alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011160EN.01001702.xml

| 28.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Tubesca v OHIM — Tubos del Mediterráneo (T TUMESA TUBOS DEL MEDITERRANEO S.A.)

(Case T-98/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark T TUMESA TUBOS DEL MEDITERRANEO S.A. - Earlier national word mark and international figurative mark TUBESCA - Relative ground of refusal - No 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 160/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tubesca (Ailly-sur-Noye, France) (represented by: F. Greffe, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Tubos del Mediterráneo S.A. (Sagunto, Spain)

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 17 December 2008 (Case R 518/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Tubesca and Tubos del Mediterráneo S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tubesca to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tubesca to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,811
<SECURITIES>                                    38,319
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,929
<INVENTORY>                                      2,701
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,214
<PP&E>                                          30,555
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,964
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  91,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,036
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,656
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    91,105
<SALES>                                         15,545
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,043
<CGS>                                            5,104
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,071
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,981
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,642
<INCOME-TAX>                                       493
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,149
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
D.S., petitioner, v. WEST VIRGINIA.

No. 17-7792.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied.
Margaret BACH, petitioner, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

No. 17-7552.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
II-01100

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Letitia A Ellsworth <ellsworthletitia@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:14 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

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 (PIN 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.

Letitia A Ellsworth

835 North Vista Drive

Moses Lake, WA 98837
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

I, Micahel Dodak, the Chief Executive Officer of Global Axcess Corp. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter
ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 17, 2004

                                      /s/ Michael Dodak
                                          ---------------
                                          Name: Michael Dodak
                                          Title: Chief Executive Officer
# C_2010288EN.01006801.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 — Sluiter v European Police Office (Europol)

(Case F-34/09) (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 288/126)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Rudolf Sluiter (Hillegom, 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 him 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 Mr Sluiter a contract of indefinite duration; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Mr Sluiter 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 25

---
Francis J. SAMPSON JR., petitioner, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.

No. 17-1013.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
**Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2011 – Mugraby v Council and Commission**

**(Case T-292/09)**

Action for failure to act – Failure of the Council and the Commission to adopt measures against the Republic of Lebanon – Alleged violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights and the Association Agreement between the Community and the Republic
of Lebanon – Manifest inadmissibility – Actions for damages – Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law

1.                     *Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions – Omission by the Commission to address a recommendation
to the Council concerning suspension of Community aid to a non-member State – Inadmissibility (Art. 232, third para., EC;
European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1638/2006, Art. 28) (see paras 46-50)*

2.                     *Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions – Omission by the Council to request the Commission
to submit to it a proposal for measures concerning assistance given to a non-member State – Inadmissibility (Arts 208 EC and
232, third para., EC) (see paras 54-55)*

3.                     *Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution
– Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 59)*

4.                     *Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law
intended to confer rights on individuals – Association Agreement between the EC and the Republic of Lebanon – Wide discretion
of the Council and the Commission in managing the external policy of the Union – No grant of rights to individuals (Art. 288,
second para., EC) (see paras 66-73)*

5.                     *International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Community – Direct effect – Conditions – Provision constituting a clear
and precise obligation, not subject to the intervention of a subsequent measure – Article 86 of the Association Agreement
between the EC and the Republic of Lebanon – No direct effect (Art. 300(7) EC; Association Agreement between the EC and the
Republic of Lebanon, Art. 86) (see paras 73-81)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION (i) for a declaration that the Council and the Commission unlawfully failed to act on the applicant’s request concerning the adoption of measures against Lebanon on account of its alleged infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights and of the Association Agreement between the Community and the Republic of Lebanon, and (ii) for compensation for damage claimed to have been suffered by the applicant in consequence of the Council’s and the Commission’s inaction. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The action is dismissed. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Mr Muhamad Mugraby is ordered to pay the costs. |
Miguel MORROW, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7061.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

The CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3635 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3635

                      To repeal the debt ceiling.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 9, 2019

  Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                      To repeal the debt ceiling.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF DEBT CEILING.

    Sections 3101 and 3101A of title 31, United States Code, are hereby 
repealed.
                                 <all>
```
Pat FOSTER, petitioner, v. John C. KLEUESSENDORF, et al.; and Pat Foster, petitioner, v. Ganges Township, et al.

No. 17-1116.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

*1552Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan denied.
Deon C. COBB, petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 16-9341.

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.
Raymond A. COLLINS, aka Ray, aka Ron Turner, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8333.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

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

Justice SOTOMAYOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Robby Alan MURPHY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8132.

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.
Henri JEAN-BAPTISTE, petitioner, v. SAP, NATIONAL SECURITY SERVICES, INC., et al.

No. 17-7218.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# C_2010037EN.01004402.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/44

---

Action brought on 7 December 2009 — MEDA Pharma v OHIM — Nycomed (ALLERNIL)

(Case T-492/09)

2010/C 37/63

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: MEDA Pharma GmbH & Co KG (Bad Homburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, 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 of OHIM: Nycomed GmbH (Konstanz, Germany)

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 29 September 2009 in appeal proceedings R 1386/2007-4 concerning the objection lodged on the basis of the German trade mark No 1 042 583‘ALLERGODIL’ against the European part of the international registration 845 934‘ALLERNIL’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 29 September 2009 in appeal proceedings R 1386/2007-4 concerning the objection lodged on the basis of the German trade mark No 1 042 583‘ALLERGODIL’ against the European part of the international registration 845 934‘ALLERNIL’;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for extension of protection: Nycomed GmbH

Applicant for extension of protection:

Trade mark for which an extension of protection is sought: the word mark ‘ALLERNIL’ for goods in Class 5 (international registration No 845 934, naming the European Community)

Trade mark for which an extension of protection is sought:

Proprietor of the mark cited in opposition proceedings: the applicant

Proprietor of the mark cited in opposition proceedings:

Mark cited in opposition: the German word mark No 1 042 583‘ALLERGODIL’ for goods in Class 5

Mark cited in opposition:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since the principles of trade mark law relating to the likelihood of confusion were not correctly applied; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since the principles of trade mark law relating to the likelihood of confusion were not correctly applied;

1

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 owing to deficiencies in the reasoning of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 owing to deficiencies in the reasoning of the contested decision.

---

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

1

---
NUMBERS 13-21-00275-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

LEONARDO MONTOYA III, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court

of San Patricio County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant's third motion for extension of time to 

file the brief. Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on December 27, 2021, and 

appellant was previously granted two extensions.
2

The Court, having fully examined and considered appellant's third motion for 

extension of time to file the brief and the extensions previously granted in this cause, is 

of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant's third motion for extension of time 

to file the brief should be granted with order. The Court looks with disfavor upon the delay 

caused by counsel's failure to have filed a brief in this matter and further motions for 

extension of time will not be granted absent new and exigent circumstances.

Appellant's third motion for extension of time to file the brief is hereby granted, and 

the Honorable Coretta Graham, counsel for appellant, is ordered to file the appellate brief 

with this Court on or before July 25, 2022. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Issued on this the

19th day of May, 2022.
II-00536

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Peggy Messent <pegmessent@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 3:21 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.

Peggy Messent

10441 Paradise Bay Court

Clermont, FL 34711
James Le'Roy KELLEY, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-7254.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Shirley THOMAS, petitioner, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

No. 16-9455.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
# C_2012243EN.01001502.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2012 — Denmark v Commission

(Case T-212/09) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Arable crops - Setting aside of land)

2012/C 243/27

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by: J. Bering Liisberg, and subsequently by: V. Pasternak Jorgensen, acting as Agents, and by P. Biering and J. Pinborg, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: N. Rasmussen and F. Jimeno Fernández; and subsequently by F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents, and by T. Ryhl, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment in part 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 from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Denmark in respect of the setting aside of land

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.

1

---
Kenneth RIVERA, petitioner, v. Bryan STIRLING, et al.

No. 16-9361.

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.