alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-12-00235-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

RICKEY JOE FRANKS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 36th District Court

of Aransas County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Rickey Joe Franks, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion to 

withdraw his appeal because he no longer desires to prosecute it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to withdraw the 

appeal and pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), dismiss the appeal. 
2

Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be 

entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

17th day of May, 2012.
# C_2012227EN.01002601.xml

| 28.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/26

---

Action brought on 29 May 2012 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — LĺDL MUSIC (LIDL)

(Case T-226/12)

2012/C 227/44

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Schaeffer, M. Wolter and A. Marx, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LĺDL MUSIC, spol. s r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 21 March 2012 (R 2380/2010-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 21 March 2012 (R 2380/2010-1);

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘LIDL’ for goods in class 15 — Community trade mark application No 6 861 025

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark and community word mark ‘LÍDL MUSIC’ for goods in class 15

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 15(1) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) and (4) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 15(1) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) and (4) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95;

| — | Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

---
No. 40570.

#### Protest 874729-G of Horni Signal Mfg. Co., Inc.

Abstract 40039. Application by Government for rehearing denied.
August 1, 1945

No. 6202.

#### *G. R. Kirk*v. *United States.*

Entered at Rouses Point, N. Y. Reap. Dec. 6172 *(C. J. Tower & Sons et al.*v. *United States,*Reappraisement 143793-A, etc.). Motion by plaintiff.
Case No. 6,985.

#### In re HYMAN et al.

[18 N. B. R. 299.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

July 2, 1878.

Bankruptcy — Resolution op Composition— What Provisions are Binding.

1. A provision of a resolution of composition to the effect that upon the delivery of the composition notes all the property in the hands of a voluntary assignee of the bankrupts shall be delivered to them and the assignee discharged from responsibility is wholly nugatory so far as it purports to affect the assignee’s responsibility, or the rights of creditors under the assignment, otherwise than as the confirmation of the composition and release of the creditor’s claims by payment of the composition may necessarily affect them.

2. Confirmation of the resolution of composition does not give the assent of the court to what such provision vainly attempts to affect.

3. Confirmation of a resolution containing a provision that the proceedings in bankruptcy may be discontinued at any time after delivery of the notes does not bind the court to allow such discontinuance, unless sufficient grounds therefor are shown to exist when the application is made.

[In bankruptcy. In the matter of Solomon Hyman and Moses S. Hyman.]

B. F. Foster and Otto Horwitz, for motion.

Edward T. Bartlett, contra.

1

 [Reprinted by permission.]

CHOATE, District Judge.

Motion to confirm composition. I do not feel at liberty to reverse the decision of the great majority of the creditors in this case — that the composition is for the best interests of creditors— on any of the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the opposing creditors. The fifth resolution is objected to, which provides that upon the delivery of the composition notes all the property of the debtors which is or has been in the hands of the voluntary as-signee of the debtors shall be delivered to the bankrupts, and the said assignee discharged from all responsibility under his office as assignee. This resolution is wholly nugatory so far as it purports to affect the responsibility of the voluntary assignee, or the rights of creditors under the trusts of that assignment, by the proceedings in this court otherwise than as the confirmation of *1136the composition, and the release of the claims of creditors by payment of the composition may necessarily affect them. But this resolution is not a substantive part of the proposal of composition which the creditors have accepted, and the confirmation of the resolutions does not give the assent of this court to what the fifth resolution vainly attempts to affect. So the sixth resolution, which provides that any time after the delivery of the notes the proceedings in bankruptcy may be discontinued, does not, if the resolutions are confirmed, bind the court to allow such discontinuance, unless, when the same is applied for, sufficient grounds there--, for shall be shown to exist. Composition ¡ confirmed.
##### 



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 Nortel
Networks Limited, a Canadian corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers
knowledge, that: The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the Form 10-Q) 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-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: January 31, 2005
    /s/ WILLIAM A. OWENSWilliam A. OwensPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDated: January 31, 2005
    /s/ WILLIAM R. KERRWilliam R. KerrChief Financial Officer
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1958 

AN ACT 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program until May 

31, 2012. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 1958 ES

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSUR2 ANCE PROGRAM. 

3 (a) PROGRAM EXTENSION.—Section 1319 of the Na4 tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2011’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘May 31, 2012’’. 

7 (b) FINANCING.—Section 1309(a) of the National 

8 Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is 

9 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2011’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘May 31, 2012’’. 

11 (c) REPEAL.—The Continuing Appropriations Act, 

12 2012 (Public Law 112–36; 125 Stat. 386) is amended by 

13 striking section 130. 

Passed the Senate December 7, 2011. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1958 

AN ACT 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program 

until May 31, 2012.
Federal Aviation ECi AD – Additional Administration

failures reported by 

RAM Aircraft
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Aero Center
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Bismark Air 

Medical
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Ahler Aviation
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Avolar Corp
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Business 

Aviation
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

SATsAIR LLC
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Van Air Aviation
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Athens 

Turboprop
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

National Aviation
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

El Paso Jet
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Pickett Industries
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Star Aviation
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Aviation Parts
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

McCreey Aviation
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

El Paso Jet
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Rushing Aviation
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Salem Air Center
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Ahlers Aviation
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

JS Aircraft 

Leasing
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Mather Aviation
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Henry Aviation
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Colgan Air 

Service
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Oneill Aircraft
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Peter Serodino
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

THI
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Broom Air 

Maintenance
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Tri City Aviation
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Best Storage Inc
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

JS Aircraft 

Leasing
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Air Power
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Air Tech Inc
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Jay Aircraft 

Maintenance
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Bromma Air 

Maintenance
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Executive Air Taxi
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Executive Air Taxi
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Quality Aircraft 

Services
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Midlantic Jet 

Aviatoin
Federal Aviation

Administration

Additional Failures

Butler Aviation
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

NICHOLAS MICHAEL TATE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 338 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of October, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
## CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

Page - 1 I. GENERAL
District: Monterey Bay Unified APCD Date Adopted: 4/20/05
Rule No: Rule 902 Regulation Title: District ’ s Request for Information Date Submitted To ARB: 2/23/05 Date Last Amended or Revised: 3/8/84 Pollutants Regulated By This Rule (Check): NOx SO2 PM10 VOC

_ TAC (Name of TAC)
Is this rule intended to be sent to the EPA as a SIP revision ? X Yes No. SUMMARY OF RULE CHANGES: New rule ? Amended rule Rule Repealed.

II. NET EFFECT ON EMISSIONS Increase Decrease X No change N/A Emissions reduction commitment in SIP for this source category: 0.0 tons/year SCC/CES Code(s) Affected: na Affected SIC Code(s): na Inventory Year to Calculate Changes in Emissions: na Affected Area:
Future Year Control Profile Estimate ( VOC emissions): N/A Tons/Year Baseline Reductions Tons/year Control Percent Control Control Year (increases) Subject to Rule Level Control Level Factor

N/A / = * 100 = % 1.00 - =

/ = * 100 = % 1.00 - = / = * 100 = % 1.00 - =

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS District is: Attainment Nonattainment X Split Approximate number of minor (<100 TPY) sources controlled by rule: na

. Percent in nonattainment area: na

. Number of major ( ? 100 TPY) sources controlled: NONE

. Percent in nonattainment area: 0%

## CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

Page - 2 Location of Major Sources by City: N/A

IV. EMISSIONS REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY N/A
Does rule include emission limits that are continuous? Yes; X No. If yes, those limits are in Section(s) N/A of the rule. Other methods in the rule for achieving emissions reductions are:

V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS The rule contains: 1) Emission limits in Section(s) N/A

. 2) Work practice standards in Section(s) na

. 3) Record keeping requirements in Section(s) na

. 4) Reporting requirements in Section(s) na

.

VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN X No Impact Impacts RFP Impacts Attainment DISCUSSION:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Partners XII 1998 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000720392
<NAME> ANGELES PARTNERS XII
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,611
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,985
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         102,413
<DEPRECIATION>                                (65,275)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         71,351
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (25,949)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,543
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,411
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,089
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,414
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (684)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (15.14)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registran has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

December 7, 1942

No. 47774.

#### Protests 580288-G, etc., of Bernard Krulwich & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the hats in question consist of “8-Bu. paper hats,” known as harvest hats, the same as those the subject of *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), the claim at only 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) was sustained.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA leaders sign 2021 SAAPM proclamation

By DLA Public Affairs

                FORT BELVOIR, Va.  –              
Defense Logistics Agency Vice Director Brad Bunn, along with DLA Director Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic and Army Command Sgt. Maj. Tomeka O’Neal signed the 2021 Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month Proclamation (a Common Access Card is required to view this link) at the McNamara Headquarters Complex April 6.The proclamation upholds DLA leaders’ commitment to the prevention of all sexual misconduct.Help is always available to employees via the DLA SAPR resource website.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

SAPR awarenessSAAPMSAAPM ProclamationSAPRSexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20071]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 910]


Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 38; Spartanburg County, South 
Carolina

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, an application from the South Carolina State Ports 
Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 38, Spartanburg County, South 
Carolina, for authority to expand FTZ 38 to include an additional site 
at Wingo Corporate Park in Spartanburg County, South Carolina, was 
filed by the Board on August 21, 1996 (FTZ Docket 65-96, 61 FR 45400, 
8/29/96);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in Federal 
Register and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act 
and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to expand FTZ 38 is approved, subject to the Act 
and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of July 1997.
Jeffrey P. Bialos,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    Attest:
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20071 Filed 7-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Before the Third Division,

April 28, 1943

No. 48243.

#### Protest 61498-K of Atlantic Coast Fisheries Corporation (Boston).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the frozen frogs’ legs in question are the same in all material respects as those the *446subject of *Pacific Trading Co.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 221, C. D. 610) the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1558 was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 9895)

#### National & Transcontinental Trading Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 935719.

(Decided January 6, 1961)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawkenoe, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeal for a reap-praisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff.

*560An examination of the official record discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by said appeal to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.