alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 8 (Friday, January 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-296]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Interest Rates

    The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called 
the optional ``peg'' rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This 
rate is a weighted average cost of money to the government for 
maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be 
used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. 
This rate will be 4.875 (4\7/8\) percent for the January-March quarter 
of FY 2007.

Janet A. Tasker,
Acting Associate Administrator for Financial Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E7-296 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# C_2017402EN.01002701.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2017 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-888TII RU)

(Case T-317/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SDC-888TII RU - Earlier non-registered national word mark SDC-888TII RU - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Evidence establishing the content of national law - Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(d) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 402/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s r. o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. von Donat, J. Lipinsky, J. Hagenberg, T. Hollerbach and C. Nitschke, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 (Case R 1566/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Moravia Consulting and Citizen Systems Europe

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Moravia Consulting spol. s r. o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Moravia Consulting spol. s r. o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-23-00496-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.K.M.W., a Child

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022-PA-00462

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s Order of Termination 

is AFFIRMED. No costs of appeal are assessed against appellant because she is indigent.

SIGNED September 20, 2023.

_____________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARC LOUIS CHAMPOUX,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00120-CR

Appeal from the

290th Judicial District Court 

Of Bexar County, Texas

(TC# 2021CR5083)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
**GENERAL FUND RECEIPT (GFR) ACCOUNT GUIDE**

**Effective Fiscal 2021**

**Scenario 7 Non-Custodial Statement Collections: Seigniorage**

SFFAS No. 7, paragraph 305. “Seigniorage.—Seigniorage is the face value of newly minted coins less the cost of production (which includes the cost of metal, manufacturing, and transportation). It results from the sovereign power of the Government to directly create money and, although not an inflow of resources from the public, does increase the Government’s net position in the same manner as an inflow of resources. Because it is not demanded, earned, or donated, it is an other financing source rather than revenue. It should be recognized as an other financing source when coins are delivered to the Federal Reserve Banks in return for deposits.”

**Beginning Trial Balance**

**Year 2 1st Quarter**

Also Post:

**1st Quarter Preclosing Trial Balance**

**Financial Statements Quarter 1 Year 2**

**Year 2 4th Quarter Entries**

Also Post:

**Year 2 Preclosing Trial Balance**

**Year 2 – Preclosing Adjusting Entries**

**Year 2 Preclosing Adjusted Trial Balance**

**Financial Statements**

**Reclassified Statements:**

**Closing Entries**

**Post-Closing Trial Balance**

                                                                                                                 Page **190** of **213                                                       IRC Handout July 16, 2020**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES M. FANARO : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

:

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY :

OF AMERICA : NO. 02-2772

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of December, 2002, upon

consideration of plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint to add

an insurance bad faith claim (Doc. #9), as a bad faith claim

under the Pennsylvania statute, 42 Pa. C.S. § 8371, is preempted

by ERISA, see Bell v. UnumProvident Corp., 222 F. Supp. 2d 692,

696-97 (E.D. Pa. 2002); Kirkhuff v. Lincoln Technical Inst.,

Inc., 221 F. Supp. 2d 572, 574-75 (E.D. Pa. 2002); 2002 WL

31015204 at *3-4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 6, 2002); Sprecher v. Aetna U.S.

Healthcare, Inc., 2002 WL 1917711, *7 (E.D. Pa Aug. 19, 2002);

Norris v. Continental Casualty Co., 2000 WL 877040, *1 (E.D. Pa.

June 28, 2000); and, as the proposed amendment would thus be

futile, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________

JAY C. WALDMAN, J.

Case 2:02-cv-02772-HH Document 11 Filed 12/10/2002 Page 1 of 1
----

Action brought on 21 April 2006 — Pimlott v Europol

(Case F-52/06)

(2006/C 190/64)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Mike Pimlott (Porchester, Hampshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: D.C. Coppens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, after having been first engaged by Europol on 1 January 2000 for a period initially fixed at four years, was employed from 1 January 2002 in a different position within the same bureau, under a new contract, which was to end on 31 December 2005.

In his action, the applicant challenges Europol's decision to renew that contract for two years only. He claims that, from the time he took up his new post under the new contract, Europol should have treated him not as a staff member to whom the authorities of his State of origin had granted unpaid special leave, but as a staff member who was no longer linked to those authorities. The distinction is relevant because, in the first case, the second indent of Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees, permitting renewal for a period of two years, is to be applied, while in the second case the third indent of that provision, permitting renewal for a period of four years, is to be applied.

The applicant submits that in 2002 he severed all ties with his original employer in the United Kingdom and that he was persuaded that the latter would amend the staff roll as a result. Even were it to be established that, in fact, the United Kingdom authorities did not remove him from that roll, the applicant claims that he himself should not in any event have to bear the consequences of that negligence.

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC. : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 :

NORFAB CORPORATION : NO. 05-4836

ORDER

AND NOW, this 25 day of June, 2008, after a telephone

conference with counsel, it is hereby ORDERED that the joint

motion of the parties for vacatur of the August 29, 2007 Order

invalidating U.S. Patent No. 6,624,096 for obviousness is DENIED. 

See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18

(1994).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Harvey Bartle III 

 C.J.

Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 115 Filed 06/25/08 Page 1 of 1
Order entered February 10, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00011
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF S.Y., A CHILD On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12
- 1206
- X - 305



### O RDER
T he Reporter’s Record is overdue in this parental termination case. In her notice of appeal, Mother states she is presumed indigent. Accordingly, we ORDER Pamela Sumler, Official Court Reporter for the 305 th Judicial District Court, to file, withi n TEN DAYS , either (1) the reporter’s record; (2) written verification that appellant has not requested the record; or (3) written verification that a contest to the affidavit of indigency has been filed and sustained. Because this is a parental terminati on case, we remind both the trial court and Ms. Sumler that it is the responsibility of the Court Reporter to prepare, certify, and timely file the reporter’s record and that the trial court must direct Ms. Sumler to immediately commence the preparation of the reporter’s record. The trial court must arrange a substitute reporter if necessary. T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 28.4(b)(1). We notify appellant that i f we receive verification that no request for the record has been made , or that appellant, if not indigent, has not paid for the record, the appeal will be submittedwithout the reporter’s record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(c). Appellant’s brief will be due

TWENTY DAYS after the reporter’s record is filed or we receive notice that no request or no payment for the r ecord has been made.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the following persons:
Honorable Cheryl C. Lee

- Shannon Presiding Judge of the 305 th Judicial District Court Pamela Sumler Official Court Rep orter, 305 th Judicial District Court

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Supreme Court

Coves Darden, LLC, Petitioner,

v.

Francisco Jose Garcia Ibañez, Dori Derr, and Half Moon 

Stables, LLC, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2016-002542

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal from Aiken County

Doyet A. Early III, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2019-MO-015

Heard February 20, 2019 – Filed March 20, 2019

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY 

GRANTED

M. Baron Stanton, of Stanton Law Offices, P.A., of 

Columbia, for Petitioner.

Thomas Roy Young Jr., of the Law Offices of Tom Young 

Jr., PC, of Aiken, for Respondents. 
PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' 

decision in Coves Darden, LLC v. Ibañez, Op. No. 2016-UP-402 (S.C. Ct. App. filed 

Aug. 17, 2016). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, JAMES, JJ., and Acting Justice D. 

Garrison Hill, concur.
----

Corrigendum to the budget for Europol for 2007

(Official Journal of the European Union C 180 of 2 August 2006)

(2006/C 202/11)

On page 6, in the line ‘TOTAL REVENUE, PART C’, in the column ‘Outturn 2005 (EUR)’:

for:

‘2 314 2005’,

read:

‘2 314 200’.

On pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 the heading of the third column of the table:

for:

‘Outturn 2005

(EUR)’,

read:

‘Draft outturn 2005

(EUR)’.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3919 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3919

  To render State or local governments with certain bail and pretrial 
 detention policies ineligible to receive funds under the Edward Byrne 
               Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2024

 Mrs. Blackburn (for herself and Mr. Cramer) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To render State or local governments with certain bail and pretrial 
 detention policies ineligible to receive funds under the Edward Byrne 
               Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Keep Violent Criminals Off Our 
Streets Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON GRANTS FOR CERTAIN ENTITIES.

    Section 502 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10153) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
    ``(c) Ineligibility.--For the first fiscal year beginning after the 
date of enactment of the Keep Violent Criminals Off Our Streets Act for 
which a State or unit of local government requests a grant under this 
subpart (or requests a renewal or extension of such a grant), and each 
fiscal year thereafter, if the State or unit of local government has in 
effect a policy or law that prohibits the use of cash bail for all 
offenders or that does not employ pretrial detention practices for 
every violent offender, including every violent juvenile offender, the 
State of unit of local government may not be awarded a grant under this 
subpart (or a renewal or extension of such a grant).''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 58937.

protests 242975-K and 242957-K (New York).

#### Aero Sea Shipping Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in these cases, the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protests were therefore overruled.
Before the First Division,

January 31, 1945

No. 49985.

#### Petition 6327-R of Eastern Grocery Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The petition was dismissed.
Form of 8% Amended and Restated Demand Promissory Note



 Exhibit 4.13 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE 
  

			
	AMOUNT:	  	US$109,449
		
	DATE:	  	June 26, 2008

 This AMENDED AND RESTATED DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE (the “Note”) amends and
restates, in its entirety, the Demand Promissory Note executed on June 6, 2008, by ClearPoint Business Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) in favor of Michael D. Traina (the “Lender”) in the original principal
amount of $109,449 (One Hundred Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Nine U.S. Dollars) (the “Original Principal Amount”). 
 For value received, the Company promises to pay the Lender the Original Principal Amount on demand, with an interest rate of eight percent (8%) per annum – interest to be paid quarterly. The Company shall have the right to repay
this Note in shares of common stock of the Company, at a price of $             per share (the closing price of the Company’s shares on June 26, 2008). The Company waives
presentment, demand, notice of dishonour and protest or further notice of any kind and agrees that it shall remain liable in respect of this Note as if presentment, demand, notice of dishonour and protest had been duly made or given. 
  

			
	
	FULL VALUE RECEIVED:
	 CLEARPOINT BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	  

	 Name:
	 	  

	 Title:
	 	  

	
	ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED:
	
	  

	 Michael D. Traina
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KEMPIS SONGSTER : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 04-5916

:

JEFFREY A. BEARD, DAVID :

DIGUGLIELMO, THE DISTRICT :

ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA :

and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF :

PENNSYLVANIA :

ORDER

NOW, this 17th day of August, 2016, upon consideration of the petitioner’s Third

Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Document

No. 36), the respondents’ response, and upon remand by the Third Circuit Court of

Appeals, it is ORDERED that the petition is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:

1. The petition is GRANTED to the extent that it challenges the petitioner’s

mandatory sentence of life without parole in light of Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455

(2012);

2. The petitioner’s sentence in Commonwealth v. Songster, CP-51-CR1102961-1987, is VACATED;

3. The petitioner shall be resentenced within 120 days of the date of this Order;

4. The time limit within which the petitioner must be resentenced may be

extended upon a showing of reasonable cause.

 /s/Timothy J. Savage 

TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.

Case 2:04-cv-05916-TJS Document 64 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 1
1. We remind plaintiff's counsel that the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure have governed procedural matters in this Court since

1938.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES REEVES, III : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

VANESSA CARTER-MORAGNE et al. : NO. 02-4428

 ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of March, 2003, upon

consideration of plaintiff's stipulation to dismiss defendant

Imani Education Circle Charter School ("Imani"), which was

recently filed with the "Prothonotary" [sic] of this Court (which

has no such officer), and the Court finding that:

(a) Although Reeves's stipulation does not so specify,

it appears to dismiss defendant Imani pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a)1 but does not comply with the Rule 41(a)'s requirement

that, after the defendants have answered the complaint, a

stipulation of dismissal must be signed by all parties who have

appeared in the action;

(b) We therefore dismiss defendant Imani pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);

(c) Reeves has also reported that he would be amenable

to the Court's participation in reaching a settlement with

defendant Vanessa Carter-Moragne;

It is hereby ORDERED that:

(1) The Imani Education Circle Charter School is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as a defendant in this matter; and

Case 2:02-cv-04428-SD Document 16 Filed 03/14/2003 Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

October 17, 1947

No. 51961.

#### Fred’k Loeser & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 627991-G, etc. (New York).

*151Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.
IPAC Operational Metrics for February 2024

- Sheet1
* 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

February 13, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-11462

Conference Calendar

CLINTON CODY BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RONALD R. LACY, Dr.; SHARON WOOLERY,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CV-46

--------------------

Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clinton Cody Brown, Texas prisoner # 775240, appeals the

district court’s judgment entered in favor of the defendants

following a jury trial of Brown’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Brown

alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical needs by causing him to be exposed to and to

contract tuberculosis from a fellow inmate. 

On appeal, Brown contends that (1) the district court erred

in refusing to permit him to read into the record, during crossexamination of defense experts, medical pamphlets and treatises

and (2) the defense experts committed fraud and misrepresentation
No. 05-11462

-2-

by testifying falsely regarding the relationship between

tuberculosis and Mycobacterium Avium Complex, an avian disease. 

Brown has not provided a transcript of the trial or any pretrial

hearing. The absence of transcripts prevents us from reviewing

Brown’s arguments concerning matters or rulings that occurred at

transcribed proceedings. See Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414,

416 (5th Cir. 1990).

APPEAL DISMISSED.
Jul 29 2010

Mr. James G. Stephenson

President Aero Sports Connection

231 SW Bonanza Glen Lake City, FL 32025

Dear Mr. Stephenson:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from Order 8130.2F. It explains why we cannot pr ocess your request, gives you some important information about how we have handled similar requests, and tells you what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your June 8, 2010, exemption request for Aero Sports Connection (ASC) into the public Docket No. FAA-2010-0635, but we are unabl e to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) § 11.81. For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

1. 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;

2. The reasons granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole;

3. The reasons 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 (e.g. ASC’s proposed manufacturing and/or maintenance standards, and the specifics of ASC’s proposal regarding the pilot qualifications, jump guidelines, and etc.); and

4. Any more information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

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

consideration.

If you have any questions or need more time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

John W. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
The document you are trying to load requires Adobe Reader 8 or higher. You may not have the 

Adobe Reader installed or your viewing environment may not be properly configured to use 

Adobe Reader. 

 

For information on how to install Adobe Reader and configure your viewing environment please 

see http://www.adobe.com/go/pdf_forms_configure.