alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021044EN.01004802.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/48

---

Action brought on 11 September 2020 — Luna Italia v EUIPO — Luna (LUNA SPLENDIDA)

(Case T-571/20)

(2021/C 44/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Luna Italia Srl (Cantu, Italy) (represented by: N. Papakostas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Luna AE (Agios Stefanos, Greece)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark LUNA SPLENDIDA in colour gold — European Union trade mark No 16 308 108

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2020 in Case R 1895/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | consider the present application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

consider the present application admissible;

| — | annul the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision.

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.

---
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TRAVIS BELL
, §
APPELLANT § § NO. 02

- 17

- 00299

- CR V. § § THE STATE OF TEXAS, §

APPELLEE §

STATE'S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ITS BRIEF ON APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

The State requests that the Court grant a 30

- day extension of time for the filing
of the State’s brief in this case. The following allegations are made in support of this

motion:

- I -
The court below is the County Criminal Court No. 10 of Tarrant County,

Texas. The style and number of the case in the trial court is The State of Texas v.

Travis Bell, No. 1478469

.

- II -
Appellant was convic ted of a DWI misdemeanor offense and is not

incar cerated. ACCEPTED 02-17-00299-CR SECOND COURT OF APPEALS

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 5/25/2018 12:54 PM DEBRA SPISAK CLERK- III

- Appellant fil ed his brief on April 27
, 2018

.

- IV

- The current deadline for filing the St ate’s brief is May 29 , 2018

.

- V

-

The State has no extensions in thi s case. Two motion s for extension were
granted to Appellant.

- VI

- The submission date in this case is not set. Therefore, this requested extension
will not delay submission. Counsel has been tasked with a number of projects
following his release from the hospital and has been unable to complete this instant

brief for t hat reason.

- VII

- WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State of Texas prays that
this Court grant this State’s First Motion for Extension of Time to File its Brief on
Appeal and extend the time for filing of the Sta te’s brief to Thursday, June 28 ,
2018.
Respectfully submitted,

SHAREN WILSON Criminal District Attorney Tarrant County, Texas

2JOE SPENCE , Assistant Criminal District Attorney Chief, Post

- Conviction

/s/ David L. Richards DAVID L. RICHARDS, Assistant Criminal District Attorney State Bar No. 16845500 401 W. Belknap Fort Worth, Texas 76196

- 0201 (817) 884

- 2824 FAX (817) 884

- 1672 COAappellatealerts@tarrantcountytx.gov

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned spoke with a staff member for Dean Miyazono , counsel f or
Appellant, who stated that Mr. Miyazono does not oppose this extension.

/s/ David L. Richards DAVID L. RICHARDS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true copy of the State’s motion has been e

- served to opposing counsel, Hon.
Dean Miyazono, 1300 S. University Dr., Ste. 602, Fort Worth, Texas, 76107 , email:
ftwdwi@gmail.com
, this 25th day of May , 2018

.
/s/ David L. Ric hards DAVID L. RICHARDS

3
#### Donald DEJONG v. George PALLOTTO, Judge of the Municipal Court In and For the City of Hollywood, et al.

No. 38789.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Appeal dismissed without opinion.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

                            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 Annual Report of W.P. Stewart & Co., Ltd. (the "Company")
on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, 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
his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 2, 2007


/s/ William P. Stewart
-------------------------------------
William P. Stewart
Chief Executive Officer
EX-10.10.2





 Exhibit 10.10.2 

Execution Version 

NOTICE OF FACILITY REDUCTION 

December 28, 2020 
 Blackstone Holdings
Finance Co. L.L.C. 
 345 Park Avenue 
 New York, New York 10154

 Attn: Jeff Iverson 
 RE: Uncommitted Unsecured Line of
Credit Agreement, dated January 23, 2017 (as amended, amended and restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Line of Credit Agreement”), among Blackstone Holdings Finance Co. L.L.C., as lender
(the “Lender”), Blackstone Real Estate Income Trust, Inc., as borrower, and the other borrowers from time to time party thereto. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 The undersigned borrower
(the “Borrower”) hereby notifies the Lender that the Borrower is reducing the facility size in the amount of $50,000,000 (the “Facility Reduction”), decreasing the Line (as defined in the Line of
Credit Agreement) from $150,000,000 to $100,000,000, such Facility Reduction to be effective as of the date hereof. 
 [Remainder of Page
Intentionally Left Blank. 
 Signature Page(s) Follow.] 












 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed and delivered this Facility Extension
Request as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	BORROWER:
	
	BLACKSTONE REAL ESTATE INCOME 
	TRUST, INC., a Maryland corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Paul Quinlan

		 	Name: Paul Quinlan
		 	Title: Authorized Signatory















			
	ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED AS OF THE DATE FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN:
	
	BLACKSTONE HOLDINGS FINANCE CO. L.L.C.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Eric Liaw

		 	Name: Eric Liaw
		 	Title: Authorized Signatory
#### Johnny Lee BROOKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-448.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 21, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
259 La. 752

#### UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY v. DIXIE PARKING SERVICE, INC., d/b/a Eglin’s Parking Garage.

No. 51585.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 28, 1971.

In re: United States, Fidelity and Guaranty Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, City of New Orleans. 248 So.2d 377.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue ; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.

SUMMERS, J., dissents from the granting of writs.
255 La. 346

#### June Daniels BEVERLY v. SCOTLAND URBAN ENTERPRISES, INC.

No. 50394.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 23, 1970.

In re: June Daniels Beverly applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ refused. The denial of a suspensive appeal is correct. As to the other questions raised, the remedy is by appeal.
#### Dennis ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-708.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 17, 1970.

Rehearing Denied May 14, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 501 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 501

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        August 3, 1994.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (S. 1357) to reaffirm and clarify the Federal relationships of the Little 
Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians 
as distinct federally recognized Indian tribes, and for other purposes. The 
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
amendment under the five-minute rule. Each section of the bill shall be 
considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment 
the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments 
as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### PROGRESSIVE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. David Edward BOMBACK, Appellee.

No. 67-981.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 29, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
No. 00-978.

#### Brass *v.*GDQ Corp.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### WILLIAMS *v.*STATE

[No. 247,

September Term, 1961.]

*357
      *Decided April 17, 1962.*

Submitted to Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Horney, Mareury and SybERT, JJ.

Submitted on brief by *Leonard S. Jacobson*for the appellant.

Submitted on brief by *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Robert F. Sweeney, Assistant Attorney General, Saul A. Harris, State’s Attorney for Baltimore City,*and *John W. Sause, Jr., Assistant State’s Attorney,*for the appellee.

Per Curiam.

This appeal is based on the premise that the evidence produced by the State was in such conflict as to make it so incredible that its legal sufficiency to sustain the conviction of the appellant for robbery is questionable. But, as we read the record, such is not the case.

The victim was assaulted, knocked down and robbed of $40 on a street in Baltimore. He testified that he had been assaulted and robbed by *two*persons who had come upon him “from behind,” and for that reason had not seen his assailants. There was, however, other testimony by an eyewitness (Charlotte Roberts) who testified that the appellant (whom she knew) had struck the victim and had then crossed the street and told another person (whom she could not identify) to “go get his money,” but when the unidentified person could not lift the victim by himself, the appellant returned to help and at that time rifled the pockets of the victim. On behalf of the appellant, there was testimony by another eyewitness (Ethel Cox) to the effect that the appellant had come across the street and knocked the victim down, whereupon everyone “took off,” and that after the assault another person (whom she knew) approached the victim and alone helped him to his *358feet, but she gave no testimony as to who robbed the victim.

Clearly the testimony of the witness Roberts, as to what she saw, and the testimony of the victim, as to what was taken from him, was, if believed, sufficient to sustain the conviction. The credibility of the witnesses was a matter to be considered by the trier of the facts. *Mason v. State, 225*Md. 74; *Bush v. State,*223 Md. 382.

*Judgment affirmed.*
# C_2020191EN.01003401.xml

| 8.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/34

---

Action brought on 3 April 2020 — Chatwal v EUIPO — Timehouse Capital (THE TIME)

(Case T-186/20)

(2020/C 191/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chatwal Hotels & Resorts LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: N. Hine, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Timehouse Capital GmbH (Grasbrunn, 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 THE TIME — Application for registration No 16 614 471

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 January 2020 in Case R 2264/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | refuse the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

refuse the opposition;

| — | accept the contested application; |
| --- | --- |

—

accept the contested application;

| — | order EUIPO and/or the other party to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and/or the other party to pay the costs 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.

---
#### In re ESTATE of Stanley P. SHARPE, Deceased.

No. 70-329.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 6, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Jeffrey CHILCOTT, Petitioner, v. W. Rogers TURNER, Judge of the Criminal Court of Record, Division B, Orange County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 69-237.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

April 23, 1969.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1969.

Mandamus denied.
IV

★

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 389

Urging the Committee on Foreign Affairs to conduct a hearing to determine

the foreign policy implications of the proposed joint United StatesRussian space station.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1994

Mr. ROEMER (for himself, Mr. ZIMMER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr.

HUGHES, and Mrs. ROUKEMA) submitted the following resolution; which

was referred jointly to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Science,

Space, and Technology

RESOLUTION

Urging the Committee on Foreign Affairs to conduct a hearing to determine the foreign policy implications of the

proposed joint United States-Russian space station.

Whereas volatility has plagued the former Soviet Union as

signaled by the two coup attempts in the past two years

and the closing down of newspapers and political parties;

Whereas the election to the Russian parliament of ultra-nationalists who promote the reversal of democratic reforms

in Russia has cast doubt on the establishment of political

stability and economic reform in the foreseeable future;

Whereas the unprecedented pardon by the Russian Duma of

the participants in both coup attempts could lead to further instability;
2

•HRES 389 IH1S

Whereas the recent discovery of a double agent for the Government of Russia who was discovered in a sensitive post

at the Central Intelligence Agency has created a new level

of tension between this country and the Government of

Russia;

Whereas the proposed United States-Russian space station

would involve at least $400,000,000 (and in all probability significantly more) in United States taxpayers’

money being given to the Russians;

Whereas payments to Russia for the proposed joint venture

are contingent upon Russia’s adherence to the Missile

Technology Control Regime;

Whereas delivery of Russian hardware and Russian launch

capability for the proposed space station are contingent

upon the use of the Baikonur Cosmodrome, Russia’s

launch facility which is located in the country of

Kazakhstan, a facility in disrepair located in a country

suffering turmoil and hardships of its own, which could

mean that even more United States dollars would be required in order to address infrastructure problems; and

Whereas the International Monetary Fund and other international financial institutions have not had much success

in delivering assistance to Russia based upon a paucity

of economic reforms: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs—

2 (1) should conduct a hearing to determine the

3 foreign policy implications of the proposed joint

4 United States-Russian space station; and

5 (2) based on that hearing, should make appro6 priate recommendations to the Committee on
3

•HRES 389 IH1S

1 Science, Space, and Technology with respect to that

2 proposed joint space station.

Æ
H. Res. 303

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

November 16, 1993.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 322) to modify the requirements applicable to

locatable minerals on public domain lands, consistent with the

principles of self-initiation of mining claims, and for other

purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural

Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered

for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in

order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature

of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural

Resources now printed in the bill. The committee amendment

in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title rath-
2

HRES 303 EH

er than by section. Each title shall be considered as read. The

amendments en bloc specified in the report of the Committee

on Rules accompanying this resolution to be offered by Representative Miller of California or a designee may amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment, shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the

Whole. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to

the House with such amendments as may have been adopted.

Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on

any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to

the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a

substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

 

                KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Stewart Wang his attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for him in any and all capacities, to sign any amendments to this Annual Report, and to file the same, with exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact, or his substitutes, may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

 

                In accordance with the Exchange Act, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

 

                                Signature                                              Title                                                                                 Date

 

/s/ Johnson Ku                                                                   Chairman of the Board                                     March 31, 2005Johnson Ku                                          

 

/s/ Stewart Wang                                                              Chief Executive Officer, President,                 March 31, 2005Stewart Wang                                                                     Chief Financial Officer and Director                                                                                              (Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)

 

/s/ Richard Chiang                                                            Director                                                                March 31, 2005Richard Chiang                     

 

/s/ Craig Miller                                                                   Director                                                                March 31, 2005						Craig Miller

 

/s/ Felix Sung                                                                     Director                                                                March 31, 2005						Felix Sung
#### Mario PEREZ, II, and Hilda Perez, his wife, Appellants, v. CITY OF MIAMI, Allan Poms, Lester C. Pancoast, Bouterse Borelli Albaisa Architects Planners, Inc., De Zarraga & Donnell, Inc., and Volkert Associates, Inc., a joint venture, the Stuyvesant Insurance Company, American Employers Insurance Company, First State Insurance Company, Houston General Insurance Company, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Appellees.

Nos. 77-95 to 77-98, 77-420 and 77-421.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 9, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 9, 1978.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Dan G. Wheeler, Miami, for appellants.

Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl, James E. Tribble, Arky, Freed, Stearns, Watson & Greer, Alison W. Miller, Goodwin, Ryskamp, Welcher & Carrier, Knight, Peters, Pickle, Noemoeller & Flynn, Jeanne Heyward, Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood, Steven R. Berger and Bette Ellen Quiat, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.) and PARKER, J. GWYNN (Ret.), Associate Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs have appealed from summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants. On consideration thereof in light of the record, briefs and argument, we have concluded there are presented genuine issues of material fact relating to the status and duties of defendants as bearing on the *1133question of liability which properly may not be resolved by summary judgment.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.