alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015320EN.01003501.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/35

---

Action brought on 20 July 2015 — Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto v OHIM — University College London (CITRUS SATURDAY)

(Case T-400/15)

(2015/C 320/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ana Isabel Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto (Algés, Portugal) (represented by: A. Pita Negrão, 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: University College London (London, 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 word mark ‘CITRUS SATURDAY’ — Application for registration No 11 789 195

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2015 in Case R 2109/2014-2

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | consider the appeal admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

consider the appeal admissible;

| — | declare null and void the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare null and void the contested decision;

| — | remit the case to the Opposition Division of the Office for further prosecution. |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the case to the Opposition Division of the Office for further prosecution.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the Community trade mark regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the Community trade mark regulations;

| — | Infringement of principles of the EC law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of principles of the EC law.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          22,940
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    75
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    255,064
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          72,714
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            71,759
<LOANS>                                        710,364
<ALLOWANCE>                                   (11,817)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,105,485
<DEPOSITS>                                     686,874
<SHORT-TERM>                                    97,792
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             12,062
<LONG-TERM>                                    218,225
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,479
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,105,485
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 25,837
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                9,740
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   590
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                36,167
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              11,031
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,142
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           18,025
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   5
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,951
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,141
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       8,051
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (435)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,616
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.46
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.25
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,043
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   671
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 18,863
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                12,301
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      879
<RECOVERIES>                                       395
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               11,817
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,248
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          5,569


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

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 American Apparel, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dov Charney, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Apparel, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §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.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of our as of and for the period
covered by the Report.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 31, 2010



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/    DOV
CHARNEY                   
|Dov Charney                          
|President and Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10321 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. R O G E R W O O D R O W G O R E , J R ., D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 08- C R

- 41- 1
B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e F ederalP u bl i c D efen der app oi n t ed to r e pr esent R oger W oodrow G ore, J r. , h a s m ove d f

orl eave t o w i t hdraw and has f i l ed a br i ef

i n ac c or dance w i th A n d er s v . C a lif

o rn ia , 3 86 U
. S. 7 38 ( 19 67 )
. G o r e ha s no tf i l e d a respon se. Our i nde pe nde ntr e vi e w o f t he r e c o r d a nd c o uns e l ’ s b r i e f di s c l o s e s no no nf

r i vo l o us is s u e fo ra p p e a l
. A c c o r d in g ly , co u n s e l’ s m o tio n fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w is G RA N TE D , c o uns e l i s e xc us e d f r o m f ur t he r r e s po ns ibi l i t i e s he r e i n , an d the A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D
. S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

12, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
Skip to Main Content Contact Us|About Us|Sign In
     Top Links
 Project Search Navigation
 Home
 Funding
 Research
 Publications
 Newsletters
HomeNewsletters
        Breadcrumb
    Main Body
 Please be patient while past newsletters load...Footer
 The Basics
			Fire Science Info
			Partners
			What is FireScience.gov?HomeContact UsAbout Us
			Fire Science Exchange NetworkFundingResearchPublicationsNewsletters
			Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | FOIA | Accessibility
            The Joint Fire Science Program funds scientific research on wildland fires and 
                distributes results to help policymakers, fire managers and practitioners make sound 
                decisions. More...
          Release 1.0
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

: NO. 03-632 

v. :

:

IAN NORRIS :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 12th day of July, 2010, it is hereby ORDERED

that: 

1. Government's motion in limine for an order to permit the

testimony of Sutton Keany (doc. no. 58) is GRANTED.

2. Defendant's motion to suppress (doc. no. 45) is DENIED. 

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Eduardo C. Robreno 

 EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 6, 2015

s0203

Order 

Clerk

February 6, 2015

150844

SC: 150844

In re SANTOS, Minors. COA: 320220

Eaton CC Family Division:

13-018437-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7738

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLEMENTINE BULLOCK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,

Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00032-NKM-11)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 5, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clementine Bullock, Appellant Pro Se. Elliott J. Casey, Joseph 

D. Platania, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Ronald 

Mitchell Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Clementine Bullock appeals the district court’s orders

denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduction 

in her sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual (2010) and reconsideration of that order. We 

have reviewed the record and hold the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying the relief Bullock sought. See

United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010)

(stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court in its order denying 

reconsideration. See United States v. Bullock, No. 3:10-cr00032-NKM-11 (W.D. Va. filed Nov. 17, 2011 & entered Nov. 18, 

2011; Dec. 8, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL ACTION

Vv.

STEVEN ALLEN SCHWARTZ H NO. 04-231
ORDER

AND NOW, this 19th day of January, 2012, for the
reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby
ORDERED that:

(1) the motion of petitioner "for production of

certain filings exhibits and transcripts" (Doc. #101) is GRANTED

to the extent that he seeks: (a) the pro se motion to dismiss
the indictment (Doc. #47); (b) the request for general
instructions and general information on voir dire (Doc. #46); (c)

the response of defendant to the government's motion to
consolidate (Doc. #16); and (d) copies of the government's trial
exhibits. The Deputy Clerk shall mail copies of the above
documents to petitioner within ten days of this Order; and

(2) the motion is otherwise DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

,
— ilanneeg a Ala =
Q . a.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

STEVEN A. MARKS AND ERIN L. NO. 2021 CW 1333 MARKS VERSUS UNITED PROPERTY & CASUALTY 

### JANUARY 31, 2022 INSURANCE COMPANY
In Re: United 

### Property & Casualty 

## Insurance Company, applying

for supervisory writs, 

### 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. 

### Tammany, No. 

### 2019-10-197.
BEFORE: McDONALD, LANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ.

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. This writ application fails to 

### comply with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 4- 5(B), ( C)( 

### 6), ( 

### 8), and ( 

### 11) because the attached documents and exhibits are not 

### identified and consecutively numbered; 

### it does not 

### include a 

### signed copy of the judgment at 

### issue; it does not contain a copy of the petition; and 

### it does not contain a copy of the notice of 

### intent or the return date order. In addition, in the event a new writ application 

### is filed, this court 

## requiresacopyofthe pertinent hearingtranscript.

Supplementation of this writ application and/or an 

## application for rehearing will notbe considered. Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, 

### Rules 2- 18.7 and 4- 9.

In the event relator seeks to 

### file a new application with this court, it must contain all pertinent 

### documentation, 

## including the 

### missing 

### items noted above, and must 

### comply with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 12. 2. 

### Any new application must be filed on or before March 3, 

### 2022, and 

## must contain a copyofthis ruling. JMM WIL EW



### COURT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

Y; 

# T) 

# ZL)

J; 

# IQ . , DEPUTY CBERKOF COURT

FOR THE COURT
Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 482 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 482 Filed 04/18/12 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 482 Filed 04/18/12 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 482 Filed 04/18/12 Page 4 of 4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN KERRY O’KEEFE, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. DOUG GILLESPIE, Sheriff; et al., Respondents - Appellees. No. 12-15271D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02109-GMNVCF
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 20, 2014 San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and REINHARDT and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Brian Kerry O’Keefe appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus due to lack of exhaustion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here. 

# FILED
FEB 02 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.O’Keefe filed his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking to prevent an upcoming retrial on grounds that it would violate his right against double jeopardy. However, in the intervening time between his filing of the petition and our consideration of it, O’Keefe was retried and convicted in state court. His sought relief is therefore no longer available. Therefore, the appeal is moot. We need not, and do not, address the government’s arguments that O’Keefe’s appeal is moot because he filed his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 rather than § 2254. Nor need we addre ss the merits of O’Keefe’s double jeopardy claims. Our decision is without prejudice to the consideration of those claims in a properly filed § 2254 petition. 1 AFFIRMED.

1 O’Keefe’s pro se motions for judicial notice and for summary judgment are denied. Because O’Keefe is represente d by counsel, we decline to entertain O’Keefe’s other pro se motions and submissions. 2
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1052 

To strengthen the use of patient-experience data within the benefit-risk 

framework for approval of new drugs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 4, 2017 

Mr. WICKER (for himself and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To strengthen the use of patient-experience data within the 

benefit-risk framework for approval of new drugs. 

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 ‘‘Better Empowerment 

5 Now to Enhance Framework and Improve Treatments Act 

6 of 2017’’ or the ‘‘BENEFIT Act of 2017’’. 

7 SEC. 2. STRENGTHENING THE USE PATIENT-EXPERIENCE 

8 DATA WITHIN BENEFIT-RISK FRAMEWORK. 

9 Section 569C of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos10 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–8c) is amended— 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1052 IS

1 (1) in subsection (a)(1)— 

2 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘; 

3 and’’ and inserting a semicolon; 

4 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the 

5 period and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

6 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(C) as part of the risk-benefit assessment 

8 framework in the new drug approval process de9 scribed in section 505(d), considering relevant 

10 patient-focused drug development data, such as 

11 data from patient preference studies (benefit12 risk), patient reported outcome data, or patient 

13 experience data, developed by the sponsor of an 

14 application or another party.’’; and 

15 (2) in subsection (b)(1). by inserting ‘‘, includ16 ing a description of how such data and information 

17 were considered in the risk benefit assessment de18 scribed in section 505(d)’’ before the period. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of GSI Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lee-Lean Shu,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that based on my knowledge:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.
| /s/ Lee-Lean Shu                      |     |
|---------------------------------------|----------|
| Lee-Lean Shu                          |     |
| *President, Chief Executive Officer,* | * * |
| *and Director*                        | * * |

 

June 20, 2007

*A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to the Registrant and will be retainedby the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.*

----
SERVED FEBRUARY 16,2010 


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


OFFICE OF HEARINGS 


WASHINGTON, DC 


IN THE MATTER OF 

RAINBOW AIR CHARTER, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. CP09WP0009 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2oo9-0844 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On September 21, 2009, the Federal Aviation Administration(hereinafter referred 

to as "Complainant") filed a Complaint. On September 16, 2009, Respondent Rainbow 

Air Charter, Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent") had requested a hearing. On February 11, 

2010, Respondent withdrew its request for hearing, citing settlement of the matter. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: . 

1. Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing be and is hereby 

granted; and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 
SO ORDERED. 

eL.QC,~ Richard C. Goodwin '," 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09WP0009 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 


800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 


Washington, DC 20591 


Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 


Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WlOOOl 

ONE COPY 

Rainbow Air Charter, Inc., Respondent 

ATTN: Ray Grimmett 

2601 E. Spring Street 

Long Beach, CA 90806 

Jonathan S. Morse, Respondent's Counsel 

The Morse Law Group 

2800 28th Street, Suite 130 

Santa Monica, CA 90405-6213 

TEL: 310-396-0700 

FAX: 310-396-0900 

Courtney Adolph, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration· 

Western-Pacific Region 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7128 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor: 202-366-2139 Legal Assistant: 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC~430. 

I