alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT  TO
                  SECTION  302  OF  THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002

I,  Ethel  Schwartz  certify  that:

1.  I  have  reviewed  this  Annual  report  on  the  June 30, 2004 Form 10-K of
New  Medium  Enterprises,  Inc.;

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

3.  Based  on  my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other financial
information  included  in  this  annual  report,  fairly present in all material
respects  the  financial  condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant  as  of,  and  for,  the  periods  presented  in  this annual report.

4.  I  am  responsible  for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures  (as  defined  in  Exchange  Act  Rules  13a-14  and  15d-15) for the
registrant  and  have:

a)  designed  such  disclosure  controls  and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is  made  known  to  us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period  in  which  this  annual  report  is  being  prepared;


b)  evaluated  the  effectiveness  of  the  registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures  as  of  a  date  within  90  days  prior  to the filing date of this
annual  report  (the  "Evaluation  Date");  and

c)  presented  in  this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on  our  evaluation as of the
Evaluation  Date;

5.  I  have  disclosed,  based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors  and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing  the  equivalent  functions):

a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to record, process,
summarize  and  report  financial  data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors  any  material  weaknesses  in  internal  controls;  and

b)  any  fraud,  whether  or  not  material,  that  involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.  I  have  indicated  in  this  annual  report  whether  or  not  there  were
significant  changes  in  internal  controls  or  in  other  factors  that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation,  including  any  corrective  actions  with  regard  to  significant
deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses.

September  13,  2004                             By:  /s/  Ethel  Schwartz
                                             -----------------------
                                              President,
                                              Chief  Executive Officer,
# C_2017195EN.01002401.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2017 — PayPal v EUIPO — Hub Culture (VENMO)

(Case T-132/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark VENMO - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 195/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: PayPal, Inc. (San José, California, United States) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer, and I. Junkar, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hub Culture Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Hill, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 (Case R 2974/2014-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between PayPal and Hub Culture.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 January 2016 (Case R 2974/2014-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 January 2016 (Case R 2974/2014-5);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by PayPal, Inc.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by PayPal, Inc.;

| 3. | Orders Hub Culture Ltd to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Hub Culture Ltd to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

1

---
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: LINDA S. RESTREPO AND CARLOS E. RESTREPO,

Relators. '

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 14

- 00270

- CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON PETITION FOR

WRIT OF PROHIBITION

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator s , Linda S. Restrepo and Carlos E. Restrepo, ha ve filed a petition for writ of

prohibition against the Honorable Carlos Villa, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 5 of El

Paso County , Texas

. Relator s ha ve also filed a motion to stay the proceedings in the trial court.

The petition for writ of prohibition and the motion to stay are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

.
A writ of prohibition operates like an injunction issued by a superior court to control,

limit, or prevent action in a court of inferior jurisdiction. Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals

,

767 S.W.2d 680, 682 (Tex. 1989) ; In re Cap Rock Energy Corporation , 225 S.W.3d 160

(Tex.App.

-- El Paso 2005, original proceeding)

. The purpose of the writ is to enable a superior

court to protect and enforce its jurisdiction and judgments. Holloway , 767 S.W.2d at 683 ;

Caprock , 225 S.W.3d at 160

. The writ is typically used to protect the subject matter of an appeal

or to prohibit an unlawful interference with the enforcement of a superior court ’ s orders and

judgments. Holloway , 767 S.W.2d at 683

. An appellate court does not have jurisdiction, ab sent- 2

-

actual jurisdiction of a pending proceeding, to issue a writ of prohibition requiring that a trial

court refrain from performing a future act. See In re Nguyen , 155 S.W.3d 191, 194 (Tex.App.

--

Tyler 2003, orig. proceeding) ; Lesikar v. Anthony , 750 S.W .2d 338 (Tex.App.

-- Houston [1st

Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding)

. The Restrepos have not established that issuance of the writ of

prohibition is necessary to protect the subject matter of an appeal or to prohibit interference with

enforcement of an order or judgment of this Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition and

motion for emergency relief for lack of jurisdiction. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 52.8(a) , 52.10

.

October 8, 2014 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J., (Senior Judge) (Barajas, C.J., Senior Judge, sitting by assignment, not participating)
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1266 

To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into contracts with 

nonprofit organizations to investigate medical centers of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2017 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mr. LANKFORD) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into 

contracts with nonprofit organizations to investigate 

medical centers of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

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 ‘‘Enhancing Veteran 

5 Care Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INVESTIGATION OF MEDICAL CENTERS OF THE DE7 PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

9 may contract with a nonprofit organization that accredits 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1266 IS

1 health care organizations and programs in the United 

2 States to investigate a medical center of the Department 

3 of Veterans Affairs to assess and report deficiencies of the 

4 facilities at such medical center. 

5 (b) AUTHORITY OF DIRECTORS.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to coordination 

7 under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall delegate 

8 the authority under subsection (a) to contract for an 

9 investigation at a medical center of the Department 

10 to the Director of the Veterans Integrated Service 

11 Network in which the medical center is located or 

12 the director of such medical center. 

13 (2) COORDINATION.—Before entering into a 

14 contract under paragraph (1), the Director of a Vet15 erans Integrated Service Network or the director of 

16 a medical center, as the case may be, shall notify the 

17 Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Inspector General 

18 of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the 

19 Comptroller General of the United States for pur20 poses of coordinating any investigation conducted 

21 pursuant to such contract with any other investiga22 tions that may be ongoing. 

23 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec24 tion may be construed— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1266 IS

1 (1) to prevent the Office of the Inspector Gen2 eral of the Department of Veterans Affairs from 

3 conducting any review, audit, evaluation, or inspec4 tion regarding a topic for which an investigation is 

5 conducted under this section; or 

6 (2) to modify the requirement that employees of 

7 the Department assist with any review, audit, eval8 uation, or inspection conducted by the Office of the 

9 Inspector General of the Department. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
NUMBER 13-21-00288-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

CASTINE MCILHARGEY AND 

JODY MCINTYRE, INDIVIDUALLY, 

AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF 

OF A+ PRO RECOVERY AND 

TOWING, LLC, Appellants,

 v.

ERIK M. HAGER, JASON RIOS, 

EDUARDO PENA, JOANNA PENA, 

AND SOUTH PADRE TOWING AND 

RECOVERY, LLC, Appellees.

On appeal from the 107th District court

of Cameron County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Order Per Curiam
2

Appellants, Castine McIlhargey and Jody McIntyre, each filed a statement of 

inability to afford payment of court costs or an appeal bond in this Court on October 29, 

2021. We order that pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1(e), the trial court 

clerk, the court reporter, or any party to this cause must challenge appellant’s claim of 

indigence by filing a contest to appellant’s declaration of inability to pay costs in the trial 

court within 10 days from the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(e).

If a contest is timely filed, we ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing or sign 

an order extending the time to conduct a hearing within 10 days after any contest is 

filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(i)(2)(B) (“The trial court must either conduct a hearing or 

sign an order extending the time to conduct a hearing . . . within 10 days after the trial 

court received a contest referred from the appellate court.”). However, the trial court may 

not order the time for conducting a hearing on a contest to be extended for more than 20 

days from the date the order is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(i)(3).

If a contest is timely filed, we ORDER the trial court, within 40 days from the date 

of this order, to prepare a written order and written findings of fact and conclusions of law 

regarding its indigence determination. We further ORDER the trial court clerk, as soon as 

practicable but in no event later than 60 days from the date of this order, to file a 

supplemental clerk’s record, containing (1) the contest; (2) the trial court’s order; and (3) 

the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court reporter is ORDERED to 

prepare and file the reporter’s record of the trial court’s hearing as soon as practicable 

but in no event later than 60 days from the date of this order.

If no contest is filed or a contest is untimely filed, we order the trial court clerk to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certificate that states either no contest was 
3

filed or a contest was untimely filed within 20 days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the 

5th day of January, 2022.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 21, 2019

NO. 03-18-00716-CV

Kevin McBride, Appellant

v.

Seton Family of Hospitals d/b/a Seton Medical Center, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND TRIANA

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on October 25, 2018. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order. Because appellant is 

indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
VT4i
® O13
4. we

August 26, 1999 '

Cynthia L. Johnson, Director

Cash Management Policy & Planning Division
Financial Management Service, Room 420
401 14” Street SW

Washington, D.C. 20227

Dear Ms. Johnson:

I have reviewed the Treasury’s proposed rule change regarding the rate on interest
charged TT&L Depositaries for use of Treasury funds. If the Treasury makes the
proposed changed we are not likely to continue our participation in the TT&L Investment
Program.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed change.

Yours truly,

[tke

‘James Schuster
Chief Financial Officer

— Member FDIC -— — EQUAL HOUSING LENDER —
First Banking Center - Lake Geneva 567 Broad Street, P.O. Box 970, Lake Geneva, WI 53147-0970 Tel: (414)248-6940 Fax: (414)248-8964
Visit us at our website:
www firstbankingctr.com
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60409

Summary Calendar

JOHN OKELLO OBIERO,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A096 683 875

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenyan citizen John Okello Obiero petitions for review of the decision of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion for 

reconsideration and reopening following the denial of his motion for a 

continuance in his removal proceeding to allow for the consideration of a 

petition for an alien filed by his wife on his behalf. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 16, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-60409 Document: 00512503620 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2014
No. 13-60409

Obiero contends that the BIA’s decision denying a continuance was 

erroneous in numerous respects. He raises no specific issues as to the evidence 

presented in support of his motion to reopen. He does not argue that the BIA 

erred by denying the motion for reconsideration on the basis that he raised 

issues that already had been raised or could have been raised in his previous 

administrative appeal. Obiero is represented by counsel, and his brief is not 

entitled to liberal construction. See Woodfox v. Cain, 609 F.3d 774, 792 (5th 

Cir. 2010). He has failed to brief the relevant issues for this court’s 

consideration as to the motion for reconsideration or reopening.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2

 Case: 13-60409 Document: 00512503620 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/16/2014
**Exhibit 12.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Helmut Perlet, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Allianz Aktiengesellschaft; 

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) [Omitted in accordance with the guidance of SEC release No. 33-8238]; 

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by theannual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 

 

Date: ****April 6, 2006
No. 57643.

#### The Byn Watch Co. *v.*United States,

protest 191955-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It appearing that the protest was not filed within the statutory period allowed by section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1514), the protest was dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1562

HUGO ROLANDO CASTILLO,

 Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General,

 Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: November 19, 2018 Decided: December 13, 2018

Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Ward, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Joseph H. 

Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Rebekah Nahas, Trial Attorney, Karen L. Melnik, 

Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Hugo Rolando Castillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of 

an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) granting reconsideration, 

reinstating his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his requests for relief from 

removal and dismissing his appeal after consideration of his appellate brief. We have 

thoroughly reviewed the record and Castillo’s claims and conclude that the record 

evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s 

decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the 

petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Castillo (B.I.A. Apr. 24, 

2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
# C_2016200EN.01000601.xml

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos (Spain) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Juan Moreno Marín, María Almudena Benavente Cárdaba and Rodrigo Moreno Benavente v Abadía Retuerta, S.A.

(Case C-139/16)

(2016/C 200/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Burgos

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Juan Moreno Marín, Maria Almudena Benavente Cárdaba and Rodrigo Moreno Benavente

Applicant:

Other party: Abadía Retuerta, S.A.

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | May the prohibitions in Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95 (1) include the use of a sign referring to the characteristic of a product or service which is that it can be found in abundance in a single place with a high degree of value and quality? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May the prohibitions in Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95 (1) include the use of a sign referring to the characteristic of a product or service which is that it can be found in abundance in a single place with a high degree of value and quality?

1

| 2. | May a sign with these characteristics be regarded as a sign of geographical origin in so far as the product or service will always be concentrated in a specific physical area? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May a sign with these characteristics be regarded as a sign of geographical origin in so far as the product or service will always be concentrated in a specific physical area?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

1

---
Exhibit 23.2

               CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


TO: Cavalcade of Sports Media, Inc.

As independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Cavalcade of Sports Media,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001 of our report dated April
12,  2002 and contained in the Registration Statement No. 333-101644
of Cavalcade of Sports Media, Inc. Form  S-8 under the Securities Act
of 1933 insofar as such report relates  to the financial statements
of Cavalcade of Sports Media, Inc.  for the year ended December 31,
2001.

/s/Russell Bedford Stefanou Mirchandani LLP
   Russell Bedford Stefanou Mirchandani LLP


McLean, Virginia
May 7, 2003