alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015328EN.01003101.xml

| 5.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/31

---

Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Automobile Club di Brescia v OHIM — Rebel Media (e-miglia)

(Case T-458/15)

(2015/C 328/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Automobile Club di Brescia (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica and F. Fischetti, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rebel Media Ltd (Wilmslow, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘e-miglia’ — Application for registration No 9 782 673

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2015 in Case R 1990/2014-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul only paragraphs 3 and 4 of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul only paragraphs 3 and 4 of the contested decision;

| — | confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 30 May 2014 concerning opposition No B 1 900 540 in its entirety, except for the part relating to compensation of expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 30 May 2014 concerning opposition No B 1 900 540 in its entirety, except for the part relating to compensation of expenses;

| — | order the other party to pay the costs, including the costs of all proceedings before OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to pay the costs, including the costs of all proceedings before OHIM.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
EXHIBIT 99.10

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 annual report of Enerplus Resources Fund (the "Fund") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon J. Kerr, President and Chief Executive Officer of
EnerMark Inc., on behalf of the Fund, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

/s/ GORDON J. KERR Gordon J. Kerr President and Chief Executive Officer
of EnerMark Inc.


March 13,
2009

The foregoing certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---



QuickLinks
# C_2015279EN.01004101.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/41

---

Action brought on 22 June 2015 — Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató v OHIM — Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató (Choco Love)

(Case T-325/15)

(2015/C 279/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. László, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft (Budapest, Hungary)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Choco love’ — Community trade mark application No 11 496 916

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2015 in Case R 1369/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the application, alter the contested decision by accepting the opposition and reject the Community trade mark application ‘Choco love’; or in the alternative: |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the application, alter the contested decision by accepting the opposition and reject the Community trade mark application ‘Choco love’; or in the alternative:

| — | annul the contested decision and remit the case to OHIM for reexamination; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and remit the case to OHIM for reexamination;

| — | order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-5169 September Term, 2024 1: 18-c v -000 38-RBW Filed O n: Octob er 3, 20 24 Dorian V an Horn,

App ellant

v

. Carlos Del T oro, in his o f ficial capa city

as Secret ary , U.S. Depa rtme nt o f the Navy , App ellee

BEFORE: Srinivasan , Chief Jud ge; an d W ilkins and W alker, Circuit Ju dges O R D E R Upon con siderat ion o f

ap pellee ’s mo tion to a me nd the un pub lished judgme nt o r, in the alte rnative, pe tition for pa nel re hea ring, it is ORDERED tha t th e m otion to am end be granted . T he judgme nt f iled Ju ne 21, 202 4, is h ereb y

am end ed as follows: (1) On p age 4, seco nd ¶, d elete : It is o f no con sequen ce th at Muldrow was a priv ate -sector T itle VI I case w here as th is is a fede ral-sector ADE A ca se. W e h ave always interprete d T itle VI I an d th e A DEA ide ntically as far as adverse a ctions go, an d we have likewi se a lways treate d th e p rivate -sector a nd fede ralsecto r provisi ons of tho se sta tute s alike in tha t resp ect. SeeGeo rge v. Le avitt , 40 7 F.3 d 4 05, 410 –11 (D.C. Cir. 200 5); Balo ch v. Kempthorn e , 55 0 F.3 d 1 191 , 11 96 (D.C. Cir. 200 8); Miller v. Clinto n , 68 7 F.3 d 1 332 , 13 36– 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012 ). Unde rstand ably, no one asks u s to do oth erw ise he re. T he Clerk is directed to issued the am end ed judgme nt. T he Clerk is f urthe r directe d to issue the m and ate forthwith. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk
# C_2017283EN.01000501.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Madrid — Spain) — Congregación de Escuelas Pías Provincia Betania v Ayuntamiento de Getafe

(Case C-74/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Meaning of ‘State aid’ - Meaning of ‘undertaking’ and ‘economic activity’ - Other conditions for the application of Article 107(1) TFEU - Article 108(1) and (3) TFEU - Meaning of ‘new aid’ and ‘existing aid’ - Agreement of 3 January 1979 between the Kingdom of Spain and the Holy See - Tax on construction, installations and works - Exemption for buildings belonging to the Catholic Church))

(2017/C 283/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Congregación de Escuelas Pías Provincia Betania

Applicant:

Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Getafe

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

A tax exemption such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to which a congregation belonging to the Catholic Church is entitled in respect of works on a building intended to be used for activities that do not have a strictly religious purpose, may fall under the prohibition in Article 107(1) TFEU if, and to the extent to which, those activities are economic, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Chief Financial Officer Certification**

 

In connection with General Maritime Corporation’s (the “Company”)annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31,2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)   TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
|      Date:  February 29, 2008 |   | /s/ Jeffrey D. Pribor |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------|
|                                                             |   | Name:                 | Jeffrey D. Pribor |
|                                                             |   | Title:                | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separatedisclosure document.

 

----
No. 49063.

#### Protests 14243-K, etc., of V. W. Davis (Duluth).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co., Ltd.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, *229C. D. 391) the protests claiming that no addition should have been made for planing, tonguing, and/or grooving were sustained.
No. P68/151.

protests 66/64483, etc. (New York).

#### Dan Dee Imports, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of batteries, classified as entireties with flashlights, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Torch Mfg.*Co., *Inc.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 521, C.D. 2863), wherein said batteries were held to be separately dutiable and that no separate value for each of said items had been returned by the appraiser, the protests were dismissed and the matter remanded to a single judge to determine the separate value of the flashlights and batteries in the manner provided by law. (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d).)
# Map            Southern Lebanon border area.
# Map            Dayton agreement over areas of control, 24 November 1995 : [Bosnia and Hercegovina].
March 18, 2011

Note to the Montana Oil and Gas SIP File

Docket ID # EPA

- R08

- OAR

- 2007

- 0662

Subject: February 22, 2011, Communication with the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) during public comment period

From: Kevin Leone / Environmental Scientist

Region 8, Environmental Protection Agency

This is to acknowledge that representativ es from EPA and the MDEQ participated in a

videoconference on February 22, 2011.

1. The subject matter of the videoconference was to address disapproval issues pertaining to

EPA’s proposed rule action published on January 6, 2011 (76 FR 758.)

2. Particip ants in the video conference from EPA were: Jim Martin, Carol Rushin, Sara

Laumann, Peter Ornstein, Callie Videtich, Monica Morales and Kevin Leone

3. Participants in the video conference from MDEQ were: Richard Opper, Dave Klemp and

a representative from the MDEQ permitting department.
No. 55131.

#### T. H. Lung Co. *v.*United States,

protest 139876-K (Boston).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
Order entered December 31, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01485-CV

DANIEL K. HAGOOD, P.C. AND FITZPATRICK HAGOOD SMITH AND UHL, LLP,

Appellants

V.

KUNAL KAPAI, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-04027-D

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ December 21, 2018 first unopposed motion for extension 

of time to file brief. Because this is an accelerated appeal, we GRANT the motion to the extent 

we ORDER the brief be filed no later than January 29, 2019. We caution that further extension 

requests will be disfavored.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
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 Annual Report of Torpedo Sports USA, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending July 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Henry Fong, Chief
Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbarnes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 12(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, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.



/s/ Henry Fong
------------------------------------
Henry Fong
Chief Executive Officer
October __, 2002

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Torpedo Sports USA, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending July 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Barry S.
Hollander, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbarnes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 12(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, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.



/s/ Barry S. Hollander
------------------------------------
Barry S. Hollander
Chief Financial Officer
October __, 2002
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00053-CR

CHESTER BENTLEY WILLIAMS JR.,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 297th District Court

of Tarrant County (1591502D)

May 13, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Mike Wallach___________________

 Justice Mike Wallach
Exhibit 99.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                               (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)


     Pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  (18
U.S.C.ss.1350),  the  undersigned, Lorna Irwin, Chief Financial Officer of Crown
International,  Inc./FL,  a  Florida  corporation  (the  "Company"), does hereby
certify,  to  her  knowledge,  that:

     The  Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2003 of the
Company  (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.


Date:    July,11 2003                   By:  /s/  Lorna Irwin
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Lorna  Irwin
                                        Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
No. 67759.

#### Biddle Purchasing Co. *v.*United States,

protest 62/14248 (Charleston).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit No. 32.2
Form 10-KSB
Pegasus Wireless Corp.
File No. 000-32567



                            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 Annual Report of Pegasus  Wireless Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen Durland, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.


Dated: September 20, 2005             By:  /s/Stephen Durland
                                    ----------------------------------------
                                          Stephen Durland
                                          Chief Financial Officer

--------------------------------------
This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

YOLANDA JONES : CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff, :

:

vs. : NO. 03-4250

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART :

Commissioner of SOCIAL SECURITY :

ADMINISTRATION :

 :

O R D E R

 AND NOW, this 20 day of June, 2005, upon consideration of the Cross-Motions of the th

parties for Summary Judgment, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United

States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Smith dated January 29, 2004, and plaintiff's Objections to

the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, IT IS ORDERED as

follows:

 1. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Smith

dated January 29, 2004, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

 2. Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED;

 3. The Motion for Summary Judgment of defendant, Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner

of Social Security, is GRANTED; and,

 4. The Motion for Summary Judgment of plaintiff, Yolanda Jones, is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Honorable Jan E. DuBois

 JAN E. DUBOIS, J.

Case 2:03-cv-04250-JD Document 12 Filed 06/22/05 Page 1 of 1
#### JORDON v. CLEMMER.

No. 3273.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

Sept. 11, 1947.

John Holzworth, of White Plains, N. Y., for petitioner.

George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., and Oliver Dibble, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Washington, D. C., opposed,

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

Thomas Jordon was convicted on a charge of murder in the first degree and on April 30, 1936 he was sentenced to be executed. Thereafter the sentence was commuted by the President of the United States to life imprisonment. He now applies for a writ of habeas corpus, urging that the conviction was not properly obtained.

In 1939 he applied for a writ of habeas corpus, to review the conviction; the writ was granted and a hearing took place, which lasted parts of six days, before Chief Justice Wheat.. The file of that proceeding, Habeas Corpus No. 1895, is made a part of the record in this case.

Upon a comparison of the present petition with the petition in the prior proceeding, together with the amendments thereto, it appears that all of the matters now sought to be raised, with one exception, were raised upon the prior petition.

Chief Justice Wheat made elaborate findings of fact. He found, for example, that there was no suppression of any evidence at the trial, as is charged in the original petition. He found that there was no irregularity in connection with the deliberations of the jury; and he dismissed the writ.

It is true that a determination in a habeas corpus proceeding is not strictly res judicata. Nevertheless, as a matter of orderly procedure and in the exercise of discretion the Court will not grant a second writ raising the same points that were thoroughly tried out and determined in the prior proceeding, except under extra-ordinary circumstances. No such circumstances appear in this case.

There is one new matter raised, however, namely, an allegation contained in paragraph 4, subsection (i) of the petition, to the effect that the deceased, of whose murder the petitioner was convicted, was not shot or wounded during the robbery, in which the petitioner is said to have participated, but on the following day. This, however, is a matter going to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. It is a matter that cannot be reviewed in a habeas corpus proceeding, since the scope of a habeas corpus proceeding is limited to questions of *540jurisdiction and questions of constitutional rights.

If there is evidence of the fact that the murder did not take place as alleged, that matter cannot be raised by writ of habeas corpus. That can be raised only on a motion for a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence. And if, as is the case here, the time to make such a motion has expired, only the Executive may grant appropriate relief.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.