alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010080EN.01003101.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/31

---

Action brought on 28 December 2009 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA)

(Case T-525/09)

2010/C 80/52

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, 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: Metronia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2009 in case R 1315/2006-1, as far as the appeal has been dismissed on the grounds that it does not comply with Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2009 in case R 1315/2006-1, as far as the appeal has been dismissed on the grounds that it does not comply with Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009); and

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs, including those incurred in the opposition and appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs, including those incurred in the opposition and appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘METRONIA’, for goods and services in classes 9, 20, 28 and 41

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘METRO’, for goods and services in classes 9, 20, 28 and 41

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application;

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal, rejected the opposition and, as a result, allowed the Community trade mark application to proceed in respect of all goods and services

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2011120EN.01001001.xml

| 16.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 120/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/10

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Administración General del Estado v Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles Españoles (RENFE)

(Case C-303/10) (1)

1

2011/C 120/23

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 11.09.2010.

1

---
Russell L. YATES, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-7659.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District denied.
Arnold AGUILAR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6975.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Gregory LUCE, et al., petitioners, v. TOWN OF CAMPBELL, WISCONSIN.

No. 17-1186.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16354]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medicine Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Minority Programs Review Committee, MBRS 
Review Subcommittee B.
    Date: July 17-18, 2001.
    Time: 8:30 am to 2:00 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Rebecca H Johnson, Office of Scientific Review, 
National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes 
of Health, Natcher Building, Room 1AS19J, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 
594-2771, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fc949d9f979988888ebc92959b918fd2929594d29b938a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2f474e4c444a5b5b5d6f414648425c0141464701484059">[email protected]</span></a>.


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 21, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-16354 Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00443-CV

SHERRY GRAYNED APPELLANT

V.

CITIBANK, N.A. APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 141ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On December 9, 2011, we notified appellant that the trial court clerk 

responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court that 

payment arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk’s record as 

required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2). See Tex. R. App. P. 

35.3(a)(2). We stated that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

unless appellant, within fifteen days, made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s 

record and provided this court with proof of payment. 

Because appellant has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s 

record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want 

of prosecution. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 

37.3(b), 42.3(b).

Appellant shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J. 

DELIVERED: January 19, 2012
Carlos E. MORAL, petitioner, v. KANSAS.

No. 17-6982.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2011160EN.01001001.xml

| 28.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2011 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-431/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/85/EC - Right of asylum - Procedure for granting and withdrawing refugee status - Minimum standards - Failure to transpose provisions fully within the prescribed period)

2011/C 160/09

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou Durande and A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 of that directive;

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

2.

Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         616,022
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,847,658
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,593,218
<PP&E>                                         469,153
<DEPRECIATION>                                 286,121
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,831,637
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,512,764
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,826
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,314,047
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,831,637
<SALES>                                      5,168,414
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,168,414
<CGS>                                        4,671,804
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,671,804
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               583,997
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (70,437)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (28,400)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (42,037)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (42,037)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
BEYOND NUCLEAR, petitioner, v. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, et al.

No. 17-1214.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1


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


In connection with the Annual Report of RPM Advantage Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David R. Pressler, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) 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.

Date: July 15, 2011




/s/ DAVID R. PRESSLER



David R. Pressler
Chief Executive Officer and President
BOSTON FINANCIAL QUALIFIED HOUSING TAX CREDITS L.P. V
                             (A Limited Partnership)


                                  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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Financial Qualified Housing
Tax Credits L.P. V (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     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
     Partnership.



                                   /s/Jenny Netzer
                                   ------------------------------------
                                  Jenny Netzer
                                  Principal Executive Officer and
                                  Principal Financial Officer
                                  Arch Street VIII, Inc, as
                                  Managing General Partner of
                                  Boston Financial Qualified
                                  Housing Tax Credits L.P. V


                                  Date:  February 14, 2006


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Yannier ARIAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7698.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3886 

To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to provide a temporary exemption 

for low-revenue issuers from certain auditor attestation requirements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 23, 2019 

Mr. MCADAMS (for himself and Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to provide a 

temporary exemption for low-revenue issuers from certain 

auditor attestation requirements. 

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 ‘‘Fostering Innovation 

5 Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FOR LOW-REVENUE 

7 ISSUERS. 

8 Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 

9 U.S.C. 7262) is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3886 IH

1 ‘‘(d) TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FOR LOW-REVENUE

2 ISSUERS.— 

3 ‘‘(1) LOW-REVENUE EXEMPTION.—Subsection 

4 (b) shall not apply with respect to an audit report 

5 prepared for an issuer that— 

6 ‘‘(A) ceased to be an emerging growth 

7 company on the last day of the fiscal year of 

8 the issuer following the fifth anniversary of the 

9 date of the first sale of common equity securi10 ties of the issuer pursuant to an effective reg11 istration statement under the Securities Act of 

12 1933; 

13 ‘‘(B) had average annual gross revenues of 

14 less than $50,000,000 as of its most recently 

15 completed fiscal year; and 

16 ‘‘(C) is not a large accelerated filer. 

17 ‘‘(2) EXPIRATION OF TEMPORARY EXEMP18 TION.—An issuer ceases to be eligible for the exemp19 tion described under paragraph (1) at the earliest 

20 of— 

21 ‘‘(A) the last day of the fiscal year of the 

22 issuer following the tenth anniversary of the 

23 date of the first sale of common equity securi24 ties of the issuer pursuant to an effective regVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:39 Jul 31, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3886.IH H3886

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 3886 IH

1 istration statement under the Securities Act of 

2 1933; 

3 ‘‘(B) the last day of the fiscal year of the 

4 issuer during which the average annual gross 

5 revenues of the issuer exceed $50,000,000; or 

6 ‘‘(C) the date on which the issuer becomes 

7 a large accelerated filer. 

8 ‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub9 section: 

10 ‘‘(A) AVERAGE ANNUAL GROSS REVE11 NUES.—The term ‘average annual gross reve12 nues’ means the total gross revenues of an 

13 issuer over its most recently completed three 

14 fiscal years divided by three. 

15 ‘‘(B) EMERGING GROWTH COMPANY.—The 

16 term ‘emerging growth company’ has the mean17 ing given such term under section 3 of the Se18 curities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c). 

19 ‘‘(C) LARGE ACCELERATED FILER.—The 

20 term ‘large accelerated filer’ has the meaning 

21 given that term under section 240.12b–2 of title 

22 17, Code of Federal Regulations, or any suc23 cessor thereto.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors
Central Bancorp, Inc.:


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements on
Form S-8 (333-87005 and 333-49264) of Central Bancorp, Inc. of our report, dated
April 25, 2003,  except as to the fifth paragraph of Note 8, which is as of June
23, 2003, with respect to the  consolidated  balance sheets of Central  Bancorp,
Inc. and subsidiary as of March 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related  consolidated
statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2003, which report appears in
the March 31,  2003  Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Central  Bancorp,  Inc.  Our
report refers to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.
142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets."


                                                      /s/ KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
June 26, 2003
Manuel METLOCK, petitioner, v. Randy PFISTER.

No. 16-9692.

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.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 135329(25) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, KELLEY DENK, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 135329 COA: 276746 Macomb CC: 04-004281-NH JEFFREY C. MARDEROS IAN, D.D.S., and PROFESSIONAL ENDO DONTICS, P.C., Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e motion for reconsideration of this Court's February 19, 2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

d0421 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2008

Clerk
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3755 

To redesignate the Sullys Hill National Game Preserve in the State of 

North Dakota as the White Horse Hill National Game Preserve. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2019 

Mr. ARMSTRONG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To redesignate the Sullys Hill National Game Preserve in 

the State of North Dakota as the White Horse Hill 

National Game Preserve. 

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 ‘‘White Horse Hill Na5 tional Game Preserve Designation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF WHITE HORSE HILL NATIONAL 

7 GAME PRESERVE, NORTH DAKOTA. 

8 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The first section of the Act of 

9 March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1509, chapter 439; 16 U.S.C. 

10 674a), is amended by striking ‘‘Sullys Hill National Game 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3755 IH

1 Preserve’’ and inserting ‘‘White Horse Hill National Game 

2 Preserve’’. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 2 of the 

4 Act of March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1509, chapter 439; 16 

5 U.S.C. 674b), is amended by striking ‘‘Sullys Hill Na6 tional Game Preserve’’ and inserting ‘‘White Horse Hill 

7 National Game Preserve’’. 

8 (c) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the Sullys Hill National Game Preserve shall be 

11 considered to be a reference to the ‘‘White Horse Hill Na12 tional Game Preserve’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
II-00695

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Judy Wilcox <judytaylorwilcox@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:22 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.

Judy Wilcox

1030 SW 17th Way

Troutdale, OR 97060