alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016222EN.01001801.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2016 — Aranynektár v EUIPO — Naturval Apícola (Natür-bal)

(Case T-503/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Natür-bal - Earlier EU word mark NATURVAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 222/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aranynektár Termékgyártó és Kereskedelmi KFT (Dunavarsány, Hungary) (represented by: I. Molnár, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Naturval Apícola, SL (Monserrat, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, D. Gabarre Armengol, G. Hinarejos Mulliez, E. Bayo de Gispert and J. Rodriguez Fuensalida, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2015 (Case R 1158/2014-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Naturval Apícola and Aranynektár Termékgyártó és Kereskedelmi

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Aranynektár Termékgyártó és Kereskedelmi KFT to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aranynektár Termékgyártó és Kereskedelmi KFT to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D 18

- 4638

_____________________________

W ILLIAM D OUGLAS B URGIN J R

,

Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA

,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. John F. Simon , Judge

.

August 14, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.

We agree with appointed counsel that the record contains no

reversible error and affirm Mr. Burgin’s judgment and sentence

. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

. We write only to correct

a scrivener’s error on the written judgment and senten ce. See

As hley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 n.3 (Fla. 2003) (defining a

scrivener’s error as a written clerical error that is not “the result of a judicial determination or error ”). After revoking Mr. Burgin’s probation, the trial court orally imposed $100 for th e cost of prosecution and $150 for the cost of the public defender. However, the written judgment and sentence entered after his violation of probation does not include these costs. On remand, the trial court

shall correct these errors. See Skinner v. Stat e , 155 So. 3d 497, 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (remanding for correction of scrivener’s error2 in the order on fines and costs in an Anders appeal); Rivera v.
State , 117 So. 3d 449

- 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (remanding for

correction of the written sentence to reflect the oral pronouncement).

Judgment A FFIRMED and cause R EMANDED for correction of

scrivener’s errors

.

R AY

, C.J., and K ELSEY and W INOKUR

, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or

9.331

.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee

, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee

, for Appellee.
No. 40401.

#### Protest 968377-G of Moller Products Corp. (New York).

*537Opinion by

Hínchelos, J.

On the authority of *Perseverance Import Corp.*v. *United States*(T. D. 49290) the protest was sustained.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ELOY MASCORRO,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, THE SAN DIEGO 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE SAN DIEGO CHIEF 

OF POLICE, OFFICERS 1-4,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2024-1497

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of California in No. 3:21-cv-01725-RSHDDL, Judge Robert S. Huie.

______________________

Before CHEN, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Eloy Mascorro appeals from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of California’s dismissal of 

his civil rights action against the listed defendants. In response to the court’s March 14, 2024 order to show cause, 

Mr. Mascorro urges transfer to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

Case: 24-1497 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 04/11/2024
2 MASCORRO v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of federal district 

courts generally extends only to cases arising under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review 

to the district court from the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, see § 1295(a)(4)(C); or cases involving 

certain damages claims against the United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1). This case is outside of that limited subject matter jurisdiction. We may 

transfer to another court, if it is in the interest of justice, 

where “the action or appeal could have been brought at the 

time it was filed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Here, the court concludes it appropriate to transfer to the Ninth Circuit. 28 

U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The appeal and all its filings are transferred to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 

April 11, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

Case: 24-1497 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 04/11/2024
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**







TWL
      CORPORATION





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 Quarterly Report of TWL Corporation (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis J. Cagan,
      Chief
      Executive 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, to
      the
      best of my knowledge:





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






Date November
                14,
                2007
            /s/ *Dennis
              J. Cagan*Dennis
              J. CaganChief
              Executive Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      TWL Corporation and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 23895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8304]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Area 6 Committee 
(Including the States of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, 
North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 6 Committee of the Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel (TAP) is soliciting public comments, ideas, and 
suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue 
Service. The TAP will use citizen input to make recommendations to the 
Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, May 24, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Coffman at 1-888-912-1227, or 
(206) 220-6096.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Area 6 Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel will be held Thursday, May 24, 2007 from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. 
Pacific Time via a telephone conference call. The public is invited to 
make oral comments. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. 
Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate 
in the telephone conference call meeting must be made to Dave Coffman. 
Mr. Coffman can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or (206) 220-6096. If you 
would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call or 
write to Dave Coffman, TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, 
WA 98174, or you can contact us at http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: April 24, 2007.
John Fay,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
 [FR Doc. E7-8304 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
November 15, 1967

No. 67-14.

#### William H. Maxwell, III, PVT, U. S. Army.

ORDERED that said Application be, and the same is, hereby dismissed without prejudice to reinstate said Application when pertinent data necessary for an intelligent determination of the issue is obtained.
### Quality of surface waters for irrigation, Western states, 1963

By: S. K. Love

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1952

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.138


                      TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     THIS TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, made this 7th day of October,
1999, by and between PPD Development, Inc. ("PPD"), and Joshua S. Baker
("Employee").

     WHEREAS, PPD and Employee entered into that certain employment agreement
dated October 1, 1997 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, the parties desire to terminate the Employment Agreement pursuant
to the terms and conditions more specifically set forth herein.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and
considerations contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as
follows:

     1.   Termination of Employment Agreement. The Employment Agreement shall be
          ------------------------------------
deemed terminated as of the close of business on October 7, 1999 (the
"Termination Date").

     2.   Rights and Obligations.
          ----------------------

          a.  Neither party hereto shall have any further rights or obligations
under the Employment Agreement, except (a) such rights and obligations as shall
have accrued prior to the Termination Date, and (b) such rights and obligations
which by the terms of the Employment Agreement survive the Termination date.

          b.  Notwithstanding anything in Section 2.a. or in the 1999 PPD
Employee Bonus Plan (the "Plan") to the contrary, Employee shall be paid such
bonus under the Plan for fiscal year 1999 as he would have been entitled to
receive as if he were employed by PPD on the date all other bonuses are paid
under the Plan, except that the amount of Employee's bonus paid to him shall be
prorated based on the Termination Date.

     3.   Miscellaneous.
          -------------

          a.  This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and may not be altered or
amended except by writing signed by the parties.

          b.  This agreement shall be governed by the laws of State of North
Carolina.
<PAGE>

          c.   This agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon
PPD, its successors and assigns, and Employee, his heirs, successors, assigns
and personal representatives.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed
as of the date first hereinabove set forth.


PPD DEVELOPMENT, INC.


By:    /s/ Fredric N. Eshelman
       -----------------------
Name:  Fredric N. Eshelman
Title: Chief Executive Officer



    /s/ Joshua S. Baker         (SEAL)
------------------------------
Joshua S. Baker

                                       2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

AHMAD DASTJERDI,

Appellant,

v.

SIAVASH AMANISH,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-2289

[September 6, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Edward A. Garrison, Acting Circuit Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502003CA01277XXXXMB.

Alan P. Dagen of The Law Offices of Alan Dagen, P.A., Weston, for 

appellant.

Aram Caldarera Bloom of Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman & Hermann, P.A., 

Boca Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2016410EN.01003601.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/36

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

(Case T-709/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 410/62)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

1

---
Before the First Division,

July 26, 1938

No. 39090.

#### Protest 813029-G/84227 of Ernest E. Marks Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of lavender flowers similar to those involved in Abstract 36963. The claim for free entry under paragraph 1722 was therefore sustained.
No. 54286.

#### Leroux & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 130018-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the quantity subject to the assessment of internal revenue taxes and the quantity withdrawn from warehouse amounted to 14,976.1 proof gallons of brandy rather than 15,677.9 proof gallons. It was further stipulated that the merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155). Following the decision cited the collector was directed to reliquidate the entry and refund all duties taken upon quantities in excess of the quantities upon which internal revenue taxes were finally assessed, and it was held that internal revenue taxes should have been assessed at the appropriate rate upon 14,976.1 gallons, the quantity withdrawn from warehouse.
No. 47583.

#### Protest 989463-G of Schenley Import Corp.

Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. MI S AE L MANJ AR R E Z - F E L I X, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 12- 10484 D . C. N o . 4 : 1 0 - c r - 0 2 6 9 5 - D CB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona D a vi d C . B ury , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r24, 2013 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , N . R . S M IT H , an dC H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M i s a e l M a nj a rr e z - F e l i x appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nta nd c h a lle n g e s th e f

o u r - m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e dup o n r e v o c a tio n o f s up e rv is e dr e le a s e . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. M a n ja rr e z - F e lix c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e db yo r d e r in g h is 

# FI LED OC T 02 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 10484 2 r e v o c a t i o n s e n t e n c e t o ru n c o n s e c u t i v e l yt o h i s s e n t e n c e f o ri l l e g a l r e e n try . He ar gu es thatU . S . S . G . § 5 D 1. 1(c) cr ea t es a pre sum pt i on thatthe courti m po se a concurrentse nt ence w hen a depo rt abl e a l i en i s s ent ence d for vi ol at i ng supervi se d r e l e a s e . W e di s a gr e e . S e c t i on 5D 1. 1( c ) c onc e rns the i m pos i t i on of at e rm of s up e rv is e dr e le a s e , n o t th e s e n te n c e to b e im p o s e dup o n r e v o c a tio n . See U. S . S . G. § 5 D 1. 1(c) (201 1). C on traryt o M anj arre z- F el i x’ s argum ent , the G ui del i nes reco m m en dth atth e co u rti m p o se a co n secu t i v e sen t en ce fo r a sup erv i sedrel ease v io la tio n . See U .S .S .G . § 7 B 1 .3 ( f ) . M a n ja rr e z - F e lix n e x t c o n te n d s th a t h is s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n r e a s o n ab le b e c au s e it c r e a te s u n w a rr a n te ds e n te n c in g d is p a r itie s . C o n tr a ryto h is c l a i m , M a nj a rr e z - F e l i x i s nots i m i l a r l ys i tua t e d t o de f e nda nt s w ho a r e nots e rvi ng te rm s o f s up e rv is e dr e le a s e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in im p o s in g M a n

ja rr e z - F e lix ’s s e n te n c e . See G al l v. U ni ted States , 552 U . S . 38, 51 (200 7). In l i gh tof the t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s and the 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(e) s e n te n c in g f

a c to r s , th e c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le . Se e id . AF F I RME D.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30415

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WALTER O’SHEA CURRY, also known as Shay,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:09-CR-279-5

Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Walter O’Shea 

Curry has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Curry has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* 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

December 17, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-30415 Document: 00512473740 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
No. 13-30415

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-30415 Document: 00512473740 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
# C_2015294EN.01008401.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/84

---

Action brought on 1 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-95/15)

(2015/C 294/102)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the final decision on the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions of 3 March 2011 for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | declare illegal Article 9 of the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare illegal Article 9 of the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | annul the decision of 6 November 2014 confirming the transfer of the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to entering the service under the general implementing provisions of 3 March 2011 for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 6 November 2014 confirming the transfer of the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to entering the service under the general implementing provisions of 3 March 2011 for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---