alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015089EN.01002602.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/26

---

Order of the General Court of 5 January 2015 — La Perla v OHIM — Alva Management (LA PERLA)

(Case T-492/14) (1)

1

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

(2015/C 089/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: La Perla sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Alva Management GmbH (Icking, Germany) (represented by: B. Hanika, 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 Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2014 (Case R 626/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Alva Management GmbH and La Perla sp. z o.o.

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 shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

1

---
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 60765

**Foyagem Atehnkeng Brain,**

Petitioner **,**

versus

**Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,**

Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals A203 600 816

Before **Jones, Smith,**  and **Graves,** Circuit Judges.

**Per Curiam :**  *
Foyagem Atehnkeng Brain (“Foyagem ”) , a native and citizen of Cameroon, timely petitions us for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion for reconsider ation

. Foyagem argues that the
Boa r d and the I mmigration J udge assigned to his case abused their discretion by applyin g the wrong standard when considering his eligibility for asylum.

* This opinion is not designated fo r publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 20, 2022 Lyle W. C ayce Clerk Case: 21-60765 Document: 00516584350 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2022No. 21

- 60765

2 Further, he argues that this improper application violated his right to due

process.
This court reviews the denial of a motion to reconsider under an
abuse

- of

- discretion standard. Gonzales

- Veliz v. Barr , 938 F.3d 219, 226 (5th Cir. 2019). A motion to reconsider must “‘specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order and . . . be sup ported by pertinent authority. ’ ” Gonzalez
Hernandez v. Garland , 9 F.4th 278, 283 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C)) , cert. denied , 143 S. Ct. 86 (2022). The Boa r d’s decision will stand unless it was “capricious, racially invidious [ or] utt erly without
foundation in the evidence.” Zhao v. Gonzales , 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting Pritchett v. INS , 993 F.2d 80, 83 (5th Cir. 1993)).
Upon review , we find no abuse of discretion. The Boa r d does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reconsider when the petitioner
repeats arguments the Boa r d has already rejected. Clavel

- Avelar v. Garland , 858 F. App ’ x 795, 796 (5th Cir. 2021)

. Further, we do not find that Foyagem
has identified a m isapplication in law. The Board correctly held that arguments regarding the Immigration Judge’s opinion are not properly presented in a motion to reconsider. See Chambers v. Mukasey , 520 F.3d 445, 448 (5th Cir. 2008); Matter of O

- S

- G

- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider the due process argument because it was not raised before the Board during the initial appeal or the motion for reconsideration and is accordingly unexhausted. See Roy v. Ashcroft , 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is **DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.**  Case: 21-60765 Document: 00516584350 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2022
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1180 Chymotrypsin test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A chymotrypsin test system is a device intended to measure the activity of the enzyme chymotrypsin in blood and other body fluids and in feces. Chymotrypsin measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency.
( 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 2305, Jan. 14, 2000]
EXHIBIT 10.26


 


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


 


RECITAL


 


INTERLEUKIN GENETICS, INC.,
employer, and KENNETH S. KORNMAN, an employee, do mutually desire to amend an
existing employment agreement dated December, 1999 and incorporated herein by
reference as follows.


 


AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT


 


The employer and the employee
agree that as of January 31, 2002, that Section 3 of the December 1999
employment agreement is amended by DELETING the words:


 


“In addition, at such time as a
new President or Chief Executive Officer is recruited and hired by the
Employer, Employee’s salary shall automatically be adjusted to equal on a per
month basis, at least eighty-five percent (85%) of the guaranteed,
non-discretionary compensation being paid such new President or Chief Executive
Officer.”


 


Said amendment shall not change
employee’s current compensation.


 


 


In witness whereof, the parties
have executed this amendment as of December 21, 2001.


 


 


	
  EMPLOYER

  	
   

  	
  EMPLOYEE

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Interleukin
  Genetics, Inc.

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By

  	
  /s/ Philip R. Reilly

  	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/ Kenneth S. Kornman

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Philip R. Reilly, CEO

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Kenneth S. Kornman

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  135 Beaver
  Street

  	
   

  	
  135 Beaver
  Street

  	
   

  
	
  Waltham, MA

  	
   

  	
  Waltham, MA
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.4700 Neurosurgical paddie. ( a ) A neurosurgical paddie is a pad used during surgery to protect nervous tissue, absorb fluids, or stop bleeding.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
[44 FR 51730, Sept. 4, 1979, as amended at 69 FR 10332, Mar. 5, 2004]
Order entered March 11, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-15-00220-CV

IN RE LUIS A. SANTIAGO, AND LINDA A. SANTIAGO, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 219th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 296-02073-2011



### ORDER

Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.

We ORDER relator’s to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL
JUSTICE
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1300

___________________________

Teressa Davis

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

MO Jackson County

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant

Sixteenth Judicial Court

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

Arthurine Criswell, in their individual and official capacities; Mary Marquez, in

their individual and official capacities; Randy Krueger, in their individual and

official capacities; Diane Turner, in their individual and official capacities

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

Submitted: March 4, 2019

Filed: March 7, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________
PER CURIAM.

Teressa Davis appeals following the district court’s1

 adverse grant of judgment

in her employment action. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’

arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-
#### §§ 1.425-1.429 [Reserved]
- 1 - Alexander Van der Bellen Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184
sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

April 15, 2011

Ms. Dorothy Beard Chief-Docket Operations U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Delta/Virgin Blue Group Antitrust Immunity Pr oceeding
Docket OST-2009-0155

Dear Ms. Beard:

Enclosed for filing in the public docket is a copy of the Joint Applicants’ Capacity Commitment Agreement, together with the Alliance Cooperation a nd Coordination Agreements. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Alexander Van der Bellen Managing Director, Government Affairs

and Associate General Counsel

cc: Anita Mosner, Counsel for the Virgin Blue Grou p
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 on Form 10-Q of Biopure Corporation for
the period ended April 30, 2005, I, Zafiris G. Zafirelis, President and Chief
Executive Officer, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1.    the Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2005, 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 Form 10-Q for the period ended
            April 30, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
            financial condition and results of operations of Biopure
            Corporation.

/s/ Zafiris G. Zafirelis
------------------------
Zafiris G. Zafirelis
President and Chief Executive Officer

June 9, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Managed Pension Assets Partnership 1989-1, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of
operations  contained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended March 31, 1998 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         33,844
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  101,999
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               135,843
<PP&E>                                         3,177,757
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,048,411)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,265,189
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,410
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,260,779
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,265,189
<SALES>                                        66,622
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               67,134
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  40,727<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                13,175
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            13,175
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   13,175
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes gene al and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.1.2  


SPECIMEN
COMMON STOCK CERTIFICATE

(FRONT) 



	Number	 	Shares
	

	
 	






IWT
Tesoro Corporation 


INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 



	Common Stock	 	CUSIP 45071N 10 8
	 	 	SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
	

 	
 	

SPECIMEN
	

THIS CERTIFIES THAT	
 	

 
	

is the owner of	
 	

 





        FULLY
PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK of IWT Tesoro Corporation, transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by a
duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. 


        WITNESS
the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. 


Dated:




	 	 	CORPORATE SEAL
	

SPECIMEN	
 	

SPECIMEN
	

/s/ Signature	
 	

/s/ Signature
	
	 	

	President	 	Secretary







COUNTERSIGNED:

Florida Atlantic Stock Transfer, Inc.

7130 Nob Hill Road

Tamarac, FL 33321        Transfer agent 





SPECIMEN
COMMON STOCK CERTIFICATE

(REVERSE) 


The
following abbreviation, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 



	TEN COM	—	 	as tenants in common	 	 	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT	 	—	 	
	 	Custodian	 	

	TEN ENT	—	 	as tenants by the entireties	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	(Cust)	 	 	 	(Minor)
	JT ENT	—	 	as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenant in common	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act

    
 (State)





        Additional
abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED,
                                         
                hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 



PLEASE
INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER INDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 







(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE) 















Shares
of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
                                         
                Attorney to transfer the said stock on
the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. 


Dated.
                                         
        


















NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the certificate in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever. 














SIGNATURE(S)
GUARANTEED:

THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE
MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
§ 1.179-6 Effective/applicability dates. ( a ) *In general.* Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the provisions of §§ 1.179-1 through 1.179-5 apply for property placed in service by the taxpayer in taxable years ending after January 25, 1993. However, a taxpayer may apply the provisions of §§ 1.179-1 through 1.179-5 to property placed in service by the taxpayer after December 31, 1986, in taxable years ending on or before January 25, 1993. Otherwise, for property placed in service by the taxpayer after December 31, 1986, in taxable years ending on or before January 25, 1993, the final regulations under section 179 as in effect for the year the property was placed in service apply, except to the extent modified by the changes made to section 179 by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 2085), the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 3342) and the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 1388-400). For that property, a taxpayer may apply any reasonable method that clearly reflects income in applying the changes to section 179, provided the taxpayer consistently applies the method to the property.
( b ) *Section 179 property placed in service by the taxpayer in a taxable year beginning after 2002 and before 2008.* The provisions of § 1.179-2(b)(1) and (b)(2)(ii), the second sentence of § 1.179-4(a), and the provisions of § 1.179-5(c), reflecting changes made to section 179 by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (117 Stat. 752) and the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (118 Stat. 1418), apply for property placed in service in taxable years beginning after 2002 and before 2008.
( c ) *Application of § 1.179-5(d) .* Section 1.179-5(d) applies on or after July 12, 2005.
( d ) *Application of § 1.179-4(c)(1)(iv) .* The provisions of § 1.179-4(c)(1)(iv) relating to section 1022 are effective on and after January 19, 2017.
( e ) *Application of § 1.179-4(c)(2)* -(1) *In general.* Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this section, the provisions of § 1.179-4(c)(2) relating to section 336(e) are applicable on or after September 24, 2019. ( 2 ) *Early application of § 1.179-4(c)(2) .* A taxpayer may choose to apply the provisions of § 1.179-4(c)(2) relating to section 336(e) for the taxpayer's taxable years ending on or after September 28, 2017.
( 3 ) *Early application of regulation project REG-104397-18.* A taxpayer may rely on the provisions of § 1.179-4(c)(2) relating to section 336(e) in regulation project REG-104397-18 (2018-41 I.R.B. 558) (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b) of this chapter) for the taxpayer's taxable years ending on or after September 28, 2017, and ending before September 24, 2019.
[T.D. 9146, 69 FR 46985, Aug. 4, 2004. Redesignated and amended by T.D. 9209, 70 FR 40192, July 13, 2005; T.D. 9811, 82 FR 6236, Jan. 19, 2017; T.D. 9874, 84 FR 50149, Sept. 24, 2019]
# C_2015205EN.01003202.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/32

---

Order of the General Court of 28 April 2015 — Dyckerhoff Polska v Commission

(Case T-284/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Time-limit for bringing an action - Out of time - No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances - Manifest inadmissibility - Plea of illegality))

(2015/C 205/43)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dyckerhoff Polska sp. z o.o. (Nowiny, Poland) (represented by: K. Kowalczyk, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament.

| 3. | Dyckerhoff Polska sp. z o.o. shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dyckerhoff Polska sp. z o.o. shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.

1

---
§ 1.147-1 Other requirements applicable to certain private activity bonds. ( a ) *Overview.* Interest on a private activity bond is not excludable from gross income under section 103(a) unless the bond is a qualified bond. Under section 147, certain requirements must be met for a private activity bond to qualify as a qualified bond.
( b ) *Scope.* Sections 1.147-0 through 1.147-2 apply for purposes of the rules in section 147 for qualified private activity bonds that permit use of proceeds to acquire land for environmental purposes (section 147(c)(3)), permit use of proceeds for certain rehabilitations (section 147(d) (2) and (3)), prohibit use of proceeds to finance skyboxes, airplanes, gambling establishments and similar facilities (section 147(e)), and require public approval (section 147(f)), but not for the rules limiting use of proceeds to acquire land or existing property under sections 147(c) (1) and (2), and (d)(1).
( c ) *Effective dates.* For effective dates of §§ 1.147-0 through 1.147-2, see § 1.141-16.
[T.D. 8712, 62 FR 2304, Jan. 16, 1997]
### NUMBER 13

- 11

- 003 12

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ ISSAC GARCIA , APPELLANT,

v.

MARISSA CABRERA , APPELLEE.

____________________________________________________________
On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________ 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant's brief in the above cause was originally due on January 9, 2013

. Appellant has previously requested and received three extensions of time to file the brief.

On August 30, 2013, this Court ordered the appellate brief to be filed on or before2 September 6, 2013

. The order notified counsel that the Court w ould look with disfavor

upon any further extensions.

On October 1 , 2013 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellant tha t the brief had not

been timely filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution

under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date

of receipt of t he letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was

not significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. To dat e , no
response has been received from appellant and the brief has not been filed.

Appellant has failed to file h is brief. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF PROSECUTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a), 42.3(b) (c)

.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 14th day of November , 20 13

.