alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012006EN.01001301.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — McLoughney v OHIM — Kern (Powerball)

(Case T-484/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Powerball - Earlier unregistered word mark POWERBALL - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 6/20

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rory McLoughney (Thurles, Ireland) (represented by: J. Stratford Lysandrides, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ernst Kern (Zahling, Germany)

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 30 September 2009 (Case R 1547/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Rory McLoughney and Mr Ernst Kern

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Mr Rory McLoughney to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Mr Rory McLoughney to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1289

In Re: JAMES ERIC JONES,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(4:06-cr-01238-TLW-1; 4:16-cv-01447-TLW)

Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 27, 2017

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Eric Jones, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Eric Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court 

has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order 

from this court directing the district court to act. The present record does not reveal 

undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. We also deny Jones’ motion for bail without 

prejudice. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
# C_2010024EN.01008003.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/80

---

Action brought on 23 October 2009 — Z v Court of Justice

(Case F-88/09)

2010/C 24/154

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Z (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, annulment of the decision to transfer the applicant in the interest of the service to another directorate and, second, compensation for non-material loss.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 18 December 2008 to transfer the applicant to the library directorate with effect on 1 January 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 18 December 2008 to transfer the applicant to the library directorate with effect on 1 January 2009;

| — | inasmuch as it is necessary, annul the decision of 9 July 2009, received on 13 July 2009 to reject the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

inasmuch as it is necessary, annul the decision of 9 July 2009, received on 13 July 2009 to reject the complaint;

| — | order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 50 000 as compensation for the non-material loss; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 50 000 as compensation for the non-material loss;

| — | order the Court of Justice of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Court of Justice of the European Union to pay the costs.

---
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al., petitioners, v. Donald J. TRUMP, President of the United States, et al.

No. 17-1194.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Motion of petitioners to expedite consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari granted in part. Respondents are directed to file a response to the petition for writ of certiorari no later than noon on March 1, 2018.
BARCLAYS PLC, et al., petitioners v. Joseph WAGGONER, et al.

No. 17-1209.

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.
---

Exhibit 10.6

SECOND AMENDMENT to the 
Employment Agreement executed September 16, 1999 between Keith Steinbruck and Eagle Pacific Industries, Inc.

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into effective as of August 20, 2001, by and between Keith Steinbruck (the Employee) and PW Eagle, Inc.,
f/k/a Eagle Pacific Industries, Inc. (Eagle).

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Employee and Eagle are parties to that certain Employment Agreement executed September 16, 1999, as amended December 15, 1099 (the
Agreement).

WHEREAS, the parties mutually desire to amend the Agreement effective August 20, 2001 to take
into account the resolutions adopted by Eagles Board of Directors at its meeting on such date.

NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises and mutual agreements hereinafter contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:

1.         The term of the Agreement as referenced in Section 1 shall be through December 31, 2004.

2.         Except as amended herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the Employment Agreement effective as of the
date first written above.

|PW EAGLE, INC.        |                     
|--------------------- | --------------------
|(the Company)       |                     
|                      |                     
|                      |                     
|By:  /s/Larry Fleming | /s/ Keith Steinbruck
|Its:  President       | (the Employee)    

|                             
|-----------------------------
|[RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS]
|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,653
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,653
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          332,218
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,623
<OTHER-SE>                                   (339,188)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,653
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                64,725
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,375
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (71,100)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (71,100)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Matthew James LEACHMAN, petitioner, v. William STEPHENS, et al.

No. 17-7655.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6994** 

JIMMY D. MEGGS , JR., a/k/a Jimmy D. Meggs

Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN GREGORY KNOWLIN, Warden of Turbeville , Respondent

- Appellee , and

JON OZMINT, D irector , Respondent

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Terry L. Wooten , District Judge. ( 8:10

- cv
- 01774

- TLW )

Submitted : January 31, 2012 Decided: February 16, 2012

Before SHEDD, DAV IS, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jimmy D. Meggs, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III , Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jimmy D. Meggs, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) pe tition. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Meggs v. Knowlin , No. 8:10

- cv
- 01774

- TLW (D.S.C. filed July 12,
2011, entered July 13, 2011) . We dispense with oral ar gument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Danny HOWELL, petitioner, v. Richard BROWN, Superintendent, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility.

No. 17-6500.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
James SPENCER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9495.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Carlos Ellis POWELL and Eric Jerome Powell, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-1477.

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.
Robert E. FOX, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-1338.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Gary Dion DANIELS, petitioner, v. TEXAS; Gary Dion Daniels, petitioner, v. Texas; Gary Dion Daniels, petitioner, v. Texas; Gary Dion Daniels, petitioner, v. Texas; Gary Dion Daniels, petitioner, v. Texas; Gary Dion Daniels, petitioner, v. Texas; and Gary Dion Daniels, petitioner, v. Texas.

No. 17-7826.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
# C_2009256EN.01003302.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/33

---

Action brought on 28 August 2009 — Bard v OHIM — Braun Melsungen (PERFIX)

(Case T-342/09)

2009/C 256/60

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: C.R. Bard, Inc. (Murray Hill, United States) (represented by: A. Bryson, Barrister, O. Bray, A. Hobson and G. Warren, Solicitors)

Applicants:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: B. Braun Melsungen AG (Melsungen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 June 2009 in case R 1577/2007-5; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 June 2009 in case R 1577/2007-5; and

| — | Order the defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs.

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 word mark “PERFIX”, for goods in class 10

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: German trade mark registration of the word mark “PERIFIX” for goods in class 10; International trade mark registration of the word mark “PERIFIX” for goods in class 10

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(1)(b) Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

Pleas in law:

---
David Z. SIMPSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7582.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
II-00472

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ann Grodin <anngro47@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 5:55 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.

Ann Grodin

1296 San Ysidro Drive

Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Kevin PHILLIP, petitioner, v. Barry McARDLE.

No. 17-7850.

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.
Subsidiaries





ROO
      Media
      Corporation, a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of the
      Company





ROO
      Media
      (Australia) Pty. Ltd., an Australia corporation and wholly owned subsidiary
      of
      the Company





ROO
      Broadcasting Ltd., an Australia corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of
      the
      Company





Undercover
      Media Pty. Ltd., an Australia corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of the
      Company





ROO
      TV
      Pty. Ltd., an Australia corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of the
      Company





Bickhams
      Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of the
      Company





VideoDome.com
      Networks, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Bickhams Media, Inc. and a
      California corporation





ROO
      Media
      Europe Limited, a United Kingdom corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of
      the
      Company





ROO
      HD,
      Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of the
      Company





Reality
      Group Pty. Ltd., an Australia corporation and 51% owned subsidiary of the
      Company





Sputnik
      Agency Pty. Ltd., an Australia corporation and 51% owned subsidiary of the
      Company
<PAGE>
                                                                       FORM 10-Q


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                       CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Encore Wire Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Vincent A. Rego, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

            1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                  amended; and

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




Date: November 5, 2003


                                                      /s/ VINCENT A. REGO
                                                --------------------------------
                                                        Vincent A. Rego
                                                   Chairman of the Board and
                                                    Chief Executive Officer


                                                                              25
Ann McGEEHAN, petitioner, v. Michael McGEEHAN.

No. 17-973.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland denied.
In Re Charles OLIVER, petitioner.

No. 17-7397.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
# C_2011139EN.01001101.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Strong Segurança SA v Município de Sintra, Securitas-Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança

(Case C-95/10) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 47(2) - Direct effect - Whether applicable to the services referred to in Annex II B to that directive)

2011/C 139/17

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Strong Segurança SA

Appellant:

Respondents: Município de Sintra, Securitas-Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança

Respondents:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Articles 21, 23, 35(4) and 47(2) of, and of Annex II B to, Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Economic and financial capacity of the tenderers — Whether an economic operator can rely on the capacities of other entities — Direct effect of a directive implemented late

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts does not create the obligation, for Member States, to apply Article 47(2) of that directive also to contracts which have as their object services referred to in Annex II B thereto. However, that directive does not preclude Member States and, possibly, contracting authorities from providing for such application in, respectively, their legislation and the documents relating to the contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

1

---
Joseph MIGLIORI, petitioner, v. HONEYWELL INC., et al.

No. 17-7445.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Ronald Jennings FOGLE, petitioner, v. John PALOMINO.

No. 16-9445.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.02


  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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Niku Corporation (the
"Company") for the period ended January 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Michael Shahbazian,
as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

      SIGNATURE                       TITLE                           DATE
      ---------                       -----                           ----
<S>                           <C>                                 <C>
/s/ Michael Shahbazian
______________________       Chief Financial Officer              April 15, 2003
  Michael Shahbazian
</TABLE>

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Niku Corporation and will be retained by Niku Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.