11 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


Pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
ENOVA TECHNOLOGY CORP., petitioner, v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY (US) HOLDINGS, INC., et al.

No. 17-787.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 23.2

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the use in connection with the registration statements on Form S-8
for the 1999 Stock Option Plan, Registration File No. 333-41788, and the 2000
Stock Option Plan, Registration File No. 333-41786, and the 1999 and 2000 Stock
Option Plans, Registration File No. 333-116671, and the registration statements
on Form S-3, Registration File Nos. 333-145927, 333-145841, 333-140541,
333-127205, and 333-127449 of IA Global, Inc. formerly Medium4.com, Inc,
incorporated into the Annual Report on Form 10-K of IA Global, Inc., of our
report dated October 16, 2007, relating to Australian Secured Financial Limited
financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2007.



                                    /s/ Bentleys MRI Brisbane Partnership
                                        Bentleys MRI Brisbane Partnership
                                        Certified Public Accountants



BRISBANE QLD
December 28, 2007
Stephen Andrew BECKHAM, petitioner, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden.

No. 16-1550.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Dale Andrew ROUNDSTONE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9494.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
ICTSI OREGON, INC., petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION, et al.

No. 17-770.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

*1263Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                                     EXHIBIT 27.1

                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

                            CORPORATE REALTY INCOME TRUST I

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,
1997 AS REPORTED ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                         JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                                  946,623
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      1,084,933
<PP&E>                                               32,600,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                        5,453,098
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       30,396,681
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   761,744
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                101,078
<OTHER-SE>                                           14,165,249
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         30,396,681
<SALES>                                               1,711,633
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      1,726,392
<CGS>                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        786,246
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      701,094
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         239,052
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                            239,052
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               .24

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

[KPMG Logo]

1000 Walnut, Suite 1600                                   Telephone 816 474 6480
P.O. Box 13127                                            Fax 816 556 9652
Kansas City, MO 64199



                        Independent Accountants' Report


The Board of Directors
NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.:

We have examined management's assertion about NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.'s (the 
Company) compliance with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the 
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program 
for Mortgage Bankers as of and for the year ended December 31, 1998, included 
in the accompanying Management Assertion. Management is responsible for the 
Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility 
is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's 
compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the 
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included 
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the 
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we 
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination 
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a 
legal determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing 
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. has 
complied in all material respects with the aforementioned minimum servicing 
standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 1998 is fairly stated, in 
all material respects.


                                  /s/ KPMG LLP

January 29, 1999
# C_2013026EN.01006802.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/68

---

Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 3 December 2012 — JSK International Architekten und Ingenieure v ECB

(Case T-468/09) (1)

1

2013/C 26/134

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.

1

---
# C_2011319EN.01001403.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Dornbracht v OHIM — Metaform Lucchese (META)

(Case T-1/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for the Community word mark META - Earlier Community figurative mark METAFORM - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the goods and the signs - Refusal of registration - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Likelihood of confusion)

2011/C 319/27

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt and M. Bergermann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Metaform Lucchese SpA (Pescaglia, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and A. Perani, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2008 (Case R 1152/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Metaform Lucchese SpA and Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co KG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.

1

---