alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BMG MUSIC, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiffs : NO. 04-650

:

v. :

:

DOES 1-203, :

:

Defendants. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of April, 2004, upon consideration

of the Motion of Public Citizen, American Civil Liberties Union,

Electronic Frontier Foundation, and ACLU of Pennsylvania for

Leave to File a Memorandum as Amici Curiae (Doc. 5) (“ACLU’s

Motion”), and Plaintiffs’ Response, it is hereby ORDERED that

said Motion is GRANTED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________

 Clarence C. Newcomer, S.J. 

Case 2:04-cv-00650-CN Document 11 Filed 05/03/04 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:04-cv-00955-LS Document 223 Filed 08/06/2009 Page 1 of 1
# C_2015205EN.01003901.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/39

---

Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — toom Baumarkt (Super-Samstag)

(Case T-213/15)

(2015/C 205/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter and A. Berger, 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: toom Baumarkt GmbH (Cologne, Germany)

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 word mark ‘Super-Samstag’ — Community trade mark No 10 304 178

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 February 2015 in Case R 657/2014-5

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, including the costs in respect of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 37(b)(i) and (iv) of Regulation No 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 37(b)(i) and (iv) of Regulation No 2868/95;

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

—

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

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

—

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

---
---

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 Alternet Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to their 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 results of operation
      of the Company.

|Dated: March 30, 2007 | By: | /s/ Griffin Jones                           
|--------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------
|                      |     | Griffin Jones                               
|                      |     | Treasurer, Principal Accounting Officer, CFO
|                      |     | Secretary & Director                        

---
No. 64761.

#### Texas Meat Packers Co. *v.*United States,

protest 59/18186 (Galveston).

*335Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of mutton similar in all material respects to the beef the subject of *United States*v. *J. S. Brown et al.*(46 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 686), except that the merchandise here involved is mutton, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1065 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1065

  To designate Union Station in Washington, DC, as ``Harry S. Truman 
                            Union Station''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2017

  Mrs. McCaskill (for herself and Mr. Blunt) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate Union Station in Washington, DC, as ``Harry S. Truman 
                            Union Station''.

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

SECTION 1. HARRY S. TRUMAN UNION STATION.

    (a) Designation.--Union Station, located at 40 Massachusetts 
Avenue, NE, Washington, DC, shall be known and designated as ``Harry S. 
Truman Union Station''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Harry S. 
Truman Union Station''.
                                 <all>
```
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Client Solution Architects, LLC ) ASBCA No. 62147

)

Under Contract No. N00178-05-D-4242 et al. )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Nicole J. Owren-Wiest, Esq.

Charles Baek, Esq.

 Crowell & Moring LLP

 Washington, D.C.

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Arthur M. Taylor, Esq.

 DCMA Chief Trial Attorney

Kara M. Klaas, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

 Defense Contract Management Agency

 Chantilly, VA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: May 14, 2020

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62147, Appeal of Client Solution 

Architects, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: May 14, 2020

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
No. 62475.

#### Ciba Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 319141-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the entry was erroneously liquidated using a weight of 2,215 pounds and that the correct weight upon which the entry should be liquidated was the entered weight of 2,204 pounds, the protest was sustained, and the collector was directed to reliquidate the entry accordingly.
# C_2015354EN.01004801.xml

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/48

---

Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v OHIM (Limbic® Map)

®

(Case T-513/15)

(2015/C 354/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze und G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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: Community word mark ‘Limbic® Map’ — Application for registration No 12 316 411

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2015 in Case R 1973/2014-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision concerning the application for registration of the Community trade mark 012 316 411 Limbic® Map; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision concerning the application for registration of the Community trade mark 012 316 411 Limbic® Map;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 63, the first sentence of Article 75 and of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63, the first sentence of Article 75 and of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
April 2018 IPAC Dashboard

- Sheet1
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly report of Rosedale Decorative Products, Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Alan Fine, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and 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/ SIDNEY ACKERMAN
-------------------
Sidney Ackerman
President

August 14, 2003
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1042 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code to exclude Segal Americorps Education 

Awards and related awards from income. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 4, 2017 

Mr. BENNET (for himself and Mr. ISAKSON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code to exclude Segal 

Americorps Education Awards and related awards from 

income. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Segal AmeriCorps 

5 Education Award Enhancement Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF SEGAL AMERICORPS EDUCATION 

7 AWARDS AND RELATED EDUCATIONAL 

8 AWARDS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 117(c) 

10 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strikVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:31 May 10, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1042.IS S1042

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1042 IS

1 ing ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (B), by striking the 

2 period at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting ‘‘, 

3 or’’, and by adding at the end the following new subpara4 graph: 

5 ‘‘(D) a national service educational award 

6 under subtitle D of title I of the National and 

7 Community Service Act of 1990.’’. 

8 (b) EXCLUSION OF DISCHARGE OF STUDENT LOAN

9 DEBT.—Subsection (f) of section 108 of the Internal Rev10 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

11 following new paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(5) PAYMENTS UNDER NATIONAL SERVICE

13 EDUCATIONAL AWARD PROGRAMS.—In the case of 

14 an individual, gross income shall not include any 

15 amount received under a national service educational 

16 award under subtitle D of title I of the National and 

17 Community Service Act of 1990.’’. 

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall apply to payments made in taxable years 

20 beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
No. 52810.

#### Graf Fur Co. *v.*United States,

protests 134862-K/1414, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. O. *Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 5-3 Filed 06/18/2004 Page 1 of 2

PHILADELPHIA FLYERS, INC. v. TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY Doc. 5 Att. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 5-3 Filed 06/18/2004 Page 2 of 2
# C_2015198EN.01004402.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/44

---

Action brought on 22 April 2015 — Unicorn v OHIM — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN)

(Case T-201/15)

(2015/C 198/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Unicorn a.s. (Prague, 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

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘UNICORN’ — Community trade mark No 5 992 805

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 16 February 2015 in Case R 1699/2014-5

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 did not take into consideration evidence in Czech; |
| --- | --- |

—

OHIM did not take into consideration evidence in Czech;

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

—

OHIM incorrectly considered good reputation of the earlier trademarks.

---
Case 2:04-cv-04277-JS Document 1 Filed 09/09/04 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-04277-JS Document 1 Filed 09/09/04 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-04277-JS Document 1 Filed 09/09/04 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-04277-JS Document 1 Filed 09/09/04 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-04277-JS Document 1 Filed 09/09/04 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-04277-JS Document 1 Filed 09/09/04 Page 6 of 6
No. 52859.

#### William J. Oberle, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 134891-K/12938 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was agreed that 17 bags of canary seed were never imported into this country. In accordance with the agreed statement of facts it was held that all duty taken upon the 17 bags of canary seed, not landed, should be refunded. *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) followed.
Order entered July 10, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01180-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.A., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 01-09-843

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s July 8, 2015 motion to file an amended brief. We ORDER the 

amended brief tendered to this Court by appellant on July 8, 2015 filed as of the date of this 

order. Appellee’s brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order. 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Case 2:03-cv-04822-RBS Document 66-19 Filed 08/14/2009 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:03-cv-04822-RBS Document 66-19 Filed 08/14/2009 Page 2 of 2
Document

[Bloom Energy Letterhead]


Exhibit 10.45

March 31, 2020




Randy Furr






Dear Randy, 


Your last date of employment as an employee will be March 31, 2020.  


You will assume the role of Consultant effective April 1, 2020 through April 1, 2021. During the period that you operate as a Consultant, you will not be eligible for a salary or benefits. As a Consultant, you will make yourself available as needed to provide support to the CEO, CFO and the Executive Team.  


Your stock vesting will continue per the terms and conditions of the plans for one year through April 1, 2020. The remainder of your 2019 RSU grant will be accelerated subject to Compensation Committee approval.


The signatures below document the agreements outlined above. 




Date: 3/31/2020


/s/ Sonja Wilkerson
Sonja Wilkerson
EVP, Chief People Officer




/s/ Randy Furr
Randy Furr
Exiting CFO




4353 N. First Street, San Jose, CA 95134  T 408 543 1500  F 408 543 1501 www.bloomenergy.com
Exhibit 32.2

Certification  Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

I,
J. David Darnell, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of INTAC International, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (the "Act") that to my knowledge on the date hereof:



Dated:
May 6, 2005

| |  |  | /s/J. DAVID DARNELLJ. David Darnell
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
| |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This
certification is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906 of the Act, and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act of 1934,
or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.

---



QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

:

v. :

:

STEVEN ALLEN SCHWARTZ : NO. 04-231

ORDER

AND NOW, this 15th day of May, 2012, for the reasons

set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED

that:

(1) the motion of defendant Steven Schwartz to vacate,

set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc.

#84) is DENIED; and

(2) no certificate of appealability is issued.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Harvey Bartle III 

 J.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**ChiefFinancial Officer Certification**

 

In connection with General Maritime Corporation’s (the“Company”) annual report of on Form 10-K for the three months and fiscal yearending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  March 16, 2005 |    /s/  Jeffrey D. Pribor             |   |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                  | Name: Jeffrey D. Pribor                              |
|                  | Title: Chief Financial  Officer & Vice President |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or asa separate disclosure document.

 

----
Order issued June 18, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00723-CR

NO. 01-12-00724-CR

NO. 01-12-00725-CR

———————————

CHIKEVIA RENA ROBERTS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court 

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1305295, 1305843, & 1305927

MEMORANDUM ORDER
2

Appellant, Chikevia Rena Roberts, pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary 

of a habitation with intent to commit theft and one count of burglary of a building 

with intent to commit theft. The trial court found appellant guilty of all three 

offenses. Appellant appeals her convictions. 

Appellant’s retained counsel has filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5 because counsel has reviewed the appellate 

record and concluded that the appeal lacks merit and is frivolous. 

Only an appointed counsel in a criminal appeal is required to file an Anders 

brief if counsel determines that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous; 

retained counsel is not required to do so. See Knotts v. State, 31 S.W.3d 821, 822 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, order); Nguyen v. State, 11 S.W.3d 376, 

378 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). A retained attorney, upon 

determining that an appeal is frivolous, must so inform this Court and seek leave to 

withdraw by filing a motion complying with Rule 6.5. See Knotts, 31 S.W.3d at 

822; Nyuyen, 11 S.W.3d at 378. Counsel’s motion contains the information 

required by Rule 6.5. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s 

motion to withdraw. See Nyuyen, 11 S.W.3d at 379–80.

Appellant has the right (1) to retain other counsel, or (2) to move for an 

extension of time to file a pro se brief. See Knotts, 31 S.W.3d at 822. We notify 

appellant at her last known address, as provided in counsel’s motion, that her brief 
3

is due in this Court no later than 30 days from the date of this order. Unless 

appellant retains counsel who files a brief on or before that date, or unless by that 

date a motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief is filed in this Court and 

granted, this appeal will be set for submission and considered by the Court without 

briefs on the record alone. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Bland.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).