alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 1 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 2 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 3 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 4 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 5 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 6 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 7 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 8 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 9 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 10 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 11 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 12 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 13 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 14 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 15 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 16 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 17 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 18 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 19 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 20 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 21 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 22 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 23 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 24 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 25 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 26 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 27 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 28 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 29 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 30 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 31 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 32 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 33 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 34 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 35 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 36 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 37 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 38 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 39 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 40 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 41 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 42 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 43 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 44 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 45 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 7-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 46 of 46
# C_2018022EN.01003801.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2017 — Hanso Holding v EUIPO (REAL)

(Case T-798/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark REAL - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001]))

(2018/C 022/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hanso Holding AS (Tromsø, Norway) (represented by: M. Wirtz, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2016 (Case R 2405/2015-2), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign REAL as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hanso Holding AS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hanso Holding AS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

1

---
# C_2017038EN.01005402.xml

| 6.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/54

---

Order of the General Court of 26 October 2016 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-167/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 038/71)

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32

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


     The undersigned  executive  officers of the Registrant  hereby certify that
this  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter  ended  December 31, 2003
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.


                                By:/s/ Gary C. Loraditch
                                   ----------------------------------------
                                   Name: Gary C. Loraditch
                                   Title: President



                                By:/s/ Bonnie M. Klein
                                   ----------------------------------------
                                   Name: Bonnie M. Klein
                                   Title: Vice President and Treasurer

Date: May 12, 2004
No. 65440.

#### Rocca-Cuvi, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 284651-K, etc. (San Francisco).

*419Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

June 12, 1963

No. 67808.

#### Fast-Fix, Inc., and G. E. Posey Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 62/14311 and 62/14310 (Galveston).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of form supports similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Universal Builders Supply Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 99, C.D. 2319), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the
Report) of I.D. Systems, Inc. (the Corporation) for the year ended
December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, I, Ned Mavrommatis, Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Corporation.

|                         |                                          
|------------------------ | -----------------------------------------
|Dated: February 22, 2006 | /s/ Ned Mavrommatis                      
|                         |                                          
|                         | Ned Mavrommatis
  Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Corporation
and will be retained by the Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
# C_2018072EN.01001602.xml

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/16

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch

(Case C-372/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 - Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation - Recognition of a private divorce obtained before a religious court in a third country - Scope of that regulation))

(2018/C 072/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Soha Sahyouni

Applicant:

Defendant: Raja Mamisch

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation must be interpreted as meaning that a divorce resulting from a unilateral declaration made by one of the spouses before a religious court, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not come within the substantive scope of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

1

---
**Exhibit
      32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Independence Lead Mines Company (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Wayne L. Schoonmaker, Principal Accounting 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:





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





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





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to
      be
      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before
      or
      after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
      such
      filing.





/s/
      Wayne L. Schoonmaker


Principal
      Accounting Officer





Dated:
      August 11, 2008
EXHIBIT 21



                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


                                              Jurisdiction of         Percentage
               Name                           Incorporation            Ownership
               ----                           -------------            ---------

Hyde International Services, Ltd.              Hong Kong                 100%

Hyde, Inc.                                     Maine                     100%

Saucony Canada, Inc.(1)                        Ontario                    85%

Saucony UK, Inc.(1)                            Massachusetts             100%

Saucony Sports, B.V.(1)                        Netherlands               100%

Saucony SP Pty. Ltd.(1)                        Australia                 100%

Saucony Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH(1)          Germany                   100%

QR Divestiture, Inc.(2)                        Delaware                  100%

Saucony Asia Pacific Limited                   Hong Kong                 100%



______________________

(1)Does business as "Saucony."
(2)Formerly known as Quintana Roo, Inc.
Payment Collection RIA SIA Zero Dollar Total

November 2015 22,421 70,894 2,529 54 - 95,898

December 2015 24,999 73,507 3,868 81 1 102,456

January 2016 18,501 71,922 2,543 83 - 93,049

Totals 65,921 216,323 8,940 218 1 291,403

 -

 50,000

 100,000

 150,000

 200,000

 250,000

 300,000

 350,000

# of transactions

Transaction Type

IPAC Transaction Count

November 2015

December 2015

January 2016

Totals
Case No. 13,120.

#### SMITH v. TUTTLE.

[5 Biss. 159.] 1

Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois.

July, 1870.

Courts — Federal Jurisdiction — Citizenship —Residence.

The acts of congress confer no jurisdiction over a defendant who is served with process while temporarily in a district in which he does not reside. The defendant has the privilege of litigating in the federal court in the state of his residence.

[Cited in Jewett v. Garrett, 47 Fed. 632.]

That suitors within the jurisdiction of the court cannot he served with process, see Juneau Bank v. McSpedan [Case No. 7,582],

Demurrer to a plea to the jurisdiction. The plea sets up that'the defendant, at the time of being served with process in this case, was a citizen and resident of the state of Iowa, and was temporarily in this district, and that the plaintiff is a citizen of New York. The plaintiff interposed a demurrer to this plea, on the ground that the act giving jurisdiction to the circuit courts confers jurisdiction on the court wherever the defendant might be found within the jurisdiction, although he may not be a resident of the district nor of the state. ,

BLODGETT, District Judge.

This matter was called up during Judge DAVIS’ visit to this city and the authorities examined, and Judge DAVIS, Judge DRUMMOND, ana myself all came to the conclusion, in the light of the authorities, that this court has no jurisdiction over a citizen of another state who is temporarily found here long enough to be served with process; that the acts ot congress conferring jurisdiction do not contemplate that a defendant shall be sued out of the state where he resides; that he has the privilege of litigating a question in the federal courts between himself and a citizen of another state in the state of his own residence. The demurrer will therefore be overruled.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TX MEDICAL OFFICE, LP,

FL MEDICAL OFFICE, LLC,

CA MEDICAL OFFICE, LP, AND

MOB PORTFOLIO ASSOCIATES, LLC,

 Appellants,

v.

TENET HEALTH SYSTEM 

HOSPITALS, INC.

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-12-00263-CV

Appeal from

34th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2010-1628)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a joint motion to dispose of this appeal in accordance with 

the parties’ agreement. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(2)(A). The parties filed a joint motion for 

disposition pursuant to a settlement agreement, stating that all issues in dispute have been fully 

resolved and requesting that we vacate the trial court’s judgment, dismiss the case, and render 

judgment effectuating the parties’ settlement agreement. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(2)(A)

(permitting appeals court to dispose of appeal by rendering judgment effectuating the parties’

agreement); TEX.R.APP.P. 43.2(e)(permitting the appeals court to vacate the trial court’s 

judgment and dismiss the case). The settlement agreement specifically requests that this Court 

dismiss the case as follows: 
2

(a) all claims, counterclaims, or causes of action asserted in the Case as to the Site 

known by the parties as ‘Alvarado Medical Plaza II’ are dismissed without 

prejudice to refiling of same, and 

(b) all remaining claims, counterclaims, or causes of action asserted in the Case 

are dismissed with prejudice to refiling of same.

[Emphasis in original]. Both parties have signed the settlement agreement and filed it with the 

Clerk of this Court in accordance with TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(2). 

The motion is granted. The trial court’s judgment signed on July 31, 2012 is vacated, and 

the case is dismissed pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement in that all claims, 

counterclaims, or causes of action as to the “Alvarado Medical Plaza II” site are dismissed 

without prejudice and all remaining claims, counterclaims, or causes of action are dismissed with 

prejudice. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), 43.2(e). Because the settlement agreement recites 

that each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees in the case, costs of appeal are taxed 

against the parties who have incurred them. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d)(providing that in absence 

of an agreement by the parties, costs will be taxed against the appellant). 

August 21, 2013 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00358-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.F.C., A CHILD

From the 13th District Court

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court No. D13-22170-CV

ORDER

This appeal was abated on December 11, 2014 for a determination of indigence of 

appellant and an appointment of counsel if needed. Appellant has been determined to 

be indigent, and counsel has been appointed for appellant. Accordingly, this appeal is 

reinstated. 

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal reinstated

Order issued and filed January 15, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           5,097                   5,097
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,153                   9,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                       171                     171
<INVENTORY>                                      4,533                   4,533
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,361                  24,361
<PP&E>                                          15,147                  15,147
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,136                   7,136
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,467                  39,467
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,612                   6,612
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            10                      10
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,845                  32,845
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,467                  39,467
<SALES>                                         14,896                  43,257
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,896                  43,257
<CGS>                                            7,150                  22,170
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,150                  22,170
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,211                  26,090
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    38                     156
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  20                     255
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (523)                 (5,414)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (199)                 (1,561)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (324)                 (3,853)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (324)                   (324)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)                  (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)                  (0.41)


</TABLE>
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Certified Public Accountants

Suite 400

200 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131-2310

Tel: (305) 372-3100

Fax: (305) 37213160	

Deloitte

& **Touche**
 

 

 

 

 

 

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

 

To the Board of Directors of

Lennar Partners, Inc.:

We have examined management's assertion about Lennar Partners, Inc.'s (the "Company") compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage Banker's Association of America's *Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers*(USAP) as applicable to the special servicing of commercial and multifamily mortgage loans as of and for the year ended December 31, 2000 included in the accompanying management assertion. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those applicable minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the applicable minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2000 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

 

       Deloitte & Touche LLP

 

 

March 9, 2001

 

 

Deloitte
      Touche

      Tohmatsu