alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 967 

Expressing support for the designation of October 23 as a national day 

of remembrance of the tragic 1983 terrorist bombing of the United 

States Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 26, 2018 

Mr. GALLAGHER (for himself and Mr. MOULTON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of October 23 as 

a national day of remembrance of the tragic 1983 terrorist bombing of the United States Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. 

Whereas the United States deployed members of the Armed 

Forces to Lebanon in 1982 as part of a multinational 

peacekeeping force; 

Whereas early on the morning of October 23, 1983, a truck 

packed with explosives detonated outside of a building at 

Beirut International Airport that served as quarters for 

several hundred members of the United States Armed 

Forces deployed as part of the peacekeeping force; 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 967 IH 

Whereas 241 members of the Armed Forces were killed in 

the blast; 

Whereas the Americans killed included 220 Marines, members of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marines-Battalion Landing 

Team, which made October 23, 1983, the deadliest day 

for the Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima in 

February 1945 during World War II; 

Whereas, in addition to the Marine Corps casualties, 18 Navy 

sailors and three Army soldiers were killed, and more 

than 100 other members of the Armed Forces were injured; 

Whereas members of the Armed Forces from 39 States and 

Puerto Rico died while serving in Beirut, Lebanon, from 

1982 to 1984; 

Whereas, on the same day as the bombing of the Marine 

Corps Barracks, another suicide bomber killed 58 French 

paratroopers housed at another building in Beirut; and 

Whereas it is fitting and proper that the events of October 

23, 1983, and the members of the United States Armed 

Forces who died in Beirut on that day are recognized 

through the establishment of a national remembrance day 

on October 23: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of a national day 

3 of remembrance for members of the United States 

4 Armed Forces who were killed or injured by the ter5 rorist attack on the United States Marine Corps 

6 Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, on October 23, 1983; 

7 and 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 967 IH 

1 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

2 to support and participate in appropriate cere3 monies, programs, and other activities in observance 

4 of such a national day of remembrance. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
# C_2015171EN.01003101.xml

| 26.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/31

---

Action brought on 18 March 2015 — Unicorn v OHIM — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN)

(Case T-125/15)

(2015/C 171/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Unicorn a.s. (Praha, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

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: Mercilink Equipment Leasing Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus)

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 ‘UNICORN’ — Community trade mark No 11 014 701

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 January 2015 in Case R 150/2014-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | OHIM did not properly take into consideration evidence submitted by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

OHIM did not properly take into consideration evidence submitted by the applicant;

| — | OHIM incorrectly considered good reputation of the earlier trademarks. |
| --- | --- |

—

OHIM incorrectly considered good reputation of the earlier trademarks.

---
March 24, 1955

No. 58881.

Suit 4810.

#### Intra-Mar Transport Corporation, formerly Gondrand Transport Corporation *v.*United States.

C. D 1585 affirmed December 21, 1954. C. A. D. 578.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-10664

Summary Calendar

BURRELL JOHNSON, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ROSIE M. JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CV-790

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Burrell Johnson, Jr., Texas prisoner # 243195, moves this court to proceed

in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. The district court denied his request to proceed IFP on appeal,

certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith. Johnson’s IFP motion in

this court is a challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal is not

taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1992).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 24, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-10664 Document: 00511423014 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2011
No. 10-10664

As Johnson has not adequately addressed the reasons for the district

court’s certification decision, it is the same as if he had not challenged that

decision. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,

748 (5th Cir. 1987); Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. Because Johnson has not shown

that he will present any nonfrivolous issue on appeal, his motion for leave to

proceed IFP is denied and this appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh, 117

F.3d at 202 n.24; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Johnson’s § 1983 complaint for failure to

state a claim and our dismissal of this appeal as frivolous both count as strikes

for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383,

387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Johnson is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes

under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal

filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.

2

Case: 10-10664 Document: 00511423014 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2011
(Reap. Dec. 10290)

Entry No. 2216, etc.

#### Hoffman Motor Car Co. et al. *v.*United States

(Decided July 3, 1962)

*Barnes, Richardson £ Colburn*for the plaintiffs.

*Joseph £>. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, as follows :

> 1. That on or about the dates of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the country of exportation for home consumption or for exportation to the United States.

> 2. That on or about the said dates of exportation, such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the United States.

> 3. That the cost of production as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, of the automobiles involved herein is as stated on Schedule “A” annexed.

> 4. That the involved appeals may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and issues described herein and abandoned in all other respects.

Upon the agreed facts, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by said appeals and that such values were as stated on said schedule A.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 65396.

#### Raleigh Industries of America, Inc., and C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/22093 and 60/22094 (Buffalo).

*404Opinion by

Da whence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard*& *Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit  10.2

                              MANAGEMENT CONTRACT

BETWEEN:
                Crown  International  Inc.                   ("Crown")
          And
                Macwin  Investments  Inc.                    ("Macwin")

          The  parties  agree  as  follows:

     1.   From  the 1st day of April, 2000 Macwin agrees to provide to Crown the
          following
          services:
          -    services of at least three people, each proficient as follows and
               for  monthly  compensation  noted
                    (a)  one  person  in  General  Management         $ 10,000
                    (b)  one  person  in  Marketing                   $ 10,000
                    (c)  one  person  for  Professional  Services     $  5,000
          -    provide  the  capital  and/or  services  or equipment or expenses
               necessary  for  the  development  of  Crown's technology and it's
               commercial  applications
          -    provide  full  and  complete  accounts  and  records  for  Crown
          -    oversee  Development  of  Technology
          -    develop  relationships  with  software  developers to assist with
               Crown's  technology  and  its  applications
          -    source,  explore  and  develop  Commercial  Applications  and
               commercialization  of  Crown's  technology
          -    ensure  that  Crown's  technology  is developed with commercially
               viable  functions,  capabilities  and  compatibilities
          -    coordinate  and  direct  and  obtain  facilities  and  personnel
               necessary  for the Research and Development of Crown's technology
               and  its  commercial  applications
          -    assist  Crown  in  its  effort  to  list  and  trade  its  stock
     2.        No  more  than once in each and every year after the date hereof,
               Macwin  shall  present  to  Crown  an invoice for its services as
               aforesaid  and Crown agrees to pay or provide forthwith to Macwin
               the  value  of  such  services.
     3.        This  contract  may  be  terminated  by either party upon 30 days
               written  notice  delivered  to  the  other  at its usual place of
               Business.

DATED  at  Toronto  this  1st  day  of  April,  2000.

CROWN INTERNATIONAL INC.                                 MACWIN INVESTMENTS INC.

By:  /s/  Alan  Irwin                                    By:  /s/  Lorna  Irwin
------------------------                                 -----------------------
   Alan  Irwin                                              Lorna  Irwin
   Director / Chief Operating Person                        President


<PAGE>
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
   The Board
of Directors
  Given
Imaging Ltd.:
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-145474, 333-134739, 333-118473, 333-107630, 333-73732 and 333-161506) on
Form S-8 of Given Imaging Ltd. (the “Company”) of our report dated March 25,
2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in shareholders’ equity and non-controlling interests and
cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31,
2009 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2009, which report appears in the December 31, 2009 annual report
on Form 20-F of the Company.
 
 Our
report refers to the adoption by the Company of the FASB Interpretation
No. 48, “Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes”, included in ASC Subtopic 740-10, Income Taxes – Overalland
FASB Statement No. 157, “Fair
Value Measurements”, included in ASC Subtopic 820-10, Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures-Overall, effective January 1, 2007 and 2009,
respectively.
  
  Somekh
Chaikin
 Certified
Public Accountants (Israel)
 Member
firm of KPMG International
  Tel-Aviv,
Israel
 March 26,
2010
No. 52480. —

protest 134502-K (New York).

#### Schroeder Brothers, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as not landed were not in fact landed. In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that the merchandise, insofar as it pertains to the quantities reported by the inspector as not landed, not found, is subject to an allowance in duties. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 480 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 480 Filed 04/18/12 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 480 Filed 04/18/12 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 480 Filed 04/18/12 Page 4 of 4
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 12, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-126

Lower Tribunal No. 17-2683

________________

Stephen Simon,

Appellant,

vs.

Joseph Halegua,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara 

Areces, Judge.

Stephen Simon, in proper person.

Conroy Simberg, and Hinda Klein, Dale Friedman, and Samuel B. 

Spinner (Hollywood), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, GORDO, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Florida Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 

(Fla. 2001) (the Florida Supreme Court has “explained that under the 

doctrine of res judicata: A judgment on the merits rendered in a former suit 

between the same parties or their privies, upon the same cause of action, by 

a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive not only as to every matter 

which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every 

other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined 

in that action” (emphasis in original)).
CONSULTING AGREEMENT
                              --------------------

     CONSULTING  AGREEMENT  dated as of February 9, 2000 between WAMEX HOLDINGS,
INC.,  a New York corporation, ("WAMEX"), on the one hand, and M. RICHARD CUTLER
("Cutler"),  BRIAN  A.  LEBRECHT  ("Lebrecht"), and VI BUI ("Bui"), on the other
hand.  Each  of Cutler, Lebrecht, and Bui shall be referred to as a "Consultant"
and  collectively  as  the  "Consultants").

     WHEREAS:

     A.     Consultants have agreed to render consulting services with regard to
the  negotiation  and  completion  of  a  stock  exchange  between WAMEX and the
shareholders  of  Conchology,  Inc.,  a  Nevada  corporation  (the  "Conchology
Shareholders").

     B.     In  the  event WAMEX is able to complete the Stock Exchange with the
Conchology  Shareholders,  WAMEX  wishes  to  compensate  Consultants  for their
consulting  services.

     NOW  THEREFORE,  it  is  agreed:

     1.     Stock  Compensation.  WAMEX  shall  pay  and  cause  to be issued to
            -------------------
Consultants,  or their assigns, a consulting fee of 100,000 shares of the common
stock of WAMEX (the "Shares") immediately upon the execution of a stock exchange
agreement  with  the Conchology Shareholders.  The parties hereto agree that the
value  of  such  Shares  shall be 50% of the average closing bid price for the 5
business  days  preceding  this  Agreement.  The  Shares  shall be issued in the
following  manner: 72,000 shares to Cutler; 21,000 shares to Lebrecht; and 7,000
shares  to  Bui.  Such  shares shall be subject to registration by WAMEX on Form
S-8,  at  WAMEX's  sole expense, within 5 days of closing on the Stock Exchange.

     2.     Miscellaneous.  This  Agreement (i) shall be governed by the laws of
            -------------
the  State  of  California;  (ii)  may be executed in counterparts each of which
shall  constitute  an  original;  (iii)  shall  be  binding upon the successors,
representatives, agents, officers and directors of the parties; and (iv) may not
be  modified  or  changed  except  in  a  writing  signed  by  all  parties.


<PAGE>

     This  Consulting  Agreement  has  been  executed as of the date first above
written.


WAMEX  Holdings,  Inc.

/s/  Mitchell H. Cushing
___________________________________
By:     Mitchell  H.  Cushing
Its:     Chief  Executive  Officer


/s/  M. Richard Cutler                   /s/  Brian A. Lebrecht
___________________________________     ___________________________________
M.  Richard  Cutler                     Brian  A.  Lebrecht


/s/  Vi Bui
___________________________________
Vi  Bui
Attachment A

 :

02-2635 SHIRK :

02-2735 WATSON :

02-2736 HOOD :

02-2737 HART :

02-2738 JOHNSON :

02-2681 SHIRK :

02-2845 KINIUK :

02-3166 HRYCYK :

02-3168 GREEN :

02-3169 SAKEWICZ :

02-3170 HENDRICKS :

02-3171 PALMER :

02-3172 BERRY :

02-3175 SOLOMON :

02-3176 ROMANOWSKI :

02-3177 O’DONNELL :

02-3448 HARTMANN :

02-3449 ROCKS :

02-3450 REED :

02-3451 GAMBLER :

02-3452 MACAULEY :

02-3630 ALIBERT :

02-3631 VISCO :

02-3632 DANCSECS :

02-3847 HAMMOND :

02-3848 POTTER :

02-4095 SMITH :

02-4096 SEARFOSS :

02-4097 GEARINGER :

02-4101 FRYE :

02-4338 ZIMMERMAN :

02-4339 MEYER :

Case 2:02-cv-04101-HH Document 6-2 Filed 10/09/2002 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04101-HH Document 6-2 Filed 10/09/2002 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit      99.6**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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                  Fund. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                  Gordon J. Kerr                                                                                    |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Gordon                  J. KerrPresident                  and Chief Executive Officerof                  EnerMark Inc. |   |

*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.*
# C_2015236EN.01004501.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/45

---

Action brought on 18 May 2015 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Shape of bars with four circles)

(Case T-240/15)

(2015/C 236/60)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of bars with four circles) — Application for registration No 12 551 867

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 March 2015 in Case R 1602/2014-1

Contested decision

Forms of order sought

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision because it is unlawful and infringes the legal provisions in force concerning the Community trade mark; deliver a judgment in accordance with the claims set out in the application on the basis of the sufficient intrinsic distinctiveness of the three-dimensional mark applied for; order the registration of the application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark No 12 551 867, for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30 of the International Classification in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision because it is unlawful and infringes the legal provisions in force concerning the Community trade mark; deliver a judgment in accordance with the claims set out in the application on the basis of the sufficient intrinsic distinctiveness of the three-dimensional mark applied for; order the registration of the application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark No 12 551 867, for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30 of the International Classification in its entirety;

| — | order the party opposing that claim to pay the costs or expenses of the proceedings and to reimburse the appeal fees paid to OHIM and the corresponding expenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party opposing that claim to pay the costs or expenses of the proceedings and to reimburse the appeal fees paid to OHIM and the corresponding expenses.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---