alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.14
 CONSENT OF SOPHIE BERGERON
   1.
    
    The technical report dated March 26, 2011, entitled Cerro Negro Gold Project Santa Cruz
Province, Argentina NI 43-101 Technical Report (the Cerro Negro Report); and2.
    
    The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection with information
relating to the Cerro Negro Report and the Cerro Negro Gold Project, and the properties
described therein.
  Date: March 31, 2011/s/ Sophie BergeronName:
    Sophie Bergeron, eng.
In the Matter of J.D.C.

No. COA15-1395.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# C_2008022EN.01004102.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/41

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission

(Case T-112/05) (1)

1

(Competition - Cartels in the vitamin products sector - Choline chloride (Vitamin B4) - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Attributability of the infringement)

(2008/C 22/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Akzo Nobel (Arnhem, Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Nederland BV (Arnhem), Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV (Amersfoort, Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV (Amersfoort), Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV (Amersfoort) (represented by: initially C. Swaak and J. de Gou, and subsequently C. Swaak, M. van der Woude and M. Mollica, Lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Whelan and F. Amato, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/566/EC of 9 December 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E 2/37.533 — Choline chloride) (summary published in OJ 2005 L 190, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.

1

---
# C_2023329EN.01002801.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/28

---

Action brought on 28 July 2023 — Daimler Truck v EUIPO (CERTIFIED)

(Case T-436/23)

(2023/C 329/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Daimler Truck AG (Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark CERTIFIED — Application for registration No 1 648 641

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2023 in Case R 2533/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and order EUIPO to grant protection to the European Union designation of the trade mark at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and order EUIPO to grant protection to the European Union designation of the trade mark at issue;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1084

JOHNATHAN BYNUM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (5:07-cv-00068-RLV-DLH)

Submitted: July 24, 2008 Decided: September 3, 2008

Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnathan Bynum, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Ann Youngs, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Johnathan Bynum appeals the district court’s order

dismissing Bynum’s civil action against the Social Security

Administration for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bynum v.

Social Security Administration, No. 5:07-cv-00068-RLV-DLH (W.D.N.C.

Nov. 6, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1249 KA 12-02088**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SHAWN M. HALLMARK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

R. THOMAS RANKIN, PUBLIC DEFENDER, MAYVILLE (LYLE T. HAJDU OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DAVID W. FOLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MAYVILLE (PATRICK E. SWANSON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Chautauqua County Court (John T. Ward, J.), rendered October 1, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Chautauqua County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the same Memorandum as in People v Hallmark ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Nov. 21, 2014]).

Entered: November 21, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
----

(2004/C 65 E/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1828/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject:   Unpaid fines and proceedings against Greece pending before the European Court of Justice

Can the Commission say in how many and which cases Greece has been fined by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) since 1994 to date? What is the total amount of the fines imposed on Greece? Which of these fines have not yet been paid by Greece? In how many and which cases are proceedings against Greece pending before the ECJ and what is the schedule for these proceedings?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The Court of Justice has found against Greece under Article 228 of the EC Treaty only once — in Case C-387/97, which involved the unsupervised disposal of waste in the Chania region (Crete) and the lack of management plans for the disposal of waste and dangerous waste. By judgment of 4 July 2000, Greece was ordered to pay a penalty of EUR 20 000 for each day's delay in implementing the requisite measures for complying with the Court's decision in Case C-45/91 Commission v Greece (delivered pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty). Thus, it had to pay EUR 20 000 a day from 4 July 2000 until 26 February 2001, when it effectively complied with the judgment; this resulted in a total of EUR 5 400 000, which was paid by the Greek authorities on time.

The Commission filed another suit against Greece in the Court of Justice under Article 228 of the EC Treaty for failure to comply with the Court's judgment of 23 March 1995 (1). The application was lodged on 27 May 1998 under case number C-197/98. As the directive in question was transposed by presidential decree of 23 June 2000, the Commission withdrew its suit on 3 August and the case was removed from the register.

The Commission had decided to apply to the Court under Article 228 in three other matters but, since Greece complied with the Court's judgments, the files were closed before the applications were lodged.

The grounds for the applications — failure to comply with the appropriate judgments — were the same in each case:

There are therefore no other proceedings pending at this time against Greece under Article 228 of the EC Treaty.

As regards proceedings under Article 226, there are at present 22 applications pending. In six of these, the Commission has withdrawn its suit and removal from the register is awaited. A summary table of the remaining 16 applications, giving the case number, a brief title and the stage reached in the proceedings is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

----

(1)  Case C-365/93, which concerned the failure to notify national measures implementing Directive 89/48/EEC on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas.

----
# C_2013063EN.01001702.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD)

(Joined Cases T-225/06 RENV, T-255/06 RENV, T-257/06 RENV and T-309/06 RENV) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for Community word and figurative marks BUD - Appellations ‘bud’ - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2013/C 63/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (České Budějovice, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, C. Petsch, S. Sculy-Logotheti and T. Lachacinski, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Anheuser-Busch LLC (Saint Louis, Missouri, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, B. Goebel and A. Renck, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Actions brought against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2006 (Case R 234/2005-2), 28 June 2006 (Cases R 241/2005-2 and R 802/2004-2) and 1 September 2006 (Case R 305/2005-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, and Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.

1

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JANUARY 25, 1997; THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE 12 WEEKS ENDED JANUARY 25, 1997;
AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE 12 WEEKS ENDED
JANUARY 25, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-03-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-25-1997
<CASH>                                           6,703
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,540
<ALLOWANCES>                                       777
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,685
<PP&E>                                          35,366
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,687
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,985
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           103
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,143
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,687
<SALES>                                        118,646
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               118,965
<CGS>                                           94,751
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  116,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (154)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   159
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 278
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,897
<INCOME-TAX>                                       759
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,138
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,138
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004078EN.01045202.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/452 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/452

---

(2004/C 78 E/0478)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3389/03

by John Hume (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   European Carrefours

Subject:

Can the Commission explain why the Directorate-General for Press and Communication has announced the sudden termination of operating grants to the 138 members of the European Carrefour Network? Will it reconsider the decision and ensure that funding continues into 2004?

---
Exhibit 4.2


 


Incorporated in the Cayman
Islands


Bona Film Group Limited


 


This is to certify that


 


is / are the registered shareholders of:


 


	
  No. of Shares

  	
   

  	
  Type of Share

  	
   

  	
  Par Value

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Ordinary

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date of Record

  	
   

  	
  Certificate Number

  	
   

  	
  % Paid

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  100.00

  	
   

  



 


The above shares are subject
to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company and transferable
in accordance therewith.

Given under the Common Seal of the Company


 


 


	
   

  	
   Director

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   Director/Secretary
STATE of North Carolina v. Mickey Gene MELLON, Defendant.

No. COA15-459.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated and Remanded in part; no error in part.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18455]



[[Page 54768]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-920-1310-01; WYW146282]


Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas 
lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease WYW146282 from Gulf 
Exploration LLC for lands in Converse County, Wyoming. The petition was 
filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date 
the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. 
Lewis, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $166 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has 
met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in 
Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease WYW146282 effective October 1, 2004, under the original 
terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty 
rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the 
lands.

Pamela J. Lewis,
Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 05-18455 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2007 – Enercon v OHIM (Wind turbine)**

**(Case T-71/06)**

Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark depicting the outer casing of the nacelle of a wind turbine – Absolute grounds for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 31)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2005 (Case R 179/2005-2) refusing registration of a three-dimensional mark (a section of a wind turbine in the form of an American football) as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Enercon GmbH |
| Community trade mark sought: | Three-dimensional mark representing the outer casing of the nacelle of a wind turbine for goods in Class 7 – Application No 2496743 |
| Decision of the Examiner: | Refusal of registration |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs. |
| 1.   | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of CKE Restaurants, Inc.; and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ THEODORE ABAJIAN                                 |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Theodore Abajian                                     |
|   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 18 December 2008 – Torres v OHIM – Vinícola de Tomelloso (TORRE
DE GAZATE)**

**(Case T-286/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community word mark TORRE DE GAZATE – Earlier national and international word marks TORRES and LAS TORRES – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 69)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 July 2006 (Case R 421/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Vinícola de Tomelloso, SCL. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Vinícola de Tomelloso, SCL |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark TORRE DE GAZATE, for goods in Class 33 – Application No 1632017 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Miguel Torres, SA |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | International and national word mark TORRES and international word mark LAS TORRES, for goods in Class 33 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Miguel Torres, SA to pay the costs. |
ORDER OF MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PANEL 

Order Pronounced September 10, 2008 

THE STAY IN THE FOLLOWING MOTION TO TRANSFER IS LIFTED: 

08-0208 IN RE HURRICANE RITA HOMEOWNERS' CLAIMS 

 

On May 21, 2008 this Panel extended an order staying proceedings in the cases listed in 

attached exhibit. That order is lifted and the stay order is dissolved. 

__________________________________ 

Blake Hawthorne, 

Multidistrict Litigation Panel Clerk 

ALL CONCUR