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

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | I, Scott D. Dorfman, Chief Executive Officer of Innotrac Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:                                |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
| (1)    | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 (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: November 16, 2009                                                                  |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                                      |   |
|   | /s/ Scott D. Dorfman                                                                      |   |
|   | Scott D. Dorfman                                                                          |   |
|   | President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairmanof the Board (Principal Executive Officer) |
June 25, 2015 

Mr. David Siegers 

4550 Pineridge Drive 

Holland, MI 49423 

Dear Mr. Siegers: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your June 16, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2286), 

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not 

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any 

further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 EnergySouth, Inc. (the "Company") Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
P. Huffman, 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, to the best of my knowledge:

         1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                  amended; and

         2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


Date:  August 6, 2003                   By:       /s/ Charles P. Huffman
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                      Charles P. Huffman
                                                   Senior Vice President and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer


                                       26
# C_2015262EN.01003701.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/37

---

Action brought on 23 June 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM (THE SNACK COMPANY)

(Case T-331/15)

(2015/C 262/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, 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: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘THE SNACK COMPANY’ — Application for registration No 12 173 852

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 March 2015 in Case R 954/2014-2

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;

| — | grant registration of the trade mark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant registration of the trade mark applied for;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of the principle of equal treatment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of equal treatment;

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2017283EN.01002803.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/28

---

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 19 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — État belge v Max-Manuel Nianga

(Case C-199/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 283/40)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

1

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DREW CHARLES ROSEN,

Appellant,

v.

ELKE L. ROSEN,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-2819

[January 18, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County; Dale Ross, Judge; L.T. Case No. 10-14470-08.

F. William Harvey of F. William Harvey, P.A., Tamarac and Wayne H. 

Miller of Wayne H. Miller, P.A., Sunrise, for appellant.

Paula Revene of Chorowski & Clary, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### GEOPHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al. v. COE.

Civ. 12170.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Dec. 5, 1942.

Sol Shappirio and Lawrence Koenigsberger, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs.

W. W. Cochran, of Washington, D. C., for defendant.

BAILEY, Associate Justice.

Interferences are declared solely for the purpose of determining priority of' invention. If the plaintiff can show priority of invention he will be entitled to a patent, if he be the first inventor and otherwise complies with the law. This right will not be defeated by any action of the Patent Office in allowing a reissue of the opponent’s patent. The procedure in the Patent Office in passing upon the question of reissue is one within the discretion of the Commissioner, and it does not appear that the practice adopted in this interference of not permitting proof to be taken on-the question of good faith of the applicant for reissue other than his affidavit is contrary to the usual practice.

Even if the court had power to interfere in the action of the Commissioner in this case (which is only an intermediate step in the proceedings) I cannot see that the plaintiff can be irreparably injured. As. said before if the plaintiff can show priority of invention he will be entitled to a patent.

The motion to dismiss this complaint should be sustained.
3. Real Estate Taxes and Insurance. During the Post-Occupancy Term Seller will, withinten (10) days after Purchaser’s request therefor, reimburse Purchaser for fifty percent (50%) ofall (i) real estate taxes, and (ii) premiums for casualty and liability insurance incurred or paidfor by Purchaser relating to the Building. In addition, Seller will defend, indemnify and holdPurchaser harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, costs, damages and expenses whichPurchaser may suffer, incur or sustain, or for which Purchaser may become liable, by virtue of theinjury to or death of any person(s), or the loss of property owned by Seller’s customers, including,without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of or in connection with Seller’s useand occupancy of the Building from and after the Effective Date until the end of the Post-OccupancyTerm to the extent not reimbursed to Purchaser through insurance proceeds. In the event of acasualty rendering the Building partially untenantable and capable of prompt restoration, Purchasershall promptly restore the Building and improvements. In the event of a casualty rendering thebuilding wholly untenantable or not capable of prompt restoration, this Agreement shall terminateand Purchaser shall pay to Seller the amount of insurance proceeds related to Seller’s damagedproperty. Rent and other obligations shall abate on an equitable basis during any period ofuntenantability.     4. Utilities. Seller shall pay for the cost of any and all utility consumption andtelephone charges incurred in the Building during the Post-Occupancy Term until Seller vacates andsurrenders occupancy and possession of the Building to Purchaser.     5. Condition of Building. At the end of the Post-Occupancy Term Seller shall vacateand deliver occupancy and possession of the Building to Purchaser in the same condition as existedon the Effective Date, ordinary wear and tear and casualty excepted. During the Post-OccupancyTerm, Seller shall be responsible for general interior maintenance and HVAC maintenance. Purchasershall be responsible for all exterior maintenance, including the roof, and all replacements,including HVAC, electrical and plumbing system components, and all repairs or replacements ofstructural elements; provided however, that if HVAC unit replacements are necessary, Purchaser mayprovide units primarily designed for serving replacement tenant(s) after the end of thePost-Occupancy Term, as long as the replacement unit(s) provide heating and cooling function toSeller equivalent or better than the former unit. In the event Purchaser will conduct constructionor maintenance activities at the Building or the adjacent lot during the Post-Occupancy Term, thePurchaser will coordinate such activities with Seller and in any event will conduct suchactivities in a manner so as not to interfere with the business operations of Seller.     6. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordancewith the laws of the State of Illinois.     7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, andall such counterparts shall constitute
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-17-00234-CR

JAMES STEVEN CHAMPION, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 4

of Tarrant County (1480031D)

January 3, 2019

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

was no reversible 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/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
# C_2016191EN.01001302.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/13

---

Action brought on 14 March 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-152/16)

(2016/C 191/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that by failing to create its national electronic register of road transport undertakings and interconnecting it with the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing to create its national electronic register of road transport undertakings and interconnecting it with the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC (1);

1

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1071/2009 provides that each Member State is to keep a national electronic register of road transport undertakings which have been authorised by the competent national authority to engage in the occupation of road transport operator.

However, it is apparent from the answer given by the Luxembourg State to the letter of formal notice that such a national register has not been set up.

It follows that the Luxembourg State has failed to comply with Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1071/2009.

Under Article 16(5) of Regulation No 1071/2009, the Member States are required to take all necessary measures to ensure that the national electronic registers are interconnected and accessible throughout the European Union.

As it does not even have a national register, there can be no doubt that the Luxembourg Administration has not taken the measures necessary to interconnect its national register (which it does not have) with other national registers.

That being the case, the Luxembourg State has failed to comply with Article 16(5) of Regulation No 1071/2009.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 300, p. 51.

1

---
Case 2:05-cv-00345-GP Document 4 Filed 03/11/05 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:05-cv-00345-GP Document 4 Filed 03/11/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           9,855
<SECURITIES>                                     9,984
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,699
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,101
<PP&E>                                           5,120
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,910
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,734
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,110
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,910
<SALES>                                         56,173
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,173
<CGS>                                           29,249
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,222
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   291
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (179)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,839
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,925
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,914
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,914
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.48
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JERMEL SHULER : CIVIL ACTION

 

 vs. :

LOUIS FOLIO, et al. : NO. 04-CV-4704

 ORDER

 AND NOW, this 4th day of April, 2005, upon careful and

independent consideration of the pleadings and record herein, and

after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter and the Petitioner’s objections

thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that:

 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED 

 and ADOPTED.

 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

 is DISMISSED.

 3. A certificate of appealability is not granted.

 BY THE COURT:

 s/J. Curtis Joyner 

 J. CURTIS JOYNER, J.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ZOOK : CIVIL ACTION

:

 :

 v. :

:

 : 

SIROIS : NO. 02-4080

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 5th day of August, 2002, in accordance with the court's

procedure for random reassignment of cases, it is hereby

ORDERED that the above-captioned case is reassigned from the calendar of

the Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin to the calendar of the Honorable Michael M. Baylson.

 FOR THE COURT:

 JAMES T. GILES 

 Chief Judge

 ATTEST:

 ___________________

 MICHAEL E. KUNZ

 Clerk of Court

Case 2:02-cv-04080-MMB Document 3 Filed 08/05/2002 Page 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES KOLAWOLE OLANIYI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

DENIS McDONOUGH, The Secretary of 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

JESSICA WANG-RODRIGUEZ; et al., 

Defendants.

No. 19-56380 

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00932-DSF-PJW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2021**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Charles Kolawole Olaniyi appeals pro se from the district court’s summary 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-56380 

judgment in his Title VII employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 

1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc). We affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Olaniyi’s Title VII 

disparate treatment claim because Olaniyi failed to raise a genuine dispute of 

material fact as to whether his job performance was satisfactory or his employer 

treated him differently than similarly situated employees who did not belong to his 

protected classes. See Weil v. Citizens Telecom Servs. Co., LLC, 922 F.3d 993, 

1002-04 (9th Cir. 2019) (setting forth elements of a Title VII discrimination claim 

and explaining that an employee’s self-assessment alone is not enough to raise a 

triable dispute); Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Grp., 892 F.2d 1434, 1438-39 (9th Cir. 

1990) (stray remarks are insufficient to establish discrimination). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Olaniyi’s 

retaliation claim because Olaniyi failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact 

as to whether there was a causal link between his protected EEO complaint activity 

and his demotion. See Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir. 2000)

(setting forth elements of a Title VII retaliation claim). 

Olaniyi’s motions to file supplemental exhibits (Docket Entry Nos. 5 and 7) 

are denied. 

AFFIRMED.
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 1 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 2 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 3 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 4 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 5 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 6 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 7 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 8 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 9 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 10 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 11 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 12 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 13 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 14 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 15 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 16 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 17 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 18 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 19 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 20 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 21 of 22
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 34 Filed 08/22/2003 Page 22 of 22