alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023015EN.01004502.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/45

---

Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Shaman Spirits/EUIPO — Global Drinks Finland (LAPLANDIA Land of purity et al.)

(Case T-679/22)

(2023/C 15/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Oy Shaman Spirits Ltd (Tyrnävä, Finland) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global Drinks Finland Oy (Helsinki, Finland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade marks at issue: European Union figurative marks LAPLANDIA Land of purity et al. — European Union trade marks No 6 491 914, No 7 087 281 and No 14 786 883

Procedure before EUIPO: Procedure for entering licences in the Register

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2022 in Case R 909/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the First Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the First Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 25, 26 and 27 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 25, 26 and 27 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Articles 19 and 20 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 19 and 20 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
2nd Amendment to the Amended and Restated Incentive Deferred Compensation Plan



  
 Exhibit 4(h)

 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 
 STATE AUTO PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

 INCENTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 Background Information 
  

	A.	State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Company (the “Company”) previously adopted and maintains the State Auto Property & Casualty
Insurance Company Incentive Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of a select group of high income and key associates. 

  

	B.	The Company desires to amend the Plan to remove the restriction limiting investment in stock of State Auto Financial Corporation to twenty percent of a
participant’s account. 

  

	C.	Section B. of Article V of the Plan permits the Company to amend the Plan at any time. 


Amendment of the Plan 
 The Plan is hereby amended effective November 1, 2010, as follows: 
  

	1.	The fifth sentence of the first paragraph of Section III of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 


Each participant may be permitted to direct how the portion of the Company’s funds allocable to him or her is invested among the
investment options if any such accounts are established. 
  

	2.	The seventh sentence of the first paragraph of Section III of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 


The total number of STFC Shares that may be made available as an investment option under this Plan for the purpose of all participant
accounts is 150,000. 
  

	3.	All other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 

  

			
	STATE AUTO PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
		
	BY:	 	 /s/ James A. Yano

		
	ITS:	 	 Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel

		
	DATE:	 	 November 9, 2010
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                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 John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. on Form
10-Q for the period ended July 4, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, we, John Q. Hammons, Chief Executive Officer, and Paul E.
Muellner, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

         2.   The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents,
              in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operation of John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. and will be retained by John Q. Hammons
Hotels, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
Staff upon request.

                                               /s/ John Q. Hammons
                                               --------------------
                                               John Q. Hammons

                                               /s/ Paul E. Muellner
                                               --------------------
                                               Paul E. Muellner

August 15, 2003
# C_2023155EN.01002901.xml

| 2.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/29 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 23 January 2023 — FV v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants (Case C-27/23, Hocinx) ( 1 ) (2023/C 155/36) Language of the case: French Referring court Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg Parties to the main proceedings Appellant: FV Respondent: Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants Questions referred Do the principle of equal treatment guaranteed by Article 45 TFEU and by Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 ( 2 ) and the provisions of Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 ( 3 ) and Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 ( 4 ) preclude provisions enacted by a Member State under which frontier workers may not receive a family allowance associated with their employment in that Member State for children placed in care with them under a court order, whereas any child placed in care under a court order and living in that Member State is entitled to receive that allowance which is paid to the natural or legal person who has custody of the child and with whom the child is officially resident and actually lives on a continuous basis? Does the answer to that question depend on whether the frontier worker provides for the upkeep of that child? ( 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) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1). ( 3 )  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1). ( 4 )  Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 557 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 557

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
  depreciation classification of motorsports entertainment complexes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 2007

  Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mrs. 
 Dole, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Kyl) 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 make permanent the 
  depreciation classification of motorsports entertainment complexes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Motorsports Fairness and Permanency 
Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. 7-YEAR CLASS LIFE FOR MOTORSPORTS ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX 
              FACILITIES MADE PERMANENT.

    Section 168(i)(15) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining 
motorsports entertainment complex) is amended by striking subparagraph 
(D).
                                 <all>
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. S T E VE R AN KIN, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 50252 D. C . No . 2 : 0 9 - c r - 0 0 0 9 3 - C AS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C hr i s t i naA . S ny de r , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d, S e pt e m be r24, 2013 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , N . R . S M IT H , an dC H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. St e v e Ra n k i n ap p e a l s f

r o m th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s o r d e rd e n y i n g h i s 1 8 U . S. C. § 3582( c ) ( 2) m ot i on f

orr e duc t i on of

s e nt e nc e . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. R a n k in c o n te n d s th a t h e is e n title dto as e n te n c e r e du c tio n u n d e rth e F a ir 

# FI LED OC T 02 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 50252 2 S en t en ci n g A ctan dsu b seq u en tam en d m en t s t o th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es b ecau se ar e duc t i on w a s e xpr e s s l yc ont e m pl a t e d i n the pa rt i e s ’ bi ndi ng pl e aa gr e e m e nt unde rF e de r a l Rul e of

C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 11( c ) ( 1) ( C ) . W e r e vi e w de novo w hether adi stri ctcourthas autho ri ty t o m od i fya def endant ’ s s ent ence un der s e c tio n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . Se e U n ite d S ta tes v . A u s tin , 6 7 6 F .3 d9 2 4 , 9 2 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 2 ) . T he di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y det erm i ned thatR anki n i s notel i gi bl e f or a sen t en ce red u ct i o n b ecau se h i s sen t en ce w as b asedo n a st i p u l at i o n i n th e p art i es’ b in d in g p le aa g r e e m e n t, a n dn o t o n as e n te n c in g r a n g e th a t h a s b e e n s u b s e q u e n tly lo w e r e db yth e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n , a s r e q u ir e db ys e c tio n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . Se e id. 927- 28. T he pl e aa gr e e m e ntdoe s notc a l l f orR a nki n t o be s e nt e nc e d w i thi n a pa rt i c ul a rG ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc i ng r a nge nor , c ontr a ryt o R a nki n’ s c ont e nt i on, i s a ny s uc h G ui de l i ne s r a nge e xpr e s s l yus e d i n the a gr e e m e ntore vi de ntf r om the agre em enti t se l f. A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourtl ac ked autho ri ty t o m od i fy R a n k in ’s s e n te n c e u n d e rs e c tio n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . Se e i d. a t928, 930. AF F I RME D.
EXHIBIT 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





AboveNet, Inc.White Plains, New York




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-159175, 333-163144, 333-168510, 333-170617 and 333-171535) of AboveNet, Inc. of our reports dated February 28, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements, the financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of AboveNet, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K.





BDO USA, LLPNew York, NYFebruary 28, 2011
In the Matter of A.R.H.B. and C.C.H.L.

No. 538A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Richard E. Jester, for Shanon Hansen.

J. Tyrone Browder, King, for D.S.S.

Pamela N. Williams, for GAL.

Charlotte Blake, Boone, for Respondent Father.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 651 S.E.2d 247.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Respondent on the 6th day of November 2007 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of March 2008."
# CE2004088EN.01059101.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/591 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/591

---

(2004/C 88 E/0604)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0176/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 January 2003)

Subject:   Consequences of the liberalisation of agriculture worldwide

Subject:

The 6 November 2002 issue of ‘Agence Europe’ refers to a study drawn up by the Commission on the consequences a complete liberalisation of agricultural trade worldwide would have for farming in the EU countries.

The article points out that Commissioner Pascal Lamy said that liberalisation would mean the disappearance of around 85 % of farms in the European Union, in particular small and medium-sized family farms. This would obviously mean the end of farming in the EU countries and the end of their food sovereignty and regional equilibrium.

It should also be pointed out how paradoxical it is that at a time when the United States has decided to step up aid to its own farmers, the European Union is deciding to take steps to reduce aid to farmers in its member countries.

Can the Commission say on what data it based the conclusions of its study?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

(27 February 2003)

The 6 November 2002 article of Agence Europe does not refer to a specific study of the Commission as suggested by the Honourable Member. Given the special nature of agriculture in the provision of food and other benefits, a sudden and complete liberalisation of world agricultural trade as demanded in some quarters could not be envisaged. Such a complete liberalisation would certainly have serious implications for the sustainability of European agriculture in social, economic and environmental terms. The numbers cited in the article are an illustration.

Having said that, the EU is committed to the objectives reflected in the Doha Declaration, which foresees negotiations aimed at, inter alia ‘substantial improvements in market access’. The EU will negotiate on that basis.

---
# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1214 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1214 of 22 July 2015 creating the European Investment Project Portal and setting            out its technical specifications (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1214                     

# of 22 July 2015

# creating the European Investment Project Portal and setting out its technical specifications (repealed)

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1942 of 4 November 2016 on the specifications of the European Investment Project                                 Portal and repealing Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1214.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

MARTHA J. COWDEN AND CARY 

DWAYNE COWDEN, 

 Petitioners 

 v. 

SUNOCO PIPELINE, L.P., 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 180 WAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 216/2014 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 216/2014 of 7 March 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 2075/2005 laying down specific rules on            official controls for Trichinella in meat (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 216/2014                     

# of 7 March 2014

# amending Regulation (EC) No 2075/2005 laying down specific rules on official controls for *Trichinella* in meat                     

# (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1375 of 10 August 2015 laying down specific rules on official controls for Trichinella                                 in meat (Text with EEA relevance).
STATE of North Carolina v. Anthony Lenair CAMPBELL.

No. 109A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Daniel Pollitt, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Anthony Lenair Campbell.

Marc Bernstein, Senior Deputy Attorney General, James R. Woodall, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

*312Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 656 S.E.2d 721.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 11th day of March 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of June 2008."
# C_2023007EN.01004002.xml

| 9.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/40

---

Action brought on 4 November 2022 — Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Device of a sun with arabic characters)

(Case T-670/22)

(2023/C 7/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Calrose Rice EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: H. Raychev, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ricegrowers Ltd (Leeton, New South Wales, Australia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Device of a sun with arabic characters) — European Union trade mark No 18 186 653

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2022 in Case R 272/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener in the present proceedings to bear their own costs and to pay the Applicant’s costs of these proceedings, as well as the costs of the appeal procedure before the Fifth Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener in the present proceedings to bear their own costs and to pay the Applicant’s costs of these proceedings, as well as the costs of the appeal procedure before the Fifth Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board erred in finding that the compared signs are visually similar to a high degree; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board erred in finding that the compared signs are visually similar to a high degree;

| — | the Board was wrong to focus its conclusions regarding the visual comparison of the signs exclusively on the Arabic language wording and the stylised sun devices contained in the conflicting marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Board was wrong to focus its conclusions regarding the visual comparison of the signs exclusively on the Arabic language wording and the stylised sun devices contained in the conflicting marks;

| — | the Board assessed the level of attention of the relevant public in a contradictory manner throughout the decision and therefore infringed its obligations under the first sentence of Art. 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Board assessed the level of attention of the relevant public in a contradictory manner throughout the decision and therefore infringed its obligations under the first sentence of Art. 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
STATE v. STEPHENS.

No. COA08-590.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Forsyth (07CRS54983).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.