alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017129EN.01001802.xml

| 24.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata)

(Case T-23/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Formata - Absolute ground for invalidity - Absence of bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for invalidity - Likelihood of confusion - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 129/30)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ilona Biernacka-Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and K. Zajfert, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Formata Bogusław Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2015 (Case R 102/2015-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ms Biernacka-Hoba and Formata Bogusław Hoba.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 November 2015 (Case R 102/2015-2), in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the application for a declaration of invalidity based on a relative ground for invalidity; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 November 2015 (Case R 102/2015-2), in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the application for a declaration of invalidity based on a relative ground for invalidity;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Ms Ilona Biernacka-Hoba; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Ms Ilona Biernacka-Hoba;

| 4. | Orders Ms Biernacka-Hoba to bear half of her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Ms Biernacka-Hoba to bear half of her own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

1

---
Unites States Department of Agriculture
Unites States Department of Agriculture
Unites States Department of Agriculture
Unites States Department of Agriculture
Unites States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
# C_2016098EN.01002502.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/25

---

Action brought on 15 January 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-23/16)

(2016/C 098/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to set up a national electronic register of road transport undertakings and to connect it up with the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Republic of Poland 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 set up a national electronic register of road transport undertakings and to connect it up with the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Republic of Poland 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 Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The national electronic register must be created and connected up with the national electronic registers of the other Member States by 31 December 2012 at the latest.

---

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

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1





STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Michael W. Mahler, is the Chief Executive Officer of First Federal of Northern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”).





This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”).





By execution of this statement, I certify that to the best of my knowledge:





A)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and





B)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.





This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





March 25, 2011

/s/ Michael W. MahlerDated

Michael W. Mahler
Case 2:03-cv-06267-NS   Document 15   Filed 03/15/04   Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-06267-NS   Document 15   Filed 03/15/04   Page 2 of 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

HORIZON OFFSHORE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David W. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer of Horizon Offshore, Inc. (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1.     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (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 for the period covered by such Report.

|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 14, 2003 |  | /s/ David W. Sharp     
|                   |  |                        
|                   |  | David W. Sharp         
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Horizon Offshore, Inc. and will be retained by Horizon Offshore,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Document

Exhibit 10.18



Dynex Capital, Inc.
Non-Employee Directors’ Annual Compensation
As of January 1, 2021


Cash Compensation


Annual retainer


Non-Employee Director            $70,000 


Additional annual retainers


Chairperson of the Board            $35,000


Audit Committee Chair            $20,000


Compensation Committee Chair       $10,000


Nominating & Corporate 
Governance Committee Chair     $10,000


Annual retainers are payable in quarterly installments, prorated for the number of months 
served in the case of a change during the calendar year. 


Excess meeting fee


In addition to the annual retainers, non-employee directors will also receive a cash fee of $1,000 for each meeting of the Board of Directors attended above 15 meetings per year and for each Board Committee meeting attended as a member above 15 meetings per year.


Equity Compensation


Non-employee directors will also receive an annual grant of restricted shares of the Company’s common stock with a grant date fair value of $90,000, which shares will vest at the end of one year. The shares are to be granted on the first Friday following the annual meeting of shareholders.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

November 23, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00396

- CV

CONTINENTAL HOMES OF TEXAS, L.P. D/B/A EXPRESS HOMES

, Appellant

v.

Giancarlo PEREZ and Krystle Perez,

Appellees

From the 407th Judicial District Cour t , Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021

- CI

- 10075 Honorable Larry Noll , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellees’ brief in this accelerated appeal was due November 18, 2021. Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time has been filed. We order the brief due D ecember 3, 2021

. If the brief is not filed by the date ordered, we may submit the case without an appellees’ brief.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D . Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 23rd day of November, 2021

.

___________________________________ MI CHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      10,477,852
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,143,673
<ALLOWANCES>                                   229,145
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,815,008
<PP&E>                                     147,804,683
<DEPRECIATION>                            (21,421,978)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             151,571,370
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,075,493
<BONDS>                                    123,526,121
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,270
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,854,799)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               151,571,370
<SALES>                                     14,956,889
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,041,336
<CGS>                                        6,083,965
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,195,172
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (98,281)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,131,482
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,113,181)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,604,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,509,181)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,509,181)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
# March 2015

# April 2015

# May 2015

# June 2015

# July 2015

# August 2015

# September 2015

# October 2015
# C_2016222EN.01000302.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/3

---

Action brought on 15 March 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-153/16)

(2016/C 222/04)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Kukovec and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Form of order sought by the applicant

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by allowing an ongoing persistent situation of environmental and health insecurity, through the unsuitable storage of substantial quantities of used tyres together with other waste, including hazardous waste, and through the disposal thereof contrary to the requirements of the Landfill Directive, the Republic of Slovenia has infringed Article 12 (Disposal), Article 13 as regards waste management which takes into account the protection of human health and the environment, and Article 36(1) (Enforcement and penalties) of the Waste Framework Directive, as well as Article 5(3)(d) of the Landfill Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by allowing an ongoing persistent situation of environmental and health insecurity, through the unsuitable storage of substantial quantities of used tyres together with other waste, including hazardous waste, and through the disposal thereof contrary to the requirements of the Landfill Directive, the Republic of Slovenia has infringed Article 12 (Disposal), Article 13 as regards waste management which takes into account the protection of human health and the environment, and Article 36(1) (Enforcement and penalties) of the Waste Framework Directive, as well as Article 5(3)(d) of the Landfill Directive;

| — | order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Slovenia has allowed an ongoing persistent situation of environmental and health insecurity, through the unsuitable storage of substantial quantities of used tyres together with other waste, including hazardous waste, and through the disposal thereof contrary to the requirements of, first, the Landfill Directive and, second, the Waste Framework Directive.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

TRAVIS ELLIOTT
, 1

Petitioner Below
, Appellant,

v.

DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES/JUDY JORDAN
, Respondent Below
, Appellee. § § No. 339, 2021 § § Court Below

— Family Court § of the State of Delaware § § File No. CN 11

- 03130 § Petition No. 2 0

- 21502 § § § §

Submitted: October 29, 2021 Decided: November 4 , 2021

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY

- REEVES
, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response
, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On October 2 1 , 2021, the appellant , Travis Elliott, filed a notice of
appeal from a Family Court Commissioner’s order reducing his child support
obligatio n

. On October 22, 2021, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice, by certified
mail, directing Elliott to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for this

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).2

Court’s lack of jurisdiction to consider an appeal directly from a Family Court

Commissioner ’s order.

(2) In his response to the notice to show cause, Elliott states that he
intended the notice of appeal to be a cross

- appeal of the request for review of the

Commissioner’s order filed by the appellee in the Family Court. The notice of
appeal refers to both this Court and the Family Court , but Elliott addressed and

mailed the notice of appeal to this Court

. This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider
an appeal directly from a Commissioner ’s decision

. 2 Elliott’s appeal must therefore

be dismissed.

N OW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery

- Reeves

Justice

2 10 Del. C. § 915(d) (providing that a party may appeal a Commissioner’s order to a Family Court judge); Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 53.1 (same).
tS^L court of appeals Sixth District

„ ,ftic SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

NOV 3 0 2015

STATE OF TEXAS

Texarksna, Texas * *

Dabra Autrey, Clerk

RE: APPELLATE CASE NUMBER: 06-15-00006-CV

TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER: 2013-392

STYLE: BILLIE MURPHY TREMBLE, SHARON TREMBLE DONALDSON,

SELIA TREMBLE SHAWKEY, WILMER FORREST TREMBLE, JR.,

THE ESTATE OF WILMER FORREST TREMBLE, SRV Appellants,

Vs.

LUMINANT MINING COMPANY LLC, ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS

CORPORATION, AND SUBSIDIARIES, Appellees.

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

In response to the court date of October 27, 2015, we the Tremble

Family are asking the court to reinstate the Appeal on our behalf in

reference to the No Summary Judgment.
Exhibit 4(kk)

 

PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY         [ P. O. BOX 1928 BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35282-8238 ]

 

ENDORSEMENT TO LIMIT THE MARKET VALUE ADJUSTMENT

 

We are amending the Contract and (if applicable) the Certificate to which this endorsement is attached. This endorsement:

 

a)               limits the amount the market value adjustment (“MVA”) will reduce the proceeds you receive from a partial or full surrender; and,

 

b)              establishes a minimum for interest rates we will declare for future guarantee periods.

 

On and after the Endorsement Date, we will waive any portion of a market value adjustment that would reduce the Surrender Value by more than the Excess Interest applied to the Contract as of the withdrawal date. “Excess Interest” is defined as interest credited in excess of the amount that would be earned on the Annuity Deposit at an annual effective rate of 1.00%.

 

On and after the Endorsement Date, we will not declare a Guaranteed Interest Rate for any future Guarantee Period that is less than 1.00%.

 

For the sole purpose of calculating the MVA on and after the Endorsement Date, the meaning of “Annuity Deposit” in the “DEFINITIONS” section of your Contract is revised to be: Account Value at the close of business on the Endorsement Date, or the amount applied to establish any Subsequent Guarantee Period thereafter. “Account Value” does not include any Surrender Charge or MVA that would otherwise apply on the Endorsement Date. The market value adjustment will never reduce the Contract’s aggregate surrender value to be less than the Annuity Deposit.

 

The terms and conditions of this endorsement supersede any conflicting provision in the Contract. Contract provisions not expressly modified by this rider remain in full force and effect. Specifically:

 

1. Your Interest Guarantee Period(s) and Guaranteed Interest Rate(s) are unchanged and remain in effect through the end of the current Guarantee Period(s).

 

2. The MVA formula and the components determined when your current Guarantee Period(s) were established remain in effect. A Guarantee Period continues to be measured from the date on which it was originally established, and its scheduled end date has not changed.

 

3.                Penalty free interest withdrawals continue to be equal to the interest credited during the prior Contract Year. Contract Years continue to be measured from your original Contract Effective Date.

 

4.                The limit on the MVA that can reduce your Surrender Value does not apply to a market value adjustment that would increase your Surrender Value. You will continue to receive the full benefit of Treasury Rate changes that increase your proceeds from a partial or full surrender.

 

	
IPD-2096
    	
 
    	
[ 08/20 ]
    


1











 

There is no charge or cost to you for this additional benefit.

 

Signed for the Company and made a part of the Contract as of  the Endorsement Date.

 

PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

 

 

	
/s/ Steve M. Callaway
    	
 
    
	
Steve M. Callaway,   Secretary
    	
 
    


 

2
Certification of Chief Financial 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 this Annual Report for Fiscal 2017 Ended August 31, 2017 of Golden Goliath Resources Ltd., a company organized under the British Columbia Corporations Act(the Company) on Form 20-F as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Stephen Pearce, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/  Stephen Pearce

Stephen Pearce, Chief Financial Officer





Date: January 16, 2018
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

I, James Leitzinger,certify that:

 

1.                                       Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Badger State Ethanol,LLC;

 

2.                                       Basedon my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.                                       Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4.                                       Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

 

a)                                      Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b)                                     Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)                                      Presentedin this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.                                       Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a)                                      Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)                                     Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: March 2, 2006

 
|   | /s/ James  Leitzinger    |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | James Leitzinger         |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
Before the First Division,

February 24, 1949

No. 52890.

#### Balfour, Guthrie & Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 63763-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.