alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023314EN.01001501.xml

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/15

---

Action brought on 12 July 2023 — Barry’s Bootcamp v EUIPO — Hummel (Device of two black horizontal chevrons)

(Case T-390/23)

(2023/C 314/18)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: M. Hawkins, T. Dolde and C. Zimmer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hummel Holding A/S (Aarhus, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Device of two black horizontal chevrons) — European Union trade mark No 3 015 377

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2023 in Case R 1423/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**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 on Form 10-K of GameTech International, Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tracy
      C. Pearson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my best
      knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and




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




/s/TRACY
                C. PEARSONTracy
                C. Pearson
              Chief
                Financial OfficerJanuary 29, 2007
# C_2023173EN.01002601.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/26

---

Action brought on 21 March 2023 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-180/23)

(2023/C 173/36)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and P. Messina, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Hellenic Republic, by failing to conclude and publish the contractual agreement between the Greek authorities and OSE, the Greek infrastructure manager, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30(2) and (6) of Directive 2012/34, (1) read in conjunction with Annex V thereof, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Hellenic Republic, by failing to conclude and publish the contractual agreement between the Greek authorities and OSE, the Greek infrastructure manager, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30(2) and (6) of Directive 2012/34, (1) read in conjunction with Annex V thereof,

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Hellenic Republic has failed to conclude the agreement provided for by Article 30 of Directive 2012/34 on railway infrastructure with the infrastructure manager (OSE). However, the agreement should have been concluded before 16 June 2015 (Article 64 of the directive) and should have included all the information set out in Annex V.

---

(1)  Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).

---
# The Student Fees (Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

N.I.

Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland

# 2014 No. 116

Education

# The Student Fees (Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

14th April 2014

Coming into operation

1st September 2015

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

F1Regulations revoked (1.9.2016) by The Student Fees (Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 (S.R. 2015/243), **regs. 1**, **5**
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2014 of 3 January 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2014                     

# of 3 January 2014

# 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, 3 January 2014.

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

Jerzy Plewa                            

*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.
# CE2004065EN.01005201.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/52

---

(2004/C 65 E/051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0888/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the FIFG by the municipality of Fiumicino

Subject:

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Fiumicino, urgently need to use European funds to support structural measures in the sector of fisheries, acquaculture and the processing and marketing of the relevant products, can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Fiumicino has submitted projects for the FIFG? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Fiumicino has submitted projects for the FIFG?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Fiumicino has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Fiumicino has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
STATE v. MARTIN.

No. COA07-1392.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 5, 2008.

Certification Date August 25, 2008.

Appeal from Person (07CRS50924).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE of North Carolina v. David F. LIGHTNER.

No. 395P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2007.

David F. Lightner, Pro Se.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 6th day of August 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

*704"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of November 2007."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,908
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,712
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (121)
<INVENTORY>                                     38,554
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,101
<PP&E>                                          92,565
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (41,402)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 188,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,640
<BONDS>                                        170,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   188,287
<SALES>                                        196,789
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               196,789
<CGS>                                           70,879
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  116,445
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,831
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,452)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       143
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,595)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0










</TABLE>
#### Mary Clark, Appellant, v Kenneth F. Perry, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 645]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered August 13, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries she sustained when the vehicle in which she was a passenger was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by defendant. Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground *1374that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury in the accident within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Defendant met his initial burden by submitting medical records and the report of the physician who conducted a medical examination on defendant’s behalf establishing that plaintiff’s alleged injuries sustained in the accident were preexisting. According to the report of that physician, although “the accident [at issue] may have aggravated chronic preexistent pain symptoms, it did not produce any significant new/novel symptoms” and “[t]here is no medical evidence of any additional physical disability associated with the injuries sustained” in the accident at issue. Because defendant submitted “persuasive evidence that plaintiffs alleged pain and injuries were related to a preexisting condition, plaintiff had the burden to come forward with evidence addressing defendant’s claimed lack of causation” *(Pommells v Perez,*4 NY3d 566, 580 [2005]). Plaintiff failed to meet that burden and thus, “in the absence of objective evidence establishing the aggravation as opposed to the underlying condition,” the court properly granted defendant’s motion *(Dabiere v Yager,*297 AD2d 831, 832 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 503 [2002]; *see Franchini v Palmieri,*307 AD2d 1056, 1058 [2003], *affd*1 NY3d 536 [2003]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Smith, Pine and Hayes, JJ.
Exhibit 4.14



SCHEDULE OF WARRANTS ISSUED AND OUTSTANDING

(GFP SERIES AND BCP SERIES)

`Date of					Warrant		Number of 	Exercise Price
Issuance		Name of Warrant Recipient		Number		Shares	Expiration Date

12/2/99		Gulfstream Financial Partners	GFP-14(2)		50,000	Exercise price $15.00
								Expires 12/2/04

12/1/99		Henry Fong, Jr.		GFP-15a	  	5,000	Exercise price $16.25
								Expires 12/1/04

12/1/99		Lauren Fong			GFP-15b	  	5,000	Exercise price $16.25
								Expires 12/1/04

12/1/99		Benjamin Private School		GFP-15c	  	5,000	Exercise price $16.25
								Expires 12/1/04

12/1/99		Barry Hollander		GFP-15d	  	5,000	Exercise price $16.25
								Expires 12/1/04

12/1/99		Gulfstream Financial Partners	GFP-15e		15,000	Exercise price $16.25
								Expires 12/1/04`
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

The Small Business Administration Region IX Regulatory Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 at 8:30 a.m. at the City of Anaheim, Gordon Hoyt Center, 201 South Anaheim Blvd., 2nd floor, Anaheim, CA 92805, phone (714) 765-4323, to receive comments and testimony from small business owners, small government entities, and small non-profit organizations concerning regulatory enforcement and compliance actions taken by federal agencies. 

                    Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact Dace Pavlovskis in writing or by fax, in order to be put on the agenda. Dace Pavlovskis, District Counsel, SBA Santa Ana District Office, 200 Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 700, Santa Ana, CA 92701, phone (714) 550-7420 Ext. 3601, fax (202) 481-0901, e-mail:                     *Dace.Pavlovskis@sba.gov.*

                    For more information, see our Web site at                     *http://www.sba.gov/​ombudsman.*

Dated: January 26, 2005. 

Peter Sorum, 

Senior Advisor, Office of the National Ombudsman. 

[FR Doc. 05-1774 Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# CE2004078EN.01035401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/354 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/354

---

(2004/C 78 E/0372)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3900/02

by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject:   Treatment and life situation of girls and women in Afghanistan

Subject:

Under the rule of the Islamic Taliban regime in Afghanistan, girls were not allowed to go to school to be educated. The Taliban's discrimination against women was all-embracing, systematised and part of Islamic, male-dominated ideology. Since the fall of the Taliban dictatorship, a great deal of disturbing information has continued to come out of Afghanistan — the CNN report of 22 October being one instance — that girls and women are still treated badly in many parts of the country, examples of which are child labour, being denied access to schooling or being sold into virtual slavery through the practice of marrying off young girls as a means of repaying debts.

What measures is the Commission currently taking to promote equal, unique and inviolable human dignity for girls and women in present-day Afghanistan? Is it possible for the Union, through having representatives on the spot, to ensure that the rights and the precarious life situation of girls and children in general are improved?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2003)

(4 February 2003)

The Commission is promoting change through its aid programme to Afghanistan. In 2002, specific projects for women were funded including the rehabilitation of women's baths and a park for women in Kabul. The Commission has also financed several initiatives to promote civil society and encourage advocacy for disadvantaged and minority groups, including women. Similar projects are planned for the future.

More broadly, the Commission alongside the international community, must ensure that the rights and roles of women are a key element of recovery and reconstruction. From facilitating their access to basic healthcare and education to pushing for their inclusion in all aspects of the policy making process. The Commission is a leading donor in the health sector where tackling child and maternal mortality as well as reproductive health issues are key priorities.

The Afghanistan Transitional Authority has set up two Advisory Groups on Gender and Human Rights as part of the Consultative Group Structure tasked with taking forward recovery and reconstruction. The meeting of the Afghanistan Development Forum in March 2003 will enable the international community to monitor progress, and to keep these issues at the heart of the Government's approach to development.

The international community must also work with the Government to ensure that the new Constitution enshrines Human Rights for all, including women, and that these are enforced through the judicial system. The Commission is contributing to the Law and Order trust fund which will help to finance judicial reform and to ensure that laws are implemented effectively.

---
STATE v. Eric Glenn LANE.

No. 606A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 29, 2008.

Ann B. Petersen, Chapel Hill, for Eric Glenn Lane.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd day of September 2008 by State of NC for Extension of Time to File State's Brief:

"Motion Allowed. State of NC shall have up to and including the 14th day of October, 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 29th day of September 2008."
Alicia MOORE v. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION.

No. 503P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Luke Largess, Charlotte, for Alicia Moore.

H. Landis Wade, Charlotte, Melissa Kidd, for Board of Education.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 649 S.E.2d 410.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 10th day of October 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*736"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th day of April 2008."
Order entered August 8, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 16 - 00108 - CV CHARLES R. ALLEN AND JULIE L. ALLEN, Appellant s V. STATE FARM LLOYDS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 12 - 02015 - B



### O RDER We GRANT appellees’ August 4, 2016 unopposed second motion for an extension of time to file a brief and extend the time to SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 . No further extension will be granted absent extenuating circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE