alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023024EN.01006901.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/69

---

Action brought on 25 November 2022 — Campofrio Food Group v EUIPO — Cerioti Holding (SNACK MI)

(Case T-736/22)

(2023/C 24/95)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Campofrio Food Group, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Erdozain López and M. Del Río Aragó, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cerioti Holding SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark SNACK MI — Application for registration No 18 201 028

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 August 2022 in Case R 59/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and Cerioti Holding SA, if it intervenes in this case, to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Cerioti Holding SA, if it intervenes in this case, to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,871,593
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          35,528
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,120,898
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          15,009
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            15,009
<LOANS>                                     58,436,976
<ALLOWANCE>                                    358,393
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              62,831,792
<DEPOSITS>                                  41,115,087
<SHORT-TERM>                                 4,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,121,043
<LONG-TERM>                                  4,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          7408
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,588,254
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              62,831,792
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,205,265
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               23,996
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                31,247
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,260,508
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             384,244
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             492,194
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          768,314
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    9,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                            (32,240)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                754,254
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 59,143
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      59,143
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,643
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                    116,709
<LOANS-PAST>                                   375,291
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               348,067
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,326
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              358,393
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        358,393
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. WATSON.

No. COA07-1275.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 5, 2008.

Certification Date August 25, 2008.

Appeal from Wake (05CRS82876, 05CRS82877).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded in part.
In the Matter of L.B.

No. 7A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Richard E Jester, for Mother.

Matthew Middleton, for Buncombe Co. DSS.

Christy E. Wilhelm, for Father.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of February 2008 by Guardian Ad Litem to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 10th day of April 2008."
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 Annual Report of OraLabs Holding Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Emile Jordan, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC SS. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
of my knowledge and belief:

(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.


                     /s/ Emile Jordan
                     -------------------------------------
                     Emile Jordan, Chief Financial Officer


Dated: April 15, 2005
BALLEW v. BALLEW.

No. COA06-548.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 19, 2008.

Certification Date September 8, 2008.

Appeal from Buncombe (05CVD2796).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Jarvis D. BROADNAX.

No. 293P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, Belinda J. Foster, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of June 2007 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review Under G.S. 7A-31(c)(1) & (2):

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of August 2007."
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1342/2014 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1342/2014 of 17 December 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament            and of the Council on persistent organic pollutants as regards Annexes IV and V (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1342/2014                     

# of 17 December 2014

# amending Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on persistent organic pollutants as regards                        Annexes IV and V                     

# (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on persistent organic pollutants (Text                                 with EEA relevance.).
IN RE K.T.

No. COA07-1547.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 6, 2008.

Certification Date May 27, 2008.

Appeal from Buncombe (98J104 C, 05J245).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000930548
<NAME> RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          11,766
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,430
<PP&E>                                         428,926
<DEPRECIATION>                                  84,106
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 427,109
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,237
<BONDS>                                        219,757
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                     142,214
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   427,109
<SALES>                                         64,307
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,480
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,637
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,765
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,719
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,719
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (895)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,829
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.26
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023235EN.01001901.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 18 April 2023 — VP v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság

(Case C-247/23, Deldits (1))

(2023/C 235/23)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VP

Defendant: Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 16 of the GDPR (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in connection with the exercise of the rights of the data subject, the authority responsible for keeping registers under national law is required to rectify the personal data relating to the sex of that data subject recorded by that authority, where those data have changed after they were entered in the register and therefore do not comply with the principle of accuracy established in Article 5(1)(d) of the GDPR? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 16 of the GDPR (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in connection with the exercise of the rights of the data subject, the authority responsible for keeping registers under national law is required to rectify the personal data relating to the sex of that data subject recorded by that authority, where those data have changed after they were entered in the register and therefore do not comply with the principle of accuracy established in Article 5(1)(d) of the GDPR?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 16 of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that it requires the person requesting rectification of the data relating to his or her sex to provide evidence in support of the request for rectification? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 16 of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that it requires the person requesting rectification of the data relating to his or her sex to provide evidence in support of the request for rectification?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 16 of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that the person making the request is required to prove that he or she has undergone sex reassignment surgery? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 16 of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that the person making the request is required to prove that he or she has undergone sex reassignment surgery?

---

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

---
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 23/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 23/2013 of 15 January 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 23/2013                     

# of 15 January 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 January 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

José Manuel Silva Rodríguez                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17780]



[[Page 53330]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

46 CFR Part 531

[Docket No. 05-06]


Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Service Arrangements

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects a portion of the Notice of Inquiry 
issued August 30, 2005.

DATES: September 1, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary, 
Federal Maritime Commission, 800 N. Capitol St., NW., Room 1046, 
Washington, DC 20573-0001, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f3a0969081968792818ab3959e90dd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2477414756415045565d644249470a434b52">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 2, 2005, the Federal Maritime 
Commission published a Notice of Inquiry requesting public comment on 
possible changes to its exemption for non-vessel-operating common 
carriers from certain tariff publication requirements of the Shipping 
Act of 1984. On page 52345 of the Federal Register, in the third 
column, in the fourth sentence of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, the 
quotation of the Commission's regulation at 46 CFR 531.3(p) incorrectly 
omitted the phrase ``or two or more affiliated NVOCCs.'' The entire 
sentence should read as follows:

    The rule defines an NSA as ``a written contract, other than a 
bill of lading or receipt, between one or more NSA shippers and an 
individual NVOCC or two or more affiliated NVOCCs, in which the NSA 
shipper makes a commitment to provide a certain minimum quantity or 
portion of its cargo or freight revenue over a fixed time period, 
and the NVOCC commits to a certain rate or rate schedule and a 
defined service level.'' 46 CFR 531.3(p).

Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-17780 Filed 9-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P


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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3675 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the treatment 

of certain excessive employee remuneration, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 1 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Mr. KERRY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for the treatment of certain excessive employee remuneration, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Compensation Fair5 ness Act of 2008’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN EXCESSIVE EMPLOYEE 

7 REMUNERATION. 

8 (a) INFLATION INDEX OF LIMITATION.—Section 

9 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 

10 by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 3675 IS

1 ‘‘(5) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.— 

2 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any 

3 taxable year beginning after 2008, the 

4 $1,000,000 dollar amount under paragraph (1) 

5 shall be increased by an amount equal to— 

6 ‘‘(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

7 ‘‘(ii) the cost of living adjustment de8 termined under section 1(f)(3) for the cal9 endar year in which the taxable year be10 gins, determined by substituting ‘calendar 

11 year 2007’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in sub12 paragraph (B) thereof. 

13 ‘‘(B) ROUNDING.—If any amount as ad14 justed under subparagraph (A) is not a multiple 

15 of $1,000, such amount shall be rounded to the 

16 next lowest multiple of $1,000.’’. 

17 (b) REPEAL OF EXCEPTION FOR REMUNERATION

18 PAYABLE ON COMMISSION BASIS.—Section 162(m)(4) of 

19 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

20 subparagraph (B) and by redesignating subparagraphs 

21 (C) through (G) as subparagraphs (B) through (F), re22 spectively. 

23 (c) REPEAL OF EXCEPTION FOR OTHER PERFORM24 ANCE-BASED COMPENSATION.—Section 162(m)(4) of the 

25 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by subsection 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•S 3675 IS

1 (b), is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and by re2 designating subparagraphs (C) through (F) as subpara3 graphs (B) through (E), respectively. 

4 (d) TIMING FOR DETERMINATION OF CERTAIN COV5 ERED EMPLOYEES.—Section 162(m)(3)(A) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘as of the 

7 close of the taxable year’’ and inserting ‘‘at any time dur8 ing the taxable year’’. 

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

10 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

11 December 31, 2008. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
PICKETT v. ROBERSON.

No. COA06-1313.

Court of appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 18, 2007.

Certification Date October 8, 2007.

Appeal from Guilford (05CVS4535).

Case reported without published opinion affirmed.
STATE v. BISHOP.

No. COA07-792.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 15, 2008.

Certification Date May 5, 2008.

Appeal from Alamance (04CRS54562).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
# C_2023278EN.01001202.xml

| 7.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/12

---

Appeal brought on 25 January 2023 by Grupa ‘Lew’ S.A. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2022 in Case T-672/21, Grupa ‘Lew’ S.A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-38/23 P)

(2023/C 278/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Grupa ‘Lew’ S.A. (represented by: A. Korbela, Radca prawny, M. Besler, Rzecznik patentowy)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Lechwerke AG

By order of 13 June 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
STATE v. Randy G. JERNIGAN.

No. 202P08-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

LaToya B. Powell, Assistant Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of July 2008 by Defendant for "Petition for Re-Hearing of Denial of Petition for Writ of Certiorari":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of August 2008."
GOINES v. McAVOY.

No. COA07-895.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 1, 2008.

Certification Date April 21, 2008.

Appeal from the Onslow (06CVS4699).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.