alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009282EN.01006201.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/62

---

Action brought on 2 October 2009 — Rosenruist v OHIM (Representation of two curves crossed at one point inserted on a pocket)

(Case T-388/09)

2009/C 282/115

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant(s): Rosenruist — Gestão e serviços, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by S. Gonzáles Malabia and S. Rizzo, lawyers)

Applicant(s):

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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2009 in case R 237/2009-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2009 in case R 237/2009-2; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The mark representing two curves crossed at one point inserted on a pocket for goods and services in classes 18 and 25

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that the Community trade mark concerned lacked inherent distinctiveness.

Pleas in law:

---
Ryan Antonio MATTHEWS, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-5629.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District denied.
#### H. C. Howells, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. T. A. Currie, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Opinion filed April 30, 1929.

Petition for rehearing denied June 3, 1929.

*649*Walker & King,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*S. L. Holland, W. F. Bevis*and *Edivards & Harris,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff in error sued the defendant in error in an action on a promissory note. The defendant in error interposed a plea of set-off to which the plaintiff in error filed a replication. It devolved upon the defendant in error, under the pleadings, to prove the allegation of his plea by a preponderance of the evidence. The verdict and judgment were for defendant in error.

The court below charged the jury, by whom the issues of fact were tried, that “if the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant are of equal weight in your mind, then you should find for the defendant.” This charge was clearly erroneous. Counsel for the defendant in error say in their brief: “The defendant admits that the last word of the foregoing sentence should have been plaintiff instead of defendant, but respectfully insists that the error, if any, is not a reversible error, but a harmless error.” We do not think that on this record the error was harmless.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.

Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concúr in the opinion and judgment.
# C_2010063EN.01002502.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), lodged on 11 December 2009 — Tanja Borger v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

(Case C-516/09)

2010/C 63/41

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Tanja Borger

Claimant:

Defendant: Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 1(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it also covers — for a period of six months — a person who, following the end of the two-year statutory suspension of her employment relationship following the birth of a child, agrees a further six-month period of unpaid leave with her employer in order to draw childcare allowance or a corresponding compensatory benefit for the maximum statutory period, and then terminates the employment relationship? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 1(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it also covers — for a period of six months — a person who, following the end of the two-year statutory suspension of her employment relationship following the birth of a child, agrees a further six-month period of unpaid leave with her employer in order to draw childcare allowance or a corresponding compensatory benefit for the maximum statutory period, and then terminates the employment relationship?

1

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
  Is Article 1(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to be interpreted as meaning that it also covers — for a period of six months — a person who, following the end of the two-year statutory suspension of her employment relationship, agrees a further six-month period of unpaid leave with her employer, if she draws childcare allowance or a corresponding compensatory benefit during that period? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

Is Article 1(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to be interpreted as meaning that it also covers — for a period of six months — a person who, following the end of the two-year statutory suspension of her employment relationship, agrees a further six-month period of unpaid leave with her employer, if she draws childcare allowance or a corresponding compensatory benefit during that period?

---

(1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.11

January 30, 1997


Mr. Macdonald Clark
Alamo Rent A Car, Inc.
110 SE 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Dear Macdonald:

This letter will confirm our supplemental understanding with respect to your
employment. This document will serve as an addendum and modification to your
letter agreement dated December 31, 1996, which letter agreement is incorporated
herein by reference.

First, by signing this supplemental agreement, you authorize the use and
publication by Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. ("Alamo"), its affiliated entities, and
their successors and assigns (collectively "the Company") of your name,
signature, voice, and any photographs, videos, or other likenesses of you, and
any other aspects of your personality, in any commercial manner that the Company
may choose, without any additional compensation payable to you, and without the
need for prior inspection or approval by you. By signing below, you release the
Company and all persons acting under its permission or authority, from any
liability in connection with any use or publication under this provision.

Second, you acknowledge that you owe your full time and attention to the
business and operations of Alamo. You agree, during your employment with Alamo,
that you will not commit yourself to any outside activity -- whether orally or
in writing, whether business- or civic-related, and without regard to whether
you are to be compensated for such activity -- that will involve a significant
commitment of your time (to be determined within the reasonable discretion of
Alamo), without first advising and obtaining the written consent of the Chief
Executive Officer of Alamo.

Third, with respect to the "Salary Continuation" section of your letter
agreement, the letter agreement is amended in the following respects. If you die
during the period in which these salary continuation payments would otherwise be
payable, then the payments will be made to your spouse so long as she is living
during the applicable period. Also, during any period in which you are (or, but
for your death, would otherwise be) eligible for salary continuation payments,
Alamo will continue to make available to you and your eligible dependents, at
your and their own expense, health insurance coverage providing the same
benefits as those provided to Alamo employees generally.

<PAGE>   2


By signing below, you acknowledge and agree that the consideration payable to
you under the letter agreement of December 31, 1996, and your continued
employment with Alamo, is full and adequate consideration for the promises
contained herein.

Please confirm this supplemental agreement by signing in the space provided and
returning one original copy to me.

Sincerely,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              402782
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      4381742
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                         106883
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   5171395
<PP&E>                                               51472
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     6070652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               712466
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                              3271
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       6070652
<SALES>                                           12009337
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  10246193
<CGS>                                              7022460
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      7022460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    2829996
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                2829996
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       2829996
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.66


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES, petitioner, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION.

No. 17-2.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted.
Lyle STEELE, Jr., petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; and Guillermina Richards, petitioner, v. Social Security Administration.

No. 17-5341.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
# L_2010143EN.01002601.xml

| 10.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 143/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 143/26

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 31/2010

of 12 March 2010

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 13/2010 of 29 January 2010 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 13/2010 of 29 January 2010 (1).

| (2) | Regulation (EC) No 1335/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 establishing a European Railway Agency (Agency Regulation) (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 1335/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 establishing a European Railway Agency (Agency Regulation) (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following shall be added in point 42f (Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XIII to the Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32008 R 1335: Regulation (EC) No 1335/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 (OJ L 354, 31.12.2008, p. 51).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32008 R 1335: Regulation (EC) No 1335/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 (OJ L 354, 31.12.2008, p. 51).’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EC) No 1335/2008 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 13 March 2010, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 12 March 2010.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Alan SEATTER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 101, 22.4.2010, p. 23.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 354, 31.12.2008, p. 51.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2
                   Certification of Periodic Financial Report
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

For purposes of 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  the  undersigned,  Joe F.  Ogburn,  the chief
financial officer of RSI Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"),  hereby certifies that,
to his knowledge:

(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended May
31,  2004,  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: July 13, 2004


/s/ Joe F. Ogburn
-----------------------------------------------------
Joe F. Ogburn
Vice President, Treasurer, and Principal Financial Officer



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to RSI Holdings,  Inc. and will be retained by RSI  Holdings,  Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE U.S. SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934   In connection with the Annual Report of Sense Technologies Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and Rule 13a-14(b), that to his knowledge:  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.    Dated:  June 25, 2010 By:“Bruce E. Schreiner” Bruce E. Schreiner President and Principal Financial Officer
Nicholas ALBANESE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8659.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

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

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
# L_2012213EN.01000101.xml

| 10.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 213/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 213/1

---

Information on the date of entry into force of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Partnership Agreement in the fisheries sector between the European Union and the Republic of Mozambique

On 19 April 2012, the Republic of Mozambique notified the European Union of the completion of its conclusion procedures.

Likewise, on 13 June 2012 the European Union notified the Republic of Mozambique of the completion by the Council, on behalf of the European Union, of the procedures necessary for the entry into force of the above Protocol, signed at Brussels on 1 February 2012.

The Protocol accordingly entered into force on 13 June 2012 pursuant to Article 16 thereof.

---
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 22605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08070]



[[Page 22605]]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94674; File No. SR-EMERALD-2022-04]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of 
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX Emerald Fee 
Schedule To Adopt a Tiered-Pricing Structure for Certain Connectivity 
Fees

April 11, 2022.
    On February 1, 2022, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'' or 
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a 
proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's Fee Schedule to adopt a 
tiered-pricing structure for certain connectivity fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change was immediately effective upon filing with 
the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ On 
February 22, 2022, the proposed rule change was published for comment 
in the Federal Register and, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the 
Act,\4\ the Commission: (1) Temporarily suspended the proposed rule 
change; and (2) instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act \5\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule 
change.\6\ On March 30, 2022, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule 
change (SR-EMERALD-2022-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take 
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the 
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge 
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether 
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.'' 
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94257 (February 15, 
2022), 87 FR 9678.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08070 Filed 4-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Jeffrey CLARK, petitioner, v. LOUISIANA.

No. 16-9541.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Supreme Court of Louisiana for further consideration in light of *McCoy v. Louisiana,* 584 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1500, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018).
# L_2014211EN.01004602.xml

| 17.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 211/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 211/46

---

Corrigendum to Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 106/2012 of 15 June 2012 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) and Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 270 of 4 October 2012
  )

On page 9, Annex I, in point 6:

for:

‘12zd’, ‘12ze’ and ‘12zf’,

read:

‘12zzd’, ‘12zze’ and ‘12zzf’.

---
Jesse Junior CHACON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-8970.

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.