alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016027EN.01004402.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Bionecs v OHIM — Fidia farmaceutici (BIONECS)

(Case T-262/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BIONECS - Earlier international word mark BIONECT - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 027/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bionecs GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Knitter, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 February 2014 (Case R 1179/2013/1) concerning opposition proceedings between Fidia Farmaceutici SpA and Bionecs GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bionecs GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bionecs GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.2400 Densitometer/scanner (integrating, reflectance, TLC, or radiochromatogram) for clinical use. ( a ) *Identification.* A densitometer/scanner (integrating, reflectance, thin-layer chromatography, or radiochromatogram) for clinical use is device intended to measure the concentration of a substance on the surface of a film or other support media by either a photocell measurement of the light transmission through a given area of the medium or, in the case of the radiochromatogram scanner, by measurement of the distribution of a specific radio-active element on a radiochromatogram.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 862.9.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 2309, Jan. 14, 2000]
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00415-CR

IN RE Delmar J. PRICE

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 13, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On June 15, 2011, relator Delmar J. Price filed a petition for writ of mandamus, 

complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on various pro se petitions and motions. However, 

counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial 

court for which he is currently confined. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid 

representation. See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. 

State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on 

pro se motions or petitions filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is 

represented by counsel. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011-CR-1035, styled State of Texas v. Delmar J. Price, pending in the 

186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Maria Teresa Herr presiding.
04-11-00415-CR

- 2 -

abuse its discretion by declining to rule on relator’s pro se petitions and motions filed in the 

criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is 

denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
II 

Calendar No. 543 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7607 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at Block 1025, Lots 18 & 19, Northeast Corner 

of US Route 9 South and Main Street in the Township 

of Middle, County of Cape May, New Jersey, as the 

‘‘George Henry White Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GEORGE HENRY WHITE POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at Block 1025, Lots 18 & 19, 

7 Northeast Corner of US Route 9 South and Main Street 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7607 RS

1 in the Township of Middle, County of Cape May, New Jer2 sey, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘George Henry 

3 White Post Office Building’’. 

4 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg5 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

6 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

7 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘George Henry White 

8 Post Office Building’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 543 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7607 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostWhite Post Office Building’’. of Cape May, New Jersey, as the ‘‘George Henry Main Street in the Township of Middle, County Northeast Corner of US Route 9 South and al Service located at Block 1025, Lots 18 & 19, 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 19, 2014

NO. 03-11-00085-CR

Mark A. Clark, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court on February 7, 2011. 

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no 

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial 

court’s judgment of conviction. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in 

this Court and the court below.
#### Jameson *v.*Nelson et al.

[No. 17,441.

Filed March 15, 1946.]

*Lewis, Goett & Elliott, Thos. E. Garvin,*and *Gale Graber,*all of Indianapolis, for appellant.

*474
      *Leo X. Smith,*and *Owen S. Boling,*both of Indianapolis, for appellees.

Flanagan, C. J.

This is an action for possession of real estate brought by appellees against appellant. The sole error relied upon for reversal is the overruling of appellant’s motion for a new trial which challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the legality of the decision.

The facts pertinent to a consideration of this appeal are undisputed and are as follows:

Prior to August, 1944, one Robert F. Higgins was the owner of the involved real estate and appellant was his tenant on a month to month lease, the rent being payable in advance. Appellees, as agents for Higgins, had been collecting the rent. On August 14, 1944, the then owner served upon appellant a notice to vacate the leased premises for causes other than non-payment of rent. All rent had been paid to August 30, 1944. No rent was paid thereafter. On September 7, 1944, Higgins brought an action against appellant for possession which, was later dismissed. On February 13, 1945, appellees acquired title to the real estate and on February 15, 1945, brought an action against appellant for possession. This action was later dismissed. On February 23, 1945, appellant was notified by appellee to vacate the premises for non-payment of rent. On March 5, 1945, this action was commenced.

Appellant’s first contention is that no relationship of. landlord and tenant existed between appellant and appellees for the reason that the notice to vacate given appellant on August 14, 1944, and the action for possession filed on September 7, 1944, terminated the relationship of landlord and tenant and nothing' occurred thereafter to re-establish it.

*475With this-contention we cannot agree.

Appellant cites us to cases wherein the tenant was either actually evicted or yielded possession upon receipt of the notice to vacate. But such cases are not in point here. The tenant in this case refused to yield to the landlord’s demand. He cannot on the one hand claim that his lease is not ended and retain possession and on the other hand deny the relationship of landlord and tenant because of constructive eviction. For discussion of abandonment of possession as an element of constructive eviction see 32 Am. Jur., pages 236 and 391.

The complaint filed herein is in two paragraphs. The court found for appellees on the first paragraph and against them on the second. Appellant contends that these two findings are too inconsistent to support the judgment because both are on the theory of non-payment of rent. The first paragraph is clearly based upon non-payment of rent. The second, however, is based upon refusal of appellant to permit an electrician to enter upon the premises to make repairs. The second paragraph does contain a statement that the rent was not paid, but that statement is clearly surplusage and was obviously so regarded by the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 65 N. E. (2d) 502.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 34 (Monday, February 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 7636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3313]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration 12034 and 12035]

Arkansas Disaster AR-00042

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Arkansas (FEMA--
1872--DR), dated 02/04/2010.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 12/23/2009 through 01/02/2010.
    Effective Date: 02/04/2010.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 04/05/2010.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/04/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 02/04/2010, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties:
    Bradley, Calhoun, Clark, Clay, Cleveland, Craighead, Dallas, Drew, 
Grant, Greene, Hempstead, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lincoln, 
Lonoke, Miller, Monroe, Nevada, Ouachita, Poinsett, Prairie, White, 
Woodruff.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere...      3.625
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
For Economic Injury:
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 12034B 
and for economic injury is 12035B.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-3313 Filed 2-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```
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 Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration

                    By Notice dated November 20, 2009, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on November 30, 2009 (74 FR 62598), Aptuit, 10245 Hickman Mills Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64137, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.                

The company plans to import an ointment for the treatment of wounds which contain trace amounts of the controlled substance normally found in poppy straw concentrate for packaging and labeling for clinical trials.

No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the registration of Aptuit to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest, and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Aptuit to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.

      ( print page 9614)    
Dated: February 24, 2010.

Joseph T. Rannazzisi,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. 2010-4440 Filed 3-2-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
November 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Hadi
Makarechian, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company.

| |                                                                                                            |                         
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------
| | By:                                                                                                        | /s/     Hadi Makarechian
| |                                                                                                           
| | Hadi MakarechianChairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer and President
(Principal Executive Officer)

Date: January 14, 2003
Exhibit 23.1

[STEGMAN & COMPANY LETTERHEAD]

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

Audit
Committee of the Board of Directors and Stockholders
First Mariner Bancorp
Baltimore, Maryland

We
consent to the incorporation by references in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-60961, 333-60963, 333-60967 and 333-107669) on Form S-8 (No. 333-107670) on
Form S-3 and (No. 333-67854) on Form S-2 of First Mariner Bancorp (the "Company") of our report dated February 14, 2004, relating to the consolidated statements of
financial condition of the Company as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of the Company.



Baltimore,
Maryland
March 26, 2004

---

QuickLinks
# C_2015026EN.01001401.xml

| 26.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 13 November 2014 — Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF) v Luis Aira Pascual and Others

(Case C-509/14)

(2015/C 026/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF)

Applicant:

Defendant: Luis Aira Pascual, Algeposa Terminales Ferroviarios, S.L. and FOGASA

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 1[(1)](b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) of 12 March 2001, in conjunction with Article 4(1) thereof, preclude an interpretation of the Spanish legislation intended to give effect to the Directive, to the effect that a public-sector undertaking, responsible for a service central to its own activities and requiring important material resources, that has been providing that service by means of a public contract, requiring the contractor to use those resources which it owns, is not subject to the obligation to take over the rights and obligations relating to employment relationships when it decides not to extend the contract but to assume direct responsibility for its performance, using its own staff and thereby excluding the staff employed by the contractor, so that the service continues to be provided without any change other than that arising as a result of the replacement of the workers performing the activities and the fact that they are employed by a different employer?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses

1

OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  March 26, 1999

INTERLINQ Software Corporation
11980 N.E. 24th Street
Bellevue, Washington 98005

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I hereby consent to being named as expected to become a director of INTERLINQ
Software Corporation (the "Company") in the Registration Statement on Form S-4,
as amended, filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                        Sincerely,

                                        /s/  J. D. DELAFIELD
                                        -----------------------------
                                        J. D. Delafield
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-40350

Summary Calendar

____________

James Logan Diez, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Texas Department of Criminal Justice; McConnell Unit 

Mailroom Supervisor Ms. Salles; McConnell Unit 

Unknown Mailroom Staff; Texas Prison Board; 

Director of Mail Services Coordinator Panel for 

TDCJ; Executive Director of TDCJ, 

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:23-CV-269

______________________________

Before King, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

James Logan Diez, Texas prisoner # 2399291, has appealed from the 

district court’s order dismissing in part the claims presented in his 42 U.S.C. 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 23, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-40350 Document: 32-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2024
No. 24-40350

2

§ 1983 complaint. The district court found that some of Diez’s claims should 

be dismissed without prejudice as barred by the Eleventh Amendment, some 

of his claims should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to 

state a claim, and other claims should proceed because Diez alleged adequate 

facts to warrant further consideration. Diez seeks to challenge the conclusion 

that some of his claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. 

As a threshold matter, we must consider whether we have jurisdiction 

to review the appeal. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). 

The district court’s order did not resolve all of Diez’s claims and therefore is 

not a final judgment for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Elizondo v. Green, 

671 F.3d 506, 509 (5th Cir. 2012). Moreover, the order does not evince an 

unmistakable intent to enter a final, appealable judgment under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Kelly v. Lee’s Old 

Fashioned Hamburgers, Inc., 908 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1990) (en banc). 

Further, the Eleventh Amendment ruling does not fit within the categories 

of appealable interlocutory orders listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), and the 

district court did not certify that the order was appealable pursuant to

§ 1292(b). Finally, the collateral-order doctrine is inapplicable because the 

district court’s order did not conclusively resolve disputed issues that are 

separate from the merits and that could not be reviewed on appeal from a 

final judgment. See Tracy v. Lumpkin, 43 F.4th 473, 475 (5th Cir. 2022); 

Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 467-68 (5th Cir. 1999).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Case: 24-40350 Document: 32-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2024