alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William D. Fisher *v.*Latham Cornell.

*Homestead—lost by abandonment.*In order to claim a homestead exemption, the debtor must actually occupy the premises as a residence. If the head of the family voluntarily leaves the premises, and removes to another place, where he and his family reside for several years, leaving the property in the possession of tenants, the exemption will be lost.

Writ oe Error to the Circuit Court of Stephenson *county;*the Hon. William Brown, Judge, presiding.

Mr. J. H. Knowlton, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Thomas J. Turner, for the defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in chancery, in the Stephenson circuit court, to foreclose a mortgage, and a decree accordingly. The only point made by plaintiff in error is, that the court decreed a sale of the premises without regard to the homestead right of the defendant.

There was no release of the homestead in the mortgage, but the proof is full to the point that plaintiff in error removed with his family to another county, where he resided, *217and had resided for four or five years, leaving the premises in possession of tenants, who occupied them.

The statute requires, in order to claim the right of homestead, that the lot of ground and the buildings thereon must be occupied as a residence of the party claiming the right. Seates’ Comp. 576.

In several cases, this court has considered this provision, and placed a construction upon it, holding that the head of the family must actually reside on the premises. *Cabeen*v. *Mulligan,*37 Ill. 230; *Titman*v. *Moore,*43 ib. 169. These cases, and others which might be cited, are full to this point. The evidence is clear, of an abandonment of the premises as a homestead.

The decree of the circuit court is, in all things, affirmed.

*Decree affirmed.*
Order entered March 8, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01460
- CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V. GEORGE THOMPSON, Appellee On Appeal from the County Crim inal Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MA17
- 13978
- G



### O RDER Before the Court are appellee’s March 5, 2019 motion for extension of time to file his brief and Jessica Warren’s March 5, 2019 unopposed motion to withdraw as counsel for
app ellee. We GRANT both motion s . In her motion to withdraw, counsel represents that appellee is now indigent and in need of appointed counsel. Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to determine whether appell ee is indigent and entitled to appointment of cou nsel. In the event the trial court determines appell ee is not indigent and entitled to appointment of counsel, we ORDER the trial court to file findings of fact to that effect. If the trial court determines appell ee is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel, we ORDER the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent appell ee on appeal.– 2

–

We ORDER the trial court to transmit to this Court, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing either its findings of fac t showing appell ee is not entitled to appointed counsel or else the order appointing new counsel.
We ABATE the appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. We will reinstate the appeal when we receive the supplemental clerk’s record or at su ch other time as the Court deems appropriate. Upon reinstatement, the Court will set a new due date for appellee’s
brief.
/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 99.1

UNITRONIX CORPORATION

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 Unitronix Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


February 10, 2004 /s/Dale M. Hendrick      President and Chief Executive Officer
                  ------------------------
                     Dale M. Hendrick

February   , 2004 /s/William C. Wimer      Vice President of Operations and
                  ------------------------   Chief Financial Officer
                     William C. wimer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Together, America Prospers

Agriculture Innovation Center Program

What does this 

program do?

The Agriculture Innovation Center 

Program awards grants to eligible 

Agriculture Innovation Centers 

that provide technical assistance 

to agricultural producers to help 

them develop and market valueadded agricultural products.

Who can apply 

for this program?

• Local governments

• State governments

• Federally-recognized Tribes

• Nonprofit organizations

• Commercial organizations 

• Institutes of higher education

How can funds be used?

Grant and matching funds can 

be used to operate an Agriculture 

Innovation Center, and to provide the 

following services and support to 

agricultural producers:

• Business development services, 

including feasibility studies and 

business plans

• Marketing development services, 

including marketing plans, branding, 

and customer identification

• Financial advisory services, 

including assistance with preparing 

financial statements and assessing 

financing options

• Process development services, 

including engineering services, 

scale production assessments, 

and systems development

• Organizational assistance, including 

legal and technical advisory services

• Value chain coordination, including 

connecting agricultural producers 

to distribution systems, processing 

facilities, or commercial kitchens

• Product development (excluding 

research and development), 

including concept testing, feasibility 

and cost analysis, product tastetesting, demographic and other 

types of consumer analysis, 

production analysis, and evaluation 

of packaging and labeling options

• Grants of $5,000 or less to agricultural 

producers for the above services 

(where the aggregate amount does 

not exceed $50,000)

How do we get started?

Before you apply: 

• If your organization doesn’t already 

have an active number in the System 

for Award Management (SAM), you 

will need to register for one. This free 

process requires several steps, so 

plan to start at least a month before 

the application deadline.

Prior to registering, we encourage 

you to read the HELP materials 

available on the SAM website at this 

link: https://sam.gov/content/help. 

Who can answer questions?

• You can email your questions 

to SM.RBCS.AIC@usda.gov. 

Where can I get more information 

about the program?

You can learn more about the AIC 

program by visiting the program page 

at this link: https://go.usa.gov/xh4Vk. 

The Code of Federal Regulations 

that governs this program (7 CFR 

Part 4284) is available at this link: 

https://go.usa.gov/xh4Vp. 

NOTE: Because information is subject to change, always consult official program 

instructions or contact your local Rural Development office for help. A list is available 

at this link: https://go.usa.gov/xJHPE. You will find additional resources, forms, and 

program information at https://rd.usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, 

employer, and lender.

Last Updated September 2022
# C_2013336EN.01002102.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/21

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2013 — Rungis express AG v OHIM — Žito (MARESTO)

(Case T-243/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 336/42

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rungis express AG (Meckenheim, Germany) (represented: initially by U. Feldmann and subsequently by O. Dimopoulou, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, R. Pethke and D. Botis, agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Žito prehrambena industrija d.d. (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: M. Praviček, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2010 (Case R 691/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Žito prehrambena industrija d.d. and Rungis express AG.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener are ordered to bear their own costs and, each of them, to bear half of the defendant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener are ordered to bear their own costs and, each of them, to bear half of the defendant’s costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.

1

---
### §292. Forfeiture

Any gold, silver, or goods manufactured therefrom after February 21, 1905, bearing any of the stamps, words, phrases, or devices prohibited to be used under section 291 of this title, and being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to or from a Territory, the District of Columbia, or possessions of the United States, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law.

(Feb. 21, 1905, ch. 720, §3, 33 Stat. 732.)
7515 Lemmon Avenue 

Building N Box 145 

Dallas, Texas 75209 

214-654-9770 

Fax 469-916-1539 

December 31, 2009 

Mr. Damon Walker 

Transportation Industry Analyst 

Air Carrier Fitness Division 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Walker: 

We are in the process of moving and would like an extension to respond to your 

request. We will include the information on our new Director of Operations in our 

response, with our new address. 

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Kenneth Gardner 

Director of Safety
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2010-NM-202-AD

Costs:

Labor per airplane (19 work hOllT(S) x S85/hour)

Cost per airplane

Number of U.S.-registered airplanes

Total fleet cost

$

$

1,615

1,615

x 605

$977.075

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"?

I

DOT RegulatolJ' Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### § 319.142 Fresh beef sausage.

“Fresh Beef Sausage” is sausage prepared with fresh beef or frozen beef, or both, but not including beef byproducts, and may contain Mechanically Separated (Species) used in accordance with § 319.6, and may be seasoned with condimental substances as permitted under part 318 of this subchapter. The finished product shall not contain more than 30 percent fat. To facilitate chopping or mixing, water or ice may be used in an amount not to exceed 3 percent of the total ingredients used.

[35 FR 15597, Oct. 3, 1970, as amended at 43 FR 26424, June 20, 1978; 47 FR 28257, June 29, 1982]
#### § 22.21 Motion for Reconsideration [Rule 21].

A motion for reconsideration, if filed by either party, shall set forth specifically the ground or grounds relied upon to sustain the motion, and shall be filed within 15 days of receipt of a copy of the Board's decision. Mere disagreement with a decision, re-argument of points already made, or the presentation of new evidence that could have been presented during the appeal but was not, are not sufficient grounds for reconsideration. A motion pending under § 22.21 [Rule 21] does not affect the finality of a decision or suspend its operation.
# C_2010288EN.01007401.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/74

---

Action brought on 17 August 2010 — De Britto Patricio-Dias v Commission

(Case F-66/10)

()

(2010/C 288/139)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jorge De Britto Patricio-Dias (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Massaux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant’s career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008 in so far as it placed him in performance level III and awarded him two promotion points.

Form of order sought

| — | annul the appointing authority decision No R-98/10 of 12 May 2010, and in so far as necessary, the career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appointing authority decision No R-98/10 of 12 May 2010, and in so far as necessary, the career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008;

| — | order the defendant to pay the sum estimated ex aequo et bono at EUR 25 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the sum estimated ex aequo et bono at EUR 25 000;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
# C_2011252EN.01005801.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/58

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 May 2011 — Carpenito v Council

(Case F-94/10) (1)

1

2011/C 252/130

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.01.11, p. 41.

1

---
# C_2010346EN.01005401.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/54

---

Action brought on 18 October 2010 — Département du Gers v Commission

(Case T-502/10)

()

2010/C 346/105

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Département du Gers (Auch, France) (represented by: S. Mabile and J.-P. Mignard, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul Decision 2010/428/EU of the European Commission of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 59122x1507xNK603 (DAS-59122-7xDAS-Ø15Ø7xMON-ØØ6Ø3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision 2010/428/EU of the European Commission of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 59122x1507xNK603 (DAS-59122-7xDAS-Ø15Ø7xMON-ØØ6Ø3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and the main arguments raised by the applicant are identical or essentially the same as those raised in Case T-478/10 Département du Gers v Commission.

Département du Gers

Commission

---
State Name County Name

California Fresno

California Kern

California Kings

California Madera

California Merced

California San Joaquin

California Stanislaus

California Tulare
Together, America Prospers

Rural Energy Pilot Program (REPP) Grant

What does this 

program do?

The Rural Energy Pilot Program 

(REPP) offers grant assistance 

to Rural Energy Community 

Partnerships (RECPs) to develop 

renewable energy to help meet our 

nation’s energy needs and combat 

climate change while prioritizing 

environmental justice, racial 

equity, and economic opportunity.

Who may apply 

for this program?

As eligible applicants, RECPs 

are partnerships established 

to provide community-scale 

renewable energy benefits and 

assistance to underserved rural 

communities. RECP partnerships 

can be comprised of the 

following entities:

• Nonprofit organizations

• State organizations

• Federally-recognized Tribes

• Municipalities and other 

public bodies

How may funds be used?

REPP grant funds can be used 

to support:

• Community energy planning, capacity 

building, and technical assistance

• Community efficiency 

and weatherization 

• Installation and equipping of 

community-scale renewable energy 

technologies and systems

What is an eligible area?

A REPP partnership must serve a 

rural community as specified in the 

REPP Notice of Funding Opportunity 

(NOFO) published in the Federal 

Register. Priority is given to distressed 

and high energy-burden communities, 

in which households spend a greater 

proportion of their income on energy 

costs compared to the average 

U.S. household.

What is the maximum grant amount?

Awards to successful applicants will 

be in the form of cost-share grants 

for up to 80 percent of total eligible 

project costs, not to exceed $2 million.

What are the terms of the grant?

The grant term is three years.

How do we apply?

Interested applicants are encouraged 

to review the materials – including 

application deadlines – found in 

the NOFO.

Application guides and submission 

instructions are on the Rural Energy 

Pilot Program website under the 

“To Apply” tab, available at this link: 

https://go.usa.gov/xe2WR.

What governs this program?

The Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2021 (Public Law 116 – 260) 

– available at this link: https://www.

congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/

house-bill/133/text - provides the 

Secretary of Agriculture $10 million 

until expended to carry out a pilot 

program to offer financial assistance 

for rural communities to develop 

renewable energy. The REPP is 

governed by a Notice of Funding 

Opportunity originally published 

January 19, 2022.

Why does USDA Rural Development 

do this?

The REPP meets a recognized need 

for federal support to further develop 

renewable energy to help meet our 

nation’s energy needs and combat 

climate change while prioritizing 

environmental justice, racial equity, 

and economic opportunity.

NOTE: Because citations and other information may be subject to change, 

please contact your state-based energy coordinator (a list is available at this link: 

https://go.usa.gov/xtBaj) for assistance. You will find additional forms, resources, 

and program information at rd.usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, 

employer, and lender.

January 2022
**Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2011 – Timehouse v OHIM (Shape of a watch with jagged edges)**

**(Case T-235/10)**

Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional mark – Shape of a watch with jagged edges – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 35-36)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2011 (Case R 0942/2009‐1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a watch as a Community trade mark. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Timehouse GmbH to pay the costs. |
Exhibit 32.1


Vital Images, Inc.





Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Vital Images, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the “Annual Report”), I, Michael H. Carrel, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





1.    The Annual 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 or 78o(d)); and





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





Dated:March 14, 2011/s/ Michael H. CarrelMichael H. CarrelPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Vital Images, Inc.
§ 3.25 Facilities, general. ( a ) *Structural strength.* Indoor and outdoor housing facilities for guinea pigs or hamsters shall be structurally sound and shall be maintained in good repair, to protect the animals from injury, to contain the animals, and to restrict the entrance of other animals.
( b ) *Water and electric power.* Reliable and adequate electric power, if required to comply with other provisions of this subpart, and adequate potable water shall be available.
( c ) *Storage.* Supplies of food and bedding shall be stored in facilities which adequately protect such supplies against spoilage or deterioration and infestation or contamination by vermin. Food supplies shall be stored in containers with tightly fitting lids or covers or in the original containers as received from the commercial sources of supply. Refrigeration shall be provided for supplies of perishable food.
( d ) *Waste disposal.* Provisions shall be made for the removal and disposal of animal and food wastes, bedding, dead animals, and debris. Disposal facilities shall be so provided and operated as to minimize vermin infestation, odors, and disease hazards.
( e ) *Washroom and sinks.* Facilities, such as washrooms, basins, or sinks, shall be provided to maintain cleanliness among animal caretakers.
[32 FR 3273, Feb. 24, 1967, as amended at 44 FR 63492, Nov. 2, 1979]
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 128

To terminate operation of the Extremely Low Frequency Communication

System of the Navy.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. KOHL, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. JOHNSON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To terminate operation of the Extremely Low Frequency

Communication System of the Navy.

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF OPERATION OF THE EX4 TREMELY LOW FREQUENCY COMMUNICA5 TION SYSTEM.

6 (a) TERMINATION REQUIRED.—The Secretary of the

7 Navy shall terminate the operation of the Extremely Low

8 Frequency Communication System of the Navy.

9 (b) MAINTENANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE.—The Sec10 retary shall maintain the infrastructure necessary for re-
2

•S 128 IS

1 suming operation of the Extremely Low Frequency Com2 munication System.

Æ
#### § 354.90 Report of inspection work.

Reports of the work of inspection carried on within official plants shall be forwarded to the Administrator by the inspector in such manner as may be specified by the Administrator.