alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015354EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/47

---

Action brought on 4 September 2015 — Sun Cali v OHIM — Abercrombie & Fitch Europe (SUN CALI)

(Case T-512/15)

(2015/C 354/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sun Cali, Inc. (Denver, United States) (represented by: C. Thomas, 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: Abercrombie & Fitch Europe SA (Mendrisio, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SUN CALI’ — Community trade mark No 5 482 369

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 June 2015 in Cases R 1260/2014-5 and R 1281/2014-5

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 incurred in the proceedings before the Court and order the (potential) intervener to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court and order the (potential) intervener to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| — | set a date for an oral hearing for the case that findings of the General Court are not possible without an oral hearing. |
| --- | --- |

—

set a date for an oral hearing for the case that findings of the General Court are not possible without an oral hearing.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 92(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 in Case T-1260/2014-5; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 92(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 in Case T-1260/2014-5;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in case T-1281/2014-5. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in case T-1281/2014-5.

---
No. 49947.

#### Protest 61504-K of T. D. Downing Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keeee, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel sole crepe rubber similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *F. Lester Kittle*(31 C. C. P. A. 233, C. A. D. 276) was held entitled to free entry as claimed.
(Reap. Dec. 10314)

Entry No. 6456, etc.

#### W. C. Sullivan & Company *v.*United States

(Decided August 7, 1962)

*McFarland & Leist (Mden McFarland*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Joseph*D. *Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Harold L. Grossman,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule for decision upon stipulation entered into in open court.

On the agreed facts, I find that the merchandise involved consists of a carbon product referred to on the invoices as “Keen Arc Carbons,” “Keen Arc Welding Carbons,” or “Welding Carbons Keen Arc,” which was manufactured in and exported from the Federal Republic of Germany, commonly referred to as West Germany, on various dates between March 1,1957, and October 9,1961. I further find that export value, as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved and that such value, in each instance, is the invoice unit price, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
---

Exhibit 32.2





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 Dorato Resources Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donna M. Moroney, 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.





By:

/s/Donna M. Moroney

Donna M. Moroney,

Chief Financial Officer



July 29, 2008

---
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-40828

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Brian Edwards, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:22-CR-62-1

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit 

Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Brian Edwards entered a conditional guilty plea to possession with the 

intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), reserving the right to appeal the district 

court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence. He was sentenced to 

an 87-month term of imprisonment, followed by a four-year term of 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 14, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-40828 Document: 00517001952 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2023
No. 22-40828

2

supervised release. On appeal, he argues that the police officer who arrested 

him did not have probable cause to do so. Therefore, the following search

that discovered methamphetamine in Edwards’s pocket was not justified as 

incidental to the arrest.

When reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we 

review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, viewing 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. United States 

v. Cervantes, 797 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 2015). The denial of a motion to 

suppress should be upheld “if there is any reasonable view of the evidence to 

support it.” United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838, 841 (5th Cir. 1994) 

(en banc) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

As found by the district court, the officer had probable cause to arrest 

Edwards. The suspicion required for probable cause “need not reach the 

fifty percent mark.” Scott v. City of Mandeville, 69 F.4th 249, 255 (5th Cir. 

2023) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Given the “totality of facts 

and circumstances within [the] police officer’s knowledge at the moment of 

arrest,” a reasonable person could have “conclude[d] that the suspect had 

committed or was committing an offense.” United States v. Wadley, 59 F.3d 

510, 512 (5th Cir. 1995); see also District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 61 

(2018). Additionally, the search did not exceed the parameters of a valid 

search incident to arrest. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 338 (2009). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-40828 Document: 00517001952 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2023
(Reap. Dec. 10643)

#### The Heyman Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 3816, etc.

(Decided December 17, 1963)

*Sha/rretts, Paley & Garter*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*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, were submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto that the merchandise and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues in *United States*v. *The Seyman Company, Inc.,*50 Gust. Ot. 564, ARD157.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that said merchandise was exported prior to March 1, 1956 and that the price, at the time of exporta*498tion of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Mexico, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was $0,076 per pound net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in ARD 157 be incorporated with the record in these cases and that these appeals for reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation and are limited to the merchandise described herein.

Upon the agreed facts and the cited authority, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the value of the merchandise covered by these appeals for reappraisment and that such value was $0,075 per pound, net, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 659 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to establish a point 

of order against legislation that cuts Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2017 

Mr. NOLAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

establish a point of order against legislation that cuts 

Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits. 

1 Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

2 of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the 

3 following new clause: 

4 ‘‘13.(a) POINT OF ORDER.—It shall not be in order 

5 to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, amend6 ment between the Houses, or conference report that 

7 would— 

8 ‘‘(1) result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits 

9 scheduled under title II of the Social Security Act; 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 659 IH 

1 ‘‘(2) increase either the early or full retirement age 

2 for the benefits described in paragraph (1); 

3 ‘‘(3) privatize Social Security; 

4 ‘‘(4) result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits for 

5 individuals entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits under the 

6 Medicare program under title XVIII of such Act; or 

7 ‘‘(5) result in a reduction of benefits or eligibility for 

8 individuals enrolled in, or eligible to receive medical assist9 ance through, a State Medicaid plan or waiver under title 

10 XIX of such Act. 

11 ‘‘(b) WAIVER.—Paragraph (a) may be waived or sus12 pended only by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the 

13 Members, duly chosen and sworn.’’. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Document

Exhibit 10.12.5
        

AMENDMENT num, 3


to the


Development and Manufacturing Services Agreement
of 6 September 2017


BETWEEN
1.    LONZA SALES AG of Muenchensteinerstrasse 38, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland (“Lonza”), and
2.    DENALI THERAPEUTICS INC. of 151 Oyster Point Blvd, 2nd Floor, South San Francisco, CA 94080 U.S.A. (“Customer”).
Recitals
WHEREAS, Lonza and Customer have entered into a Development and Manufacturing Services Agreement, effective as of 6 September 2017, as amended (the “Agreement”), regulating the performance of certain Services to Customer by Lonza and its Affiliates; and
WHEREAS, some Services are being performed by Lonza AG, as defined in the Project Plan or corresponding Statements of Work, and the parties want to clarify that Lonza AG shall become a party to the Agreement for the Services performed in Switzerland.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:
1.Lonza AG shall become a Party to the Agreement independently accountable for the performance of the Services performed or to be performed by Lonza in Switzerland. [***]. Notwithstanding anything set forth in this Agreement, Services to be performed in Switzerland shall be performed independently and under the legal and commercial responsibility by Lonza AG, provided, however, that such performance by Lonza AG shall always be subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
2.All other terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
3.This Amendment num. 3 shall be effective as of 11 September 2020, and apply to all Services performed so far in Switzerland by Lonza AG.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties hereto has caused this Amendment num. 1 of the Development and Manufacturing Services Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized representative effective as of the date written above.


[SIGNATURES FOLLOW IN THE NEXT PAGE]


[***] Certain information in this document has been omitted from this exhibit because it is both (i) not material and (ii) would be competitively harmful if publicly disclosed.














						
		LONZA SALES AG
		
		By:

		Name:

		Title:

		
		By:
		Name:
		Title:
		
		
		DENALI THERAPEUTICS INC.
		
		By:
		Name:
		Title:
		
		
	Agreeing on the terms set forth in point 1 of this Amendment:
		
		


		LONZA AG
		
		By:

		Name:

		Title:

		
		By:
		Name:
		Title:


2/2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER SECTION 906 OFSARBANES- OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

 

I,Ann A. Jones, certify that:

 

1.   The Annual Report as amended for the yearended June 30, 2005 on Form 10-KSB of QRS Music Technologies, Inc.(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of1934.

 

2.   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the issuer in the Report.

 
| Date: October 12,  2005 |                    |
|------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                         |                    |
|                         |                    |
|                         | /s/  Ann A. Jones       |   |
|                         | Ann A. Jones            |   |
|                         | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

1

----
EXHIBIT 10.1

ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The
Board of Directors
Given Imaging Ltd.

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-73732) on Form S-8 of Given Imaging Ltd. (the "Company")
of our report dated January 28, 2002, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year
ended December 31, 2001.

Somekh
Chaikin
Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)
A member of KPMG International

April 8,
2002

---
No. 66684.

#### Hensel, Bruckmann *&*Lorbacher, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 58/20062 and 58/22428 (New York).

Oxiinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic artificial teeth similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Air Express Int'l Agency, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 163, C.D. 2251), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 51914.

#### American Sponge & Chamois Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 121854-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of new grass sponges the same in all material respects as those the subject of *James H. Rhodes & Co.*v. *United States*(18 Cust. Ct. 62, C. D. 1045). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 67276.

protest 60/27294 (New York).

#### The May Dept. Stores Co., Inc. (Kaufmann Div.) *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of gloves of synthetic textile similar in use to silk gloves and following the principles set forth in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 CCPA 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 64772.

#### M. Pressner & Co. and M. Zwiebel *v.*United States,

protests 60/3071 and 60/3225 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of celluloid reindeer similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 56902, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 53454.

protests 147163-K, etc. (New York).

#### Charles R. Allen, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
\ iN v?

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

QUENTON GITTENS, a/k/a : CIVIL ACTION
TIM GITTENS, a/k/a :
HEADACHE

ve

THE BASKETBALL MARKETING
COMPANY, INC. d/b/a AND I : NO. 04-1129

AND NOW, this 10th day of December, 2010, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion
In Limine To Preclude Defendants From Stating In Front Of The Jury That AND 1 Has A
Perpetual Irrevocable License, docketed in this action as Document 99, and the response thereto,
it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED with some modification or explanation as set

forth in the accompanying Opinion.

BY THE COURT:

MANET TO.
E. £epb
i2[13]'0
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 21, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40197

Conference Calendar

 

MACARIO PERALES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CV-123

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Macario Perales appeals from the district court’s dismissal

for failure to state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1)

and FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) of his pro se, in forma pauperis

(IFP) civil rights complaint. Perales alleged that the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) violated his constitutional

rights when, after disciplinary proceedings, the TDCJ seized

money from his prison trust account to pay for prison property

that Perales damaged.
No. 03-40197

-2-

Although this court applies less stringent standards to

parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel

and liberally construes pro se briefs, pro se parties must still

brief the issues and reasonably comply with the requirements of

FED. R. APP. P. 28. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.

1994). Perales makes no coherent argument that addresses the

basis of the district court’s decision, and this court will not

construct arguments or theories absent a coherent discussion of

those issues. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Perales’ appeal is

without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of this appeal and the district court’s

dismissal each count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th

Cir. 1996). Perales is WARNED that if he accumulates three

strikes he may not 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 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
Before the Third Division,

May 31, 1956

No. 59975.

#### Samuel Barotz & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

petitions 7190-R and 7197-R (New York).

Ekwall, Judge:

These cases, which have been consolidated, seek to obtain remission of additional duty under authority of section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Said additional duty was assessed due to the fact that the final appraised values exceeded the values declared on entry. The merchandise consists of imitation pearls and beads. Appeals for reappraisement were filed but were abandoned by reason of the fact that, after the war, it was impossible to obtain evidence.

Petitioner introduced the testimony of the president of the importing corporation, who stated that he was familiar with the facts surrounding the importations and the clearance through customs and that his testimony in these cases would be the same as that which he gave in *Samuel Barotz & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*petitions 7179-R, etc., 36 Cust. Ct. 435, Abstract 59926, filed by the same corporation. The record in the case cited was incorporated herein. In that case, this court held that petitioner had produced satisfactory evidence that the entry of the merchandise at values lower than the appraised values was without intention to defraud the Government or deceive its officials, and the petitions were granted.

Under authority of that decision, the petitions in the instant case are granted.