alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bobby FOLSOM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-329.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 25, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the Company's Form
10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 1999, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,360
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,330
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,015
<INVENTORY>                                     17,985
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,470
<PP&E>                                          61,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,009
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  99,747
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,590
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           138
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    99,747
<SALES>                                        178,849
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               178,849
<CGS>                                          119,946
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,206
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (113)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,273
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,537
<INCOME-TAX>                                       110
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,427
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     64
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,363
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10




</TABLE>
# C_2020287EN.01003701.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/37

---

Action brought on 7 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT5)

(Case T-422/20)

(2020/C 287/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GT5 — Application for registration No 14 738 272

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 in Case R 1600/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and other party to bear their costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and other party to bear their costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to identify specifically the relevant public; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to identify specifically the relevant public;

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take into account the evidence as to the likely perception of the earlier European Union Trade mark by the relevant public; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take into account the evidence as to the likely perception of the earlier European Union Trade mark by the relevant public;

| — | Failure to consider the other elements of the above mentioned Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) objections; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to consider the other elements of the above mentioned Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) objections;

| — | Failure to apply national rules under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to apply national rules under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament by failing to consider the other elements under passing off law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament by failing to consider the other elements under passing off law.

---
#### Shelly COWAN, Appellant, v. Dr. Menilio DIAZ-PADRON, Appellee.

No. 76-912.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 4, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1977.

Cohen & Kokus and Linda Koenigsberg, Susan Goldman, Miami, for appellant.

Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl and Mark Hicks, Miami, for appellee.

Before NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ., and CHARLES A. CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

*1108PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff [Shelly Cowan] appeals from an adverse summary judgment in a medical malpractice action contending that there are genuine issues of material fact as to the alleged negligent diagnosis and treatment of the plaintiff’s spinal injuries by the defendant [Dr. Menilio Diaz-Padron]. We agree and reverse on the authority of *Holl v. Talcott,*191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966).

There remain genuine issues of material fact in the case including whether the defendant, consistent with the standards of reasonable medical care in the community, promptly administered and properly read the results of a Queckenstedt test given the plaintiff to determine the presence of blockage of cerebral spinal fluid, whether the plaintiff should have been promptly placed in traction after discovery of the injury, and whether a drug called decadron should have been administered to treat the plaintiff’s spinal cord injury so as to prevent the alleged painful and unnecessary spinal fusion eventually administered to the plaintiff. There are also genuine issues relating to whether the defendant promptly ordered a circular hospital bed for the plaintiff so as to prevent the occurrence of alleged painful decubitus ulcers. See *Helms v. Sims,*330 So.2d 71 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); *Giallanza*v. *Sands,*316 So.2d 77 (Fla.4th DCA 1975); *Lab v. Hall,*200 So.2d 556 (Fla.4th DCA 1967).

The summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant is, accordingly, reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.
[No. 983-1.

Division Three.

April 3, 1972.]

#### The State of Washington, *Plaintiff,*v. Stephen Wilson, *Defendant,*Alex Kessack, *Appellant.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000946822
<NAME>                        Preferred/telecom, Inc.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         39,218
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  194,450
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (57,903)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               384,050
<PP&E>                                         263,223
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (63,801)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,594,299
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,012,593
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       10,860
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,594,299
<SALES>                                        217,280
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               217,280
<CGS>                                          238,037
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  238,037
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               413,732
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             47,954
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (482,443)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (482,443)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.05)
        



</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Sean P. Washchuk, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Vitran Corporation Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the Audit Committee of the registrants Board of Directors:

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether
or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: October 27, 2009



/s/ SEAN P. WASHCHUKSean P. Washchuk Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2022037EN.01000401.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/4

---

Appeal brought on 25 May 2021 by Giro Travel Company SRL against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2021 in Case T-193/18, Andreas Stihl v EUIPO

(Case C-327/21 P)

(2022/C 37/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Giro Travel Company SRL (represented by: C. N. Frisch, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 26 November 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Giro Travel Company SRL should bear its own costs.

---
Exhibit 10.5

 

CREDIT AGREEMENT

Dated as of March 3, 2003

among

SIERRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC.,

as Borrower,

 

and

Certain Subsidiaries of the Borrower

from time to time party hereto,

as Guarantors,

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

as Administrative Agent and L/C Issuer,

and

The Other Lenders Party Hereto

 

CREDIT LYONNAIS NEW YORK BRANCH,

as

Syndication Agent, 

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCATION,

as

Documentation Agent

and

BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES LLC,

as

Sole****Lead Arranger and Sole Book Manager

TABLE OF CONTENTS
#### Napoleon STUBBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2554.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 29, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Solely in connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report of Retractable Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Thomas J. Shaw, Chief Executive Officer, and Douglas W. Cowan, Chief Financial Officer, do
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 results of operations of the issuer.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 14, 2006



/s/ Thomas J. ShawTHOMAS J. SHAWPRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN, ANDCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/s/ Douglas W. CowanDOUGLAS W. COWANVICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
#### Donnie Ray COURTNEY v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT.

No. 38755.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Habeas Corpus denied without opinion.
#### FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF TAMPA, a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. Douglas A. VERNATTE, Respondent.

No. 36548.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 3, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 1968.

John W. Boult arid Fowler, White, Collins, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam, Tampa, for petitioner.

Ronald K. Cacciatore and Yado, Keel & Nelson, Tampa, for respondent.

*4PER CURIAM.

Argument having been heard in this cause, and after careful study of the record and briefs, we conclude that the writ of certiorari was improvidently issued and it is, therefore, discharged.

It is so ordered.

CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL. ERVIN and ADAMS, TJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2 

 

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Jack D. Hood, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Harrodsburg First FinancialBancorp, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respect the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

 

**(a)** designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this report is being prepared;****

 

**(b)** [omitted in accordance with SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];****

 

**(c)******evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and****

 

**(d)** disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and ****

 

5. The small business issuer’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

 

**(a)**all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process summarize and report financial information; and 

 

**(b)** any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting.
# C_2022171EN.01003002.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Banco de Investimento Global v EUIPO — Banco BIC Português (EUROBIC)

(Case T-125/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark EUROBIC - Earlier EU figurative marks BiG, BANCO BiG and BiGlobal TRADE - Earlier national word marks BANCO BIG and earlier national figurative mark BANCO BiG - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 171/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Banco de Investimento Global, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Lucas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Banco BIC Português, SA (Lisbon) (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2020 (Case R 607/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Banco de Investimento Global and Banco BIC Português.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Banco de Investimento Global, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Banco de Investimento Global, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

---
259 La. 871

#### Mary J. CLONEY v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 51723.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 15, 1971.

In re: The Travelers Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 253 So.2d 83.

Writ denied: No abuse of discretion is shown.
254 La. 782

#### Cecelia Ann KELLER, Widow of Paul Erwin JOHNSON, et al. v. WALLACE INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTORS et al.

No. 50023.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 8, 1969.

In re: Wallace Industrial Constructors and Trinity Universal Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 224 So.2d 31.

Writ refused. The judgment is correct.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 2ND DISTRICT COURT OF CHEROKEE COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 29th

day of May, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

OSCAR HERNANDEZ, Appellant

NO. 12-13-00260-CR; Trial Court No. 17,690

Opinion by James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the 

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court 

below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 14th day of December, 2015.

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk