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

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

In re Guardianship of Virginia Ganter,

an incapacitated person.

JONATHAN GANTER

,

Appellant,

v.

ERIC GANTER and JACK GANTER, as co

- guardians

of Virginia Ganter, an incapacitated person

,

Appellee s

.

No. 2D 20 23

- 0 447

May 1 , 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Vivian T. Corvo

, Judge.

Janelle A. Weber of Manta Law, Tampa, for Appellant.

Pedro W. Rodriguez of Pedro W. Rodriguez, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA

, SILBERMAN, and LaROSE

, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 117 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 9, 2007 

Received and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 400th Anniversary of the settlement 

of Jamestown. 

Whereas the founding of the colony at Jamestown, Virginia, 

in 1607, the first permanent English colony in America, 

and the capital of Virginia for 92 years, has major significance in the history of the United States; 

Whereas the Jamestown Settlement owed its survival in large 

measure to the compassion and aid of the Native people 

in its vicinity; 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

HCON 117 RFS 

Whereas Native Virginia people substantially aided the 

Jamestown colonists with food and supplies at times that 

were crucial to their survival; 

Whereas the Native people served as guides to geography and 

natural resources, crucial assistance in the Virginia colonists’ exploration of the Chesapeake Region; 

Whereas the Jamestown Settlement brought people from 

throughout the Atlantic Basin together to form a society 

that drew upon the strengths and characteristics of 

English, European, African, and Native American cultures; 

Whereas the economic, political, religious, and social institutions that developed during the first 9 decades of the existence of Jamestown continue to have profound effects 

on the United States, particularly in English common law 

and language, cross cultural relationships, manufacturing, and economic structure and status; 

Whereas the National Park Service, the Association for the 

Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, and the JamestownYorktown Foundation of the Commonwealth of Virginia 

collectively own and operate significant resources related 

to the early history of Jamestown; 

Whereas, in 2000, Congress established the Jamestown 400th 

Commemoration Commission to ensure a suitable national observance of the Jamestown 2007 anniversary, 

and Congress commends the Commission’s hard work 

and dedication; 

Whereas Congress reminds all Americans of the importance 

of their country’s history and founding at Jamestown; 

and 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
3 

HCON 117 RFS 

Whereas the 2007 observance of the founding of Jamestown 

commemorates the 400th anniversary of the first permanent English colony in America: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress commemorates the 400th An3 niversary of the founding of the colony Jamestown in 1607 

4 and urges all Americans to honor this seminal event in 

5 our Nation’s history. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 8, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
# C_2015138EN.01002401.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/24

---

Request for an opinion submitted by the European Parliament pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

(Opinion 1/15)

(2015/C 138/32)

Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

Applicant

European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and D. Moore, Agents)

Questions submitted to the Court

Questions submitted to the Court

| — | Is the envisaged agreement (1) compatible with the provisions of the Treaties (Article 16 TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 7, 8 and Article 52(1)) as regards the right of individuals to protection of personal data? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is the envisaged agreement (1) compatible with the provisions of the Treaties (Article 16 TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 7, 8 and Article 52(1)) as regards the right of individuals to protection of personal data?

1

| — | Do Articles 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a) TFEU constitute the appropriate legal basis for the act of the Council concluding the envisaged agreement or must that act be based on Article 16 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

—

Do Articles 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a) TFEU constitute the appropriate legal basis for the act of the Council concluding the envisaged agreement or must that act be based on Article 16 TFEU?

---

(1)  Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data.

1

---
Exhibit 32

Certification

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)

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), each of the undersigned officers of Liberty Expedia Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2017 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                                 |   |                                                        |
|--------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |   |                                                        |
| Dated:  February 14,  2018 |   | /s/ CHRISTOPHER W. SHEAN                               |
|                                 |   | Christopher W. Shean

President and Chief Executive Officer |
| Dated:  February 14, 2018       |   | /s/ WADE HAUFSCHILD                                    |
|                                 |   | Wade Haufschild

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 Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.

 

			 		

----
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------


                         CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
                                     OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Unico American
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Erwin Cheldin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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



                    /s/  Erwin Cheldin
                    ------------------
           Name:    Erwin Cheldin
           Title:   Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
           Date:    August 14, 2002




This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
No. 48092.

#### Protests 58779-K, etc., of American Express Co. et al. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the plasticine the subject of Abstract 47147 the claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was sustained.
No. 43094.

#### Protests 983931-G, etc., of Danbury & Bethel Fur Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

Merchandise classified as dyed fur skins and stipulated to be waste similar to that the subject of Abstract 41389 was held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1555 as claimed.
No. 49400.

#### Protests 72941-K, etc., of Yardley & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
# C_2017256EN.01002001.xml

| 7.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Flamagas v EUIPO — MatMind (CLIPPER)

(Case T-580/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a lighter with a lateral fin, featuring the word element CLIPPER - Shape necessary to obtain a technical result - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No description of the mark in the application for registration))

(2017/C 256/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Flamagas, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, G. Hinarejos Mulliez and D. Gabarre Armengol, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being: MatMind Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipriani and M. Cavattoni, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2015 (Case R 924/2013-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between MatMind and Flamagas.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Flamagas, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Flamagas, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

1

---
#### Universal Manufacturers Alliance, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7429.

Invoice dated London, England, May 1943.

Certified May 1943.

Entered at New York, N Y., July 1, 1943.

Entry No. 732216.

(Decided November 3, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was the entered value.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<LEGEND>

THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  BALANCE  SHEET AND  STATEMENT OF  OPERATIONS  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO.

</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>             1,000

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                     Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                                     465
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             1364
<ALLOWANCES>                                               140
<INVENTORY>                                               1241
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          3237
<PP&E>                                                     923
<DEPRECIATION>                                             730
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            3932
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      899
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                  3160
<OTHER-SE>                                                   0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              3932
<SALES>                                                   2185
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          2185
<CGS>                                                      825
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              825
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          1182
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          (2)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            180
<INCOME-TAX>                                                56
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        124
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                               124
<EPS-BASIC>                                               0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0.01


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ELIEZER ALMANZAR,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 130 MM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of November

, 2016, the Petition for Leave to File

Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED

. Although counsel was negligent,

Petitioner is entitled to a counsel

- filed P etition for Allowance of Appeal. See

Pa.R.Crim.P. 122(B). Counsel is DIRECTED to file the already

- prepared P etition for

Allowance of Appeal within 5 days.
No. 46348.

#### Protests 990357-G, etc., of Quon Quon Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles in question are the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 45722 they were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
# C_2017374EN.01002801.xml

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Jordi Nogues v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)

(Case T-386/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BADTORO - Earlier EU figurative and word marks TORO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative procedure - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2017/C 374/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jordi Nogues, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. J. Sanmartín Sanmartín and E. López Parés, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J. M. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

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 Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 April 2015 (Case R 2570/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Grupo Osborne and Jordi Nogues.

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 17 April 2013 (R 2570/2013-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 April 2013 (R 2570/2013-2);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Jordi Nogues, SL; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Jordi Nogues, SL;

| 3. | Orders Grupo Osborne, SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Grupo Osborne, SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

1

---
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

RECO Rishad Engineering Construction ORG 

Under Contract No. W91B4M-07-C-7228 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ASBCA No. 60156 

Mr. Burhan Jan 

CEO & President 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Julie A. Glascott, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The government has moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, alleging 

that appellant had not submitted a claim to the contracting officer. Appellant has 

indicated that it does not oppose the government's motion. 

Accordingly this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the contractor's 

submittal of a claim to the contracting officer. 

Dated: 2 February 2016 

~--

MARKN:STEMPLER 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60156, Appeal ofRECO Rishad 

Engineering Construction ORG, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
# C_2016314EN.01000701.xml

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Thomas Philipps GmbH & Co. KG v Grüne Welle Vertriebs GmbH

(Case C-419/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Community designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 32 and 33 - Licence - Register of Community designs - Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement notwithstanding the fact that the licence has not been entered in the register - Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement in order to obtain damages for its own loss))

(2016/C 314/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Thomas Philipps GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant:

Defendant: Grüne Welle Vertriebs GmbH

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The first sentence of Article 33(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee may bring proceedings alleging infringement of a registered Community design which is the subject of the licence although that licence has not been entered in the register of Community designs. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first sentence of Article 33(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee may bring proceedings alleging infringement of a registered Community design which is the subject of the licence although that licence has not been entered in the register of Community designs.

| 2. | Article 32(3) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee can claim damages for its own loss in proceedings for infringement of a Community design brought by it in accordance with that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 32(3) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee can claim damages for its own loss in proceedings for infringement of a Community design brought by it in accordance with that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.

1

---
No. 55469.

#### American Meshed Fur Company v. United States,

protests 157690-K (B), etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Eicwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2016232EN.01002001.xml

| 27.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — CX v Commission

(Case T-496/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary measure - Downgrading - Rights of the defence - Articles 4 and 6 of the Staff Regulations - Article 9 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Principle of proportionality - Manifest error of assessment))

(2016/C 232/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: CX (Enghien, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2015, CX v Commission (F-27/13, EU:F:2015:60), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

CX

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders CX to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CX to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

1

---