alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020191EN.01002501.xml

| 8.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/25

---

Action brought on 20 March 2020 — Creaton South-East Europe v EUIPO — Henkel (CREATHERM)

(Case T-168/20)

(2020/C 191/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Creaton South-East Europe Kft. (Lenti, Hungary) (represented by: J. Muyldermans and P. Maeyaert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark CREATHERM — Application for registration No 17 481 011

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2020 in Case R 1090/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         June 26, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 21, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 452 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-185, CP2018-259.                

Elizabeth Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-13703 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Susan WORLEY v. Martin J. HEINEN, Jr., et al.

No. 53882.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1973.

In re: Martin J. Heinen, Jr., Diamond M. Drilling Co. and Argonaut Insurance Co., applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Mary. 280 So.2d 301.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error in the judgment complained of.
#### In the Matter of Jaquonna Frances L. and Others, Infants. Tawanya L., Appellant; Catholic Guardian Society, Respondent.

[735 NYS2d 773]

Orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Stewart Weinstein, J.), entered on or about April 9, 1997, which denied respondent’s motion to vacate her default at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings resulting in the termination of her parental rights to the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*297Inasmuch as the record contains the minutes of a traverse hearing held in connection with respondent’s motion to vacate her default for lack of jurisdiction, following which the court found that she failed to sustain her burden of proof that there was no service, her appellate argument that the court erred in failing to hold a traverse hearing is without merit. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Lemer, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of Hyperdynamics Corporation (Hyperdynamics), on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Ray Leonard, Chief Executive Officer of Hyperdynamics, does hereby certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350),
that to his knowledge:





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





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








Date: September 28, 2009








By:
/s/ Ray LeonardRay LeonardChief Executive Officer
### BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N WASHINGTON , D.C .
Agreement s Adopte d b yth e Traffi c Conference s o f th e Internationa l Ai r Transpor t Associatio n 

### OST-2011 - OO? /

APPLICATIO N FO R APPROVA L O F AGREEMENT S

B Y TH E INTERNATIONA L AI R TRANSPOR T ASSOCIATIO N lAT A AGREEMEN T APPROVE D & IMMUNIZE D A . DOCKE T OST-J:!;fi,._ajttL. ^ / r . : ' • \TE/' ^ ^^ / ^ ^ / / Thi s appro va' . nv. i :?,vrv. or^'itiirn:. ; iiv:r.. , • :ct , wher e applicable , tocondji'on s ! ) c>':r.;:;: v ;;v: ; OLJCI . Thi s ^.c'j.i. n; ; J:;";.:'i\i - li

i j i 7 dny s ii-ih:. : n/

::.'••" ! '; : iiic di;n(ie

r 14 Cl- k 38 3 J o ?ra,i..v.-rv. ' i s i.:rs;le:;^;,';; ; oi- 'i'. ; tJc,_::: . ••.;h!' s oiv nmotion I nview o l th e :;i/.-,oc;riirit'. s ncicontrcvcisir J lUaur o a;;i.i li; c availability o t the abov e prpetitiurs , th e 21-dii y perio din 14,Ci> R303.4 2 i s waived . Rv - ^ 7f^«- M /^ T/" ^ z.a^t y tor . Offic e o f

International Aviatio n 

### 5 Ma y201 1 Communication s wit h respec t t o thi s documen t shoul d b e sen t t o Dougla s E . Lavi n Regiona l Vic e Presiden t - Nort h Americ a Internationa l Ai rTranspor t Associatio n 177 6 K.St.N.W . #12 * Floo r Washingto n D C 2000 6
#### CORAL PLAZA CORPORATION v. HERSMAN.

No. 38632.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 220 So. 672.
#### Helene VAN DER BUSCH and William Parma d/b/a M. D. Investment Co., a partnership, Appellants, v. CONTROL PARTS CORPORATION, and Charles Hagstrom, as partner of and on behalf of Scheffmeyer & Co., a partnership, Appellees.

No. 71-453.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 14, 1972.

Patton, Kanner, Nadeau, Segal & Stobs. Miami, for appellants.

Kovner, Mannheimer, Greenfield & Cul ler, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ., and GROSSMAN, RHEA P., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment entered in a case where the parties agreed to combine for trial garnishment proceedings, interpleader proceedings, and proceedings supplemental to judgment. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found that the defendant Aerospace Electronics, Inc. had made a fraudulent transfer of its assets to its officers and directors, Helene Van der Busch and William Parma, for the purpose of evading payment of *183plaintiffs judgment. Final judgment was entered for the indebtedness, interest and costs.

The appellants now urge that (1) the court was without authority to enter the judgment and (2) the evidence does not support the finding of a fraudulent conveyance. In the light of the assignments of error which are only directed to the entry of final judgment, we have examined the record and find that error has not been demonstrated.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. James E. BERNARD v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 54091.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1973.

In re: James E. Bernard applying for remedial writs and writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The application alleges no proper ground- for granting the writ in this case.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 340 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 340

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
   investigations and studies by the Committee on Agriculture in the 
           second session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 1994

Mr. de la Garza submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
   investigations and studies by the Committee on Agriculture in the 
           second session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

    Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and studies by 
the Committee on Agriculture (hereinafter in this resolution referred 
to as the ``Committee''), including expenses for--
            (1) procurement of consultant services under section 202(i) 
        of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946; and
            (2) provision of assistance for members of professional 
        staff in obtaining specialized training under section 202(j) of 
        such Act;
there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House not more 
than $2,257,937.00.
    (b) Not more than $12,000,00 of the amount specified in subsection 
(a) may be used for consultant services referred to in paragraph (1) of 
such subsection and not more than $2,000.00 of such amount may be used 
for specialized training referred to in paragraph (2) of such 
subsection.
    Sec. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
authorized by the Committee, signed by the chairman of the Committee, 
and approved by the Committee on House Administration.
    Sec. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolution for 
investigations and studies carried out during the period beginning at 
noon on January 3, 1994, and ending immediately before noon on January 
3, 1995.
    Sec. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on 
House Administration.

                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION (302)**
I, Keith Wilt, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofGolf Host Resorts, Inc;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d–15(e)):
 a. Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter, secondquarter ended June 20, 2004, that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors:
 a. All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controlover financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.     Date: September 24, 2004 /s/ Keith Wilt
H. Res. 210

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

June 29, 1993.

Resolved, That all points of order against consideration

of the bill (H.R. 2492) making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said District

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other

purposes, for failure to comply with the provisions of clause

7 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill,

all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to

comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Theodore ZIGLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-630.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 21, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

February 9, 2024 SC-2023-0962 Ex parte Roderick Lee Williams PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re:Roderick Lee Williams v. State of Alabama) (Mobile Circuit Court: CC18-1411.60; Criminal Appeals: CR-2023-0533).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was entered in this cause on February 9, 2024: Writ Denied. No Opinion. Stewart, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Wise, Sellers, and Cook, JJ., concur. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000040656
<NAME>                        General Semiconductor, Inc.

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,831
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,793
<ALLOWANCES>                                       911
<INVENTORY>                                     47,120
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               150,392
<PP&E>                                         232,150
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 588,565
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,124
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           377
<OTHER-SE>                                     161,994
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   588,565
<SALES>                                        243,288
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               243,288
<CGS>                                          169,247
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  202,274
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     7
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,113
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,894
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,267
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,627
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,627
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 28 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 28

  Expressing the sense of the House that members of the United States 
 House of Representatives should be prohibited from an increase in the 
 rate of pay following a budget deficit in the preceding Congress, and 
should have their rate of pay reduced if the deficit is not effectively 
                   reduced by the preceding Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mr. Everett submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
 jointly to the Committees on House Administration and Post Office and 
                             Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the House that members of the United States 
 House of Representatives should be prohibited from an increase in the 
 rate of pay following a budget deficit in the preceding Congress, and 
should have their rate of pay reduced if the deficit is not effectively 
                   reduced by the preceding Congress.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States grants the legislative branch 
        power to tax and spend;
Whereas all appropriations bills originate in the House of Representatives;
Whereas the skyrocketing budget deficit jeopardizes the current and future 
        standard of living for millions of Americans;
Whereas American taxpayers are losing billions of dollars paying interest on the 
        debt alone;
Whereas those billions of dollars could go to those Americans that truly deserve 
        and need help;
Whereas the budget deficit is ignored by House Members whose fiscal 
        irresponsibility caused the shortfalls;
Whereas House members should receive compensation on a ``pay-per-performance'' 
        basis: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That members of the United States House of 
Representatives should be prohibited from an increase in the rate of 
pay following a budget deficit in the preceding Congress, and should 
have their rate of pay reduced if the deficit is not effectively 
reduced by the preceding Congress.

                                 <all>
```
#### Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Revenue, Appellant, *v.*West Penn Power Company, Appellee.

Argued January 6, 1975,

before President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt.

*Paul S. Roeder,*Assistant Attorney General, with bim *Laivrence J. Rosen,*Chief, Appeals Section, for appellant.

*Lloyd R. Persun,*With him *Howell C. Mette,*and *Shearer, Mette, Hoerner & Woodside,*for appellee.

*174March 27, 1975:

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

On March 27, 1974, the Board of Finance and Revenue, after considering West Penn Power Company’s (West Penn) petition for refund of sales tax collected between 1966 and 1969, ordered that the refund be granted in the amount of $5,370.98. On April 9 the Department of Revenue (Department) issued a credit memorandum to West Penn in that amount and accepted it as payment for sales and/or use tax liability of West Penn incurred during 1974. On May 24 the Department appealed the Board’s order to this Court and on August 30 West Penn filed a motion to quash the appeal.

West Penn contends that the Department, by extinguishing its liability and complying with the Board’s order, has rendered the appeal moot. In *WFIL Broadcasting Company v. Philadelphia,*358 Pa. 208, 56 A.2d 75 (1948) the City issued a property tax refund to the taxpayer after the lower court had ordered that the assessed value of the property be reduced. Our Supreme Court held that the City’s appeal from the lower court order was thus moot. We must reach the same result here.

We must emphasize, however, that the Department’s payment in this case appears to have been entirely voluntary, unlike the situation in *J. Purdy Cope Hotels Company v. Fidelity-Phenix Fire Insurance Co.,*126 Pa. Superior Ct. 260, 191 A.636 (1937) where the appellant’s payment of judgment followed execution on the lower court’s judgment.

We, therefore, issue the following

Order

Now, this 27th day of March, 1975, the appeal of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Revenue, from the order of the Board of Finance and Revenue dated March 27, 1974, is hereby quashed.