alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008051EN.01002102.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/21

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

(Case C-374/06) (1)

1

(Preliminary reference - Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Directive 92/12/EEC - Products subject to excise duty - Tax markings - Irregular departure from a suspension arrangement - Theft - Release for consumption in the Member State of the theft - Non-reimbursement of the tax markings of a Member State already affixed to the stolen products)

(2008/C 51/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Refusal of a Member State to repay the amount paid for tax markings attached to tobacco products which then irregularly left the duty suspension arrangements of another Member State with the consequence that excise duty was paid in the latter State — Theft of cigarettes.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 807/2003 of 14 April 2003 adapting to Decision 1999/468/EC the provisions relating to committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers laid down in Council instruments adopted in accordance with the consultation procedure (unanimity), does not preclude the legislation of a Member State which excludes the reimbursement of the amount paid to obtain tax markings issued by that Member State when those markings have been affixed to products subject to excise duty before being released for consumption in that Member State, when those products have been stolen in another Member State, involving the payment of excise duties in that other Member State, and when evidence has not been furnished that the stolen products will not be marketed in the Member State which issued those markings.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---
Exhibit 18.1





CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


PREFERABILITY LETTER OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





April 15, 2011
  CKE Restaurants, Inc
 6307 Carpinteria Ave., Ste. A
 Carpinteria, California 93013
  Ladies and Gentlemen:
  We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of CKE Restaurants, Inc. (the Company) as of January 31, 2011 (Successor) and 2010 (Predecessor), and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the twenty-nine weeks ended January 31, 2011 (Successor), the twenty-four weeks ended July 12, 2010 (Predecessor) and each of the years in the two-year period ended January 31, 2010 (Predecessor), and have reported thereon under date of April 15, 2011. The aforementioned consolidated financial statements and our audit report thereon are included in the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2011. As stated in note 1 to those financial statements, the Company changed its date for its annual goodwill impairment test from the first day of its fiscal year to the last day of the first accounting period in its fiscal fourth quarter. The Company states that the newly adopted testing date is preferable in the circumstances because it better aligns the impairment testing procedures with its  year-end financial reporting. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed and discussed with Company officials the circumstances and business judgment and planning upon which the decision to make this change in the timing of the goodwill impairment date was based.
  With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria have not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another acceptable method. However, for purposes of the Company's compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this letter.
  Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management’s business judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting is preferable in the Company’s circumstances.
  Very truly yours,
  /s/  KPMG LLP
STATE v. Clyde Gary WHISENANT.

No. 423P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 30, 2015.

Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Staples Hughes, Durham.

Katherine Jane Allen, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Whisenant, Clyde Gary.

David Learner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of December 2015 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of December 2015."
original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

/ 

Hardesty 

Parraguirre 

cc: Hon. Jennifer P. Togliatti, District Judge 

Percy Lavae Bacon 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2 

!-7,771.M.YEMESSWEr---/- T-- 

J. 

J.
BRINEGAR v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM.

No. COA08-157.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 3, 2009.

Certification Date February 23, 2009.

Appeal from Forsyth (06CVS7373).

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Exhibit 27.3
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            Mar-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 Sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                         8,728
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 34,378
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2,772
<INVENTORY>                                    1,922
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              47,527
<PP&E>                                       100,834
<DEPRECIATION>                                30,744
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               121,741
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         38,643
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                         390
<OTHER-SE>                                    56,338
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 121,741
<SALES>                                       60,718
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              60,718
<CGS>                                         43,639
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 43,639
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               9,225
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 229
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                6,942
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,573
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4,369
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,369
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.19
        


</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 65 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2720/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Measures to safeguard EU plans for a dynamic knowledge society in 2010 from unintended negative effects of the Stability Pact

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure, OJ L 209, 2.8.1997.

(2)  This message has been particularly stressed in the Commission Communication of 10 January 2003 on ‘Investing efficiently in education and training: an imperative for Europe’.

(3)  COM(2002) 668 final.

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

August 20, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

137117 (22) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

WILLIAM SIM SPENCER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 137117 

 COA: 284370 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

___________________________________ 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $1.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$374.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order. 

jm 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

August 20, 2008 

Clerk
CITY OF ASHEVILLE v. STATE of North Carolina, et al.

No. 391PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

I. Faison Hicks, Special Deputy Attorney General.

Robert W. Oast, Jr., City Attorney, for City Of Asheville.

Daniel G. Clodfelter, Charlotte, for City of Asheville.

T. Randolph Perkins, Charlotte, for City of Asheville.

Jonathan M. Watkins, Charlotte.

Jason G. Idilbi, Charlotte.

Robert B. Long, Jr., Asheville, for City of Asheville.

Ronald K. Payne, Asheville.

Isham F. Hicks, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Robin T. Currin, City of Ashville Attorney, for City of Asheville.

William Clarke, Asheville, for State of North Carolina.

Stephen W. Petersen, Raleigh, for State of North Carolina.

Robert F. Orr, Asheville, for City of Asheville.

Matthew W. Sawchak, Raleigh, for City of Asheville.

Allegra Collins, for International Municipal Lawyers Association.

Edward J. Coyne, III, Greenville, for Brunswick Regional Water & Sewer H2GO.

Jeremy M. Wilson, Wilmington, for Brunswick Regional Water & Sewer H2GO.

Gabriel Du Sablon, for City of Wilson.

James P. Cauley, III, Wilson, for City of Wilson.

Gregory F. Schwitzgebel, III, Associate General Counsel, for North Carolina League of Municipalities.

Kimberly S. Hibbard, General Counsel, for North Carolina League of Municipalities.

The following order has been entered on the conditional motion filed on the 4th of December 2015 by Brunswick Regional Water & Sewer H2Go for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
# C_2023179EN.01007402.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/74

---

Action brought on 10 April 2023 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM)

(Case T-181/23)

(2023/C 179/103)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France)

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 word mark JUVÉDERM — European Union trade mark No 5 807 169

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2023 in Case R 904/2022-4

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 bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment at every stage of the action for invalidation, including the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO and the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment at every stage of the action for invalidation, including the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO and the Court.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 95(1), 97(1) and 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 95(1), 97(1) and 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
##### 



Exhibit 21.1
 CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
  CONTROL BYJURISDICTION OFNAME OF SUBSIDIARY
    
    ORGANIZATION
    
    REGISTRANT
    
    SUBSIDIARYCarl Karcher Enterprises, Inc.
    
    California
    
    
    100
    %Hardees Food Systems, Inc.
    
    North Carolina
    
    
    100
    %Flagstar Enterprises, Inc.
    
    Alabama
    
    
    
    
    
    
    100
    %Spardees Realty, Inc.
    
    Alabama
    
    
    
    
    
    
    100
    %HED, Inc.
    
    North Carolina
    
    
    
    
    
    
    100
    %Burger Chef Systems, Inc.
    
    North Carolina
    
    
    
    
    
    
    100
    %Hardees LTD, Fribourg
    
    Switzerland
    
    
    
    
    
    
    98
    %Hardees REIT I, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    
    
    
    
    100
    %Hardees REIT II, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    
    
    
    
    100
    %CKE REIT I, Inc
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %CKE REIT II, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %Carls Jr. Region VIII, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    
    
    
    
    100
    %Aeroways, LLC
    
    California
    
    
    100
    %Santa Barbara Restaurant Group, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %La Salsa, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    
    
    
    
    100
    %GB Franchise Corporation
    
    California
    
    
    
    
    
    
    100
    %La Salsa of Nevada, Inc.
    
    Nevada
    
    
    
    
    
    
    100
    %Channel Islands Roasting Company
    
    California
    
    
    100
    %
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.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Glenn/Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Willows, California. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Introductions, (2) Approval of Minutes, (3) Public Comment, (4) Project Proposal/Possible Action, (5) Web site Update, (6) Update on Colusa Title III Money, (7) General Discussion, (8) Next Agenda.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on September 26, 2005, from 1:30 p.m. and end at approximately 4:30 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Mendocino National Forest Supervisor's Office, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988. Individuals wishing to speak or propose agenda items must send their names and proposals to Jim Giachino, DFO, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Bobbin Gaddini, Committee coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, P.O. Box 164, Elk Creek, CA 95939. (530) 968-1815; e-mail                         *ggaddini@fs.fed.us.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by September 23, 2005 will have the opportunity to address the committee at those sessions.

Dated: September 13, 2005.

James F. Giachino,

Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 05-18648  Filed 9-19-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
# C_2012006EN.01001002.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Stempher and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher v Commission

(Case T-68/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Limitation period - Proof of the infringement)

2012/C 6/14

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Stempher BV (Rijssen, Netherlands) and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher CV (Rijssen) (represented by: J. de Pree and E. Pijnacker Hordijk, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Nijenhuis and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part and for amendment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) in so far as it concerns Stempher BV and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher CV; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) in so far as it concerns Stempher BV and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher CV;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

1

---
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2008 – JTEKT v OHIM (IFS)**

**(Case T-462/05)**

Community trade mark – Application for a Community word mark IFS – Absolute grounds for refusal – Not descriptive – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 25, 31, 39-40)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1157/2004-1) concerning an application to register the word mark IFS as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | JTEKT Corp. |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark IFS for goods in Class 12 – Application No 3157492 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1157/2004-1); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by JTEKT Corp. |
TATE v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

No. 437P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Herman V. Tate, Hoffman, for Tate, Herman V.

Marc X. Sneed, Assistant Attorney General, for N.C. Department Of Public Safety.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of December 2015 by Plaintiff to Safeguard Constitutional Rights:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
Grant of Extension of Time PAGE 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21
- 0269 IN THE MATTER OF C.R.G. and E.J.G., Youths in Need of Care **ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENS ION OF TIME**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s m oti on for extension of time, and good cause appearing therefore, Appellant, K.E.T., is granted an extension of time until September 9, 2021 to prepare, serve, and file the Opening Brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 20 2021

07/20/2021
STATE v. David Matthew LOWE.

No. 278PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2016.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Chapel Hill, for Lowe, David Matthew.

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 29th of February 2016 by Defendant:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2016."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 22nd day of March 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.