alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005281EN.01002601.xml

| 12.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/26

---

Action brought on 18 August 2005 — Carsten Brinkmann v OHIM

(Case T-322/05)

(2005/C 281/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant(s): Carsten Brinkmann (Cologne, Germany) (representative: K.Van Bebber, lawyer)

Applicant(s):

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation within the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant

Other party(ies) to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Terra Networks SA (Madrid, Spain)

Other party(ies) to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Forms of order sought by the claimant(s)

| — | annulment of Decision No 646/2004 of the Office for Harmonisation of 29 October 2004 in the form of the decision of the Board of Appeal of 10 June 2005 (R 1145/2004-1), together with an order for costs in its favour; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of Decision No 646/2004 of the Office for Harmonisation of 29 October 2004 in the form of the decision of the Board of Appeal of 10 June 2005 (R 1145/2004-1), together with an order for costs in its favour;

| — | dismissal of the opposition of Terra Networks SA of 12 April 2002 (Opposition proceedings B 502 676), together with an order for costs in its favour, and |
| --- | --- |

—

dismissal of the opposition of Terra Networks SA of 12 April 2002 (Opposition proceedings B 502 676), together with an order for costs in its favour, and

| — | registration of the word mark ‘Terranus’ (2 061 968), as applied for on 29 January 2001, for goods and services in Class 36 ‘Insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs’. |
| --- | --- |

—

registration of the word mark ‘Terranus’ (2 061 968), as applied for on 29 January 2001, for goods and services in Class 36 ‘Insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs’.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: the claimant

Applicant for the Community trade mark

Community trade mark affected: The word mark ‘Terranus’ in respect of goods in Class 36 (Application No 1 739 697).

Community trade mark affected:

Owner of the opposing mark or sign in the opposition proceedings: Terra Networks SA.

Owner of the opposing mark or sign in the opposition proceedings

Opposing mark or sign: The figurative mark ‘TERRA’ for goods and services in Class 36 (Community mark No 1 332 691), and Spanish mark No 2 261 483).

Opposing mark or sign

Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the application.

Decision of the Opposition Division

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal

Pleas: There is no likelihood of confusion as between the opposing marks.

Pleas

---
§ 589.514 Noncommercial, personal remittances to or from the Crimea region of Ukraine or for or on behalf of individuals ordinarily resident in the Crimea region of Ukraine. ( a ) ( 1 ) U.S. persons are authorized to send and receive, and U.S. depository institutions, U.S.-registered brokers or dealers in securities, and U.S.-registered money transmitters are authorized to process transfers of, funds to or from the Crimea region of Ukraine or for or on behalf of an individual ordinarily resident in the Crimea region of Ukraine in cases in which the transfer involves a noncommercial, personal remittance, provided the transfer is not by, to, or through any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 589.201.
( 2 ) Noncommercial, personal remittances do not include charitable donations of funds to or for the benefit of an entity or funds transfers for use in supporting or operating a business, including a family-owned business.
( b ) The transferring institutions identified in paragraph (a) of this section may rely on the originator of a funds transfer with regard to compliance with paragraph (a), provided that the transferring institution does not know or have reason to know that the funds transfer is not in compliance with paragraph (a).
( c ) An individual who is a U.S. person is authorized to carry funds as a noncommercial, personal remittance, as described in paragraph (a) of this section, to an individual in the Crimea region of Ukraine or to an individual ordinarily resident in the Crimea region of Ukraine, other than an individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant § 589.201, provided that the individual who is a U.S. person is carrying the funds on his or her behalf, but not on behalf of another person.
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
                              AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of  Cognigen  Networks,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Thomas
S.  Smith,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.ss.1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  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 results of operations of the Company.

                                    /s/  Thomas S. Smith
                                    --------------------
                                    Thomas S. Smith
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
Dated: May 17, 2004
```
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-2415WM

_____________ Mary Anne Poores, * * Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Robert Rubin, in his capacity as * Secretary of the Treasury for the * [UNPUBLISHED] United States of America, * * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: November 5, 1997

Filed: November 26, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Mary Ann e Poores appeals the district court's order dismissing Poores' s employm ent

discrimination action on res judicata grounds. Having reviewed th e record, we conclude the district court's ruling was clea rly correct. Contrary to Poores's view, the dismissal of Poores's earlier action for failure to comply with the distric t court's scheduling order was a disposition on the merits, the district court correctl y dismissed the same claims that Poores presented in her earlier action, and res judicata also bars Poores's newly asserted claims because these claims coul d have been litigated-2-

in her earlier action. We thus affirm the j udgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.

Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H.R. 3056

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 11, 1996

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

AN ACT

To permit a county-operated health insuring organization

to qualify as an organization exempt from certain requirements otherwise applicable to health insuring organizations under the Medicaid program notwithstanding

that the organization enrolls Medicaid beneficiaries residing in another county.
2

•HR 3056 RFS

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMITTING COUNTY-OPERATED HEALTH IN4 SURING ORGANIZATIONS TO ENROLL MEDIC5 AID BENEFICIARIES RESIDING IN ANOTHER

6 COUNTY UNDER MEDICAID WAIVER FOR CER7 TAIN COUNTY-OPERATED HEALTH INSURING

8 ORGANIZATIONS.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 9517(c)(3)(B)(ii) of the

10 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

11 (42 U.S.C. 1396b note), as added by section 4734 of the

12 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, is amended

13 by inserting ‘‘or counties’’ after ‘‘county’’.

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

15 subsection (a) shall apply to quarters beginning on or

16 after October 1, 1996.

Passed the House of Representatives September 10,

1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14



                               THIRD AMENDMENT TO
                             SOMANETICS CORPORATION
                             1997 STOCK OPTION PLAN

         WHEREAS, SOMANETICS CORPORATION, a Michigan Corporation (the
"Company"), has previously adopted the Somanetics Corporation 1997 Stock Option
Plan (the "Plan");

         WHEREAS, pursuant to Paragraph 18 of the Plan, the Company's Board of
Directors has retained right to amend the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, the Company's Board of Directors now desires to amend the
Plan.

         NOW THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATION of the premises and by resolution of the
Company's Board of Directors, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         1. The first paragraph of Paragraph 5 is amended to read as follows:

                  "5. Maximum Number of Shares Subject to Plan: The maximum
number of shares with respect to which stock options may be granted under the
Plan shall be an aggregate of 1,335,000 Common Shares, which may consist in
whole or in part of the authorized and unissued or reacquired Common Shares.
Unless the plan shall have been terminated, shares covered by the unexercised
portion of canceled, expired or otherwise terminated options under the Plan
shall again be available for option and sale."


Dated:  February 16, 2000
§ 802.404 Rejection, disposition, or withdrawal of declarations. ( a ) The Committee, acting through the Staff Chairperson, may: ( 1 ) Reject any declaration that does not comply with § 802.402 and so inform the parties promptly in writing;
( 2 ) Reject any declaration at any time, and so inform the parties promptly in writing, if, after the declaration has been submitted and before the Committee has taken one of the actions specified in § 802.405: ( i ) There is a material change in the covered real estate transaction as to which a declaration has been submitted; or
( ii ) Information comes to light that contradicts material information provided in the declaration by the party (or parties); or
( 3 ) Reject any declaration at any time after the declaration has been submitted, and so inform the parties promptly in writing, if the party (or parties) that submitted the declaration does not provide follow-up information requested by the Staff Chairperson within two business days of the request, or within a longer time frame if the party (or parties) so request in writing and the Staff Chairperson grants that request in writing.
( b ) The Staff Chairperson shall notify the party (or parties) that submitted a declaration when the Committee has found that the transaction that is the subject of a declaration is not a covered real estate transaction.
( c ) Parties to a transaction that have submitted a declaration under § 802.401 may request in writing, at any time prior to the Committee taking action under § 802.405, that such declaration be withdrawn. Such request shall be directed to the Staff Chairperson and shall state the reasons why the request is being made and state whether the transaction that is the subject of the declaration is being fully and permanently abandoned. An official of the Department of the Treasury will promptly advise the parties to the transaction in writing of the Committee's decision.
( d ) The Committee may not request or recommend that a declaration be withdrawn and refiled, except to permit parties to a covered real estate transaction to correct material errors or omissions, or describe material changes to the transaction, in the declaration submitted with respect to that covered real estate transaction.
( e ) A party (or parties) may not submit more than one declaration for the same or a substantially similar transaction without approval from the Staff Chairperson.
Note 1 to § 802.404 :
See § 802.401(e) regarding the prohibition on submitting a declaration regarding the same transaction or a substantially similar transaction for which a written notice has been filed, or a declaration submitted under part 800 of this chapter, without the approval of the Staff Chairperson.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b)
OR RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Paulson Capital Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chester L. F. Paulson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Chester L. F. Paulson            
|Chester L. F. Paulson                
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|Paulson Capital Corp.
March 10, 2011 

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to Paulson Capital Corp. and will be retained by Paulson Capital Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
May 11, 1971

Honorable Joe Resweber County Attorney Opinion No. M-855 Harris County Courthouse Houeton, Texas 77002 Re: Retention of earned jury fees by county clerk deputlee. Dear Mr. Reeweber:

‘.., Your request for an opinion on the above subject matter asks the following gueatlonr

“Cana Deputy County Clerk of Harris County, who1s pald his regular salary, retain a check received by said Deputy County Clerk for jury service or should he endorse such check over to the County Treasurer pursuant to Harris County Personnel Regulations?” In Attorney Oeneral’s Opinion 

### O-6185(#is), the conclusion wa8reached that,

“Jury fees, not being listed by statute, are not ‘feea of office’ and need not be paid Into the Officers Salary Fundwhencollected by a county officer.

WY they from “In case8 where county employees receive fees In addition to their regular salaries, are not receiving extra salaries or wages the county, since jury fee8 are not considered salaries or wages. Theyare more In the nature of an allowance or gratuity. Jury service being a ‘duty’, the juror Is entitled to no compensation. 

### 31Am.Jur., Section 

### 57,p. 5%‘

. Moat states, however, have statutes providing a fee for such service.” Twoyears later, In Attorney ffeneral’s Oplnlon V-371 (1947), the right of state and county officers or employee8 to serve on grand 

### or petit juries wasrecognized by this office:

“It ha8 been held manytimes that -officer8 or 

### employee8 OSthe State 

### or County 

### are qualified -4150-

## . 1

Hon. Joe Resweber, page 2 (M-835)

to serve as grand or petit Jurors. Edgar v. State, Crlm.App., 127 S.W. 

### 1053;Ming0 v. State, Crlm. APP.~ 

### 133S.W. 882; Counts V, State, Crlm.App., 

### 181S.W.723. ,I

. . . “A state employee mayreceive and use fees received by him for..,jury service without any deductions In his State pay, If such person also discharges the duties assigned to him by the Read of the Department In which he worEts. If not, leave of absence should be granted without pay during euchjury service. Sec. 

### 33and 40, Art. XVI, Texas Constitution; Sec. 2(14)c Ch. 400, S.B. 391, Acts 50th Legislature, 

### 1947,” In view of the foregoing, you are advleed that jury fees pald the deputy county clerk for hi8 ownpersonal jury service should be retained by the deputy County clerk, Since there Is no obligation to return such COmPenSatlOnto the county, SUMMARY County employees whoreceive jury fees for jury service are entitled to retain such jury pay In addltlon to their salary a8 a county employee. There 18 no obligation on their part to return such ~ompeneatlonA the county. Very Cruly 

### yours,

Attorne$)Oeneral of Texas Prepared by John Reeves Assistant Attorney General APPROVED2 OPINIONCOMMITTEE

-4151-Ron. .Joe Resweber, page 3

Kerns Taylor, Chairman W. 

### E. Allen, Co-Chairman Wllllam J. Craig fflenn Brown Fisher Tyler Roland Allen MEADE

F. GRIFFIN Staff Legal As8istant ALFRED

WALSfBR Executive ASSiStant

.. NOLAWHITE

First AsSiStant (M-855) -

-4152-
§ 401.621 Termination of collection action. ( a ) *General factors.* After considering the bases for a decision to terminate collection action under paragraph (b) of this section, CMS may further consider factors such as— ( 1 ) The age and health of the debtor if the debtor is an individual;
( 2 ) Present and potential income of the debtor; and
( 3 ) Whether assets have been concealed or improperly transferred by the debtor.
( b ) *Basis for termination of collection action.* Bases on which CMS may terminate collection action on a claim include the following— ( 1 ) *Inability to collect a substantial amount of the claim.* CMS may terminate collection action if it determines that it is unable to collect, or to enforce collection, of a significant amount of the claim. In making this determination, CMS will consider factors such as— ( i ) Judicial remedies available;
( ii ) The debtor's future financial prospects; and
( iii ) Exemptions available to the debtor under State or Federal law.
( 2 ) *Inability to locate debtor.* In cases involving missing debtors, CMS may terminate collection action if— ( i ) There is no security remaining to be liquidated;
( ii ) The applicable statute of limitations has run; or
( iii ) The prospects of collecting by offset, whether or not an applicable statute of limitations has run, are considered by CMS to be too remote to justify retention of the claim.
( 3 ) *Cost of collection exceeds recovery.* CMS may terminate collection action if it determines that the cost of further collection action will exceed the amount recoverable.
( 4 ) *Legal insufficiency.* CMS may terminate collection action if it determines that the claim is legally without merit.
( 5 ) *Evidence unavailable.* CMS may terminate collection action if— ( i ) Efforts to obtain voluntary payment are unsuccessful; and
( ii ) Evidence or witnesses necessary to prove the claim are unavailable.
Exhibit 10.6


 


Form of Administrative
Services Agreement


 


March [___], 2021


 


Northern Genesis Sponsor III LLC


c/o Northern Genesis Holdings Inc.


4801 Main Street, Suite 1000


Kansas City, MO 64112


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


This letter will
confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the
registration statement (the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the
“IPO”) of Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp. III (the “Company”) and
continuing until the earlier of (i) the consummation by the Company of an initial business combination or (ii) the
Company’s liquidation (in each case as described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred
to as the “Termination Date”), Northern Genesis Sponsor III LLC (the
“Sponsor”) shall make available to the Company certain office space, utilities, and secretarial and
other administrative services as may reasonably be required by the Company (in the aggregate, the
“Services”) from time to time, situated at 4801 Main Street, Suite 1000, Kansas City, MO 64112 (or
any successor location).


 


In exchange therefore,
the Company shall pay the Sponsor the sum of $10,000 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the
Termination Date.


 


The Sponsor hereby
agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust
account (the “Trust Account”) to be established upon the consummation of the IPO (the “Claim”),
hereby waives any Claim it may have in the future, and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever,
in each case as a result of or arising out of this agreement or the performance or non-performance hereof. The Company hereby agrees
that recourse against the Sponsor in connection with the provision of the Services or any payments made in respect thereof shall
be strictly limited to the termination of this agreement by the Company.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 




     


     


    

 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	NORTHERN GENESIS ACQUISITION CORP. III
	 	 
	 	By:	            
	 	 	Ian Robertson
	 	 	Chief Executive Officer


 


	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:	 
	 	 	 
	NORTHERN GENESIS SPONSOR III LLC	 
	 	 	 
	By:	Northern Genesis Holdings Inc.,	 
	its Managing Member	 
	 	 	 
	By:	 	 
	 	Ian Robertson	 
	 	President	 


 


[Signature Page to Administrative Services
Agreement]
#### FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION and Florida Department of Natural Resources, Appellants, v. KEY HAVEN ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellee.

No. 78-1257.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 14, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1978.

Terry Cole, Kent A. Zaiser, Tallahassee, for appellants.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Miami, David P. Horan, Key West, Robert J. Paterno, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The order under review is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to transfer the venue for the trial of this cause to the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida, on the authority of *Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission,*354 So.2d 362 (Fla.1977); *Department of Revenue v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n of Ft. Myers,*256 So.2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.060(b).
§ 594.519 Official business of certain international organizations and entities. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all transactions prohibited by this part that are for the conduct of the official business of the following entities by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof are authorized: ( 1 ) The United Nations, including its Programmes, Funds, and Other Entities and Bodies, as well as its Specialized Agencies and Related Organizations;
( 2 ) The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA);
( 3 ) The African Development Bank Group, the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB Group), including any fund entity administered or established by any of the foregoing; and
( 4 ) The International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; and
( 5 ) The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
( b ) This section does not authorize funds transfers initiated or processed with knowledge or reason to know that the intended beneficiary of such transfers is a person blocked pursuant to this part, other than for the purpose of effecting the payment of taxes, fees, or import duties, or the purchase or receipt of permits, licenses, or public utility services.
[87 FR 78481, Dec. 21, 2022]