alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020087EN.01003001.xml

| 16.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/30

---

Action brought on 3 February 2020 — Sonova v EUIPO — Digitmarket (B-Direct)

(Case T-61/20)

(2020/C 87/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sonova AG (Stäfa, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Sabellek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Digitmarket — Sistemas de lnformação SA (Maia, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration of the word mark B-Direct designating the European Union — International registration No 1 342 390 designating the European Union

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2019 in Case R 88/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

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.

---
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, 2005, 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 15, 2005



/s/ Thomas J. ShawTHOMAS J. SHAWPRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN, AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/s/ Douglas W. CowanDOUGLAS W. COWANVICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Opinion issued March 12 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 11

- 0 1015

- CR

____________

KEVIN DEWAYNE WARD , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from County Criminal C ourt at Law No. 8

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1778267

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Kevin Dewayne Ward, has filed a motion to dismiss the

appeal. The motion complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2 (a).2 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). We have not issued an opinion in the appeal

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(b).

Accordingly, we reinstate and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, B land, and Massengale.

Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).
#### Porter W. HOMER, as Manager of Dade County, Florida, et al., Petitioners, v. FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Burdine’s, Respondent.

No. 41999.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 6, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 257 So.2d 50.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.
Exhibit 31.1 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. SECTION 10A**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. SECTION 10A,**

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

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Arthur L. Freeman, certify that: 

 

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

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 presentin 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 for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined 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 and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, 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 period in which this report is beingprepared; 

 

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

 

(c)evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod 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 isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and ****

 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the small business issuer’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 arereasonably 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 small businessissuer’s internal controls over financial reporting.
# C_2022294EN.01003001.xml

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Vitronic v EUIPO (Enforcement Trailer)

(Case T-433/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Enforcement Trailer - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 7(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 294/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Vitronic Dr.-Ing. Stein Bildverarbeitungssysteme GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: D. Tsoumanis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 May 2021 (Case R 236/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vitronic Dr.-Ing. Stein Bildverarbeitungssysteme GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vitronic Dr.-Ing. Stein Bildverarbeitungssysteme GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---
# C_2022138EN.01001401.xml

| 28.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 December 2021 — Criminal proceedings against ZhU and RD

(Case C-805/21)

(2022/C 138/14)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

ZhU and RD

Question referred

Is it compatible with Article 2(3) of Directive 2014/42 (1) or, in the alternative, with the third indent of Article 1 of Framework Decision 2005/212 to interpret national law as meaning that a motor vehicle used to store large quantities of excise goods (cigarettes) without strip stamps does not constitute an instrumentality of crime?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39).

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14576]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Petroleum Environmental Research Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 31, 2018, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Petroleum Environmental Research 
Forum (``PERF'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, CH2MHill, Englewood, CO; GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc., 
Boca Raton, FL; Nalco, Sugarland, TX; Petroleo Brasileiro S/A, Rio de 
Janeiro, BRASIL; and Test America, Parker, CO, have withdrawn as 
parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and PERF intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On February 10, 1986, PERF filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
March 14, 1986 (51 FR 8903).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 
22, 2015. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on October 23, 2015 (80 FR 64448).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-14576 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
#### SKYLARK ESTATES, INC. v. RICHLAND AGENCY.

No. 38851.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 224 So.2d 458.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 25, 2011

y0718 

# Order

July 25, 2011

141957

DIANNE TREMBLAY, Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 141957 COA: 298038 Chippewa CC: 09-010696-AA CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 29, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheet of Dictaphone Corporation at March 31,
2000 and the condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three
months ended March 31, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such finan- cial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000946734
<NAME>                        DICTAPHONE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US$

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                Mar-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,002
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  102,093
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,851
<INVENTORY>                                     39,470
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               151,035
<PP&E>                                          80,872
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,984
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 448,529
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           93,248
<BONDS>                                        363,965
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           51,379
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           130
<OTHER-SE>                                     (82,569)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   448,529
<SALES>                                         53,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,258
<CGS>                                           54,190
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,324
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,494
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,350)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (5)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13,355)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,355)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
J-A16014-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

LEONARD J. GITTER

v.

ELENA BELOGOLOVSKY 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1664 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered November 18, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County 

Civil Division at No(s): 17-0702

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and McCAFFERY, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED: AUGUST 18, 2023

This case having been remanded to the trial court by way of this Court’s 

Order and Memorandum Opinion filed June 16, 2023, and there being no merit 

to the argument that the trial court should recuse, this appeal is hereby 

quashed so that the matter may return to the trial court for a determination 

in accordance with the June 16, 2023 remand with instructions. See L.J.G. v. 

E.B., No. 1261 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Filed June 16, 2023) (unpublished 

memorandum).1

Appeal quashed.

____________________________________________

1

In her appellate brief at this docket number, filed before our decision in 1261 

MDA 2022, Appellant conceded that a resolution of that appeal “may render 

some or all the issues raised in this appeal moot.” Appellant’s Brief at 2.
J-A16014-23

- 2 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/18/2023
260 La. 690

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Robert Anthony EDWARD v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 52143.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1972.

In re: Robert Anthony Edward applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The showing made by this relator who was *represented by retained counsel of his own choice*does not warrant the exercise of our original and supervisory jurisdiction.
# C_2023035EN.01000801.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Luxury Trust Automobil GmbH v Finanzamt Österreich

(Case C-247/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 42(a) - Article 197(1)(c) - Article 226(11a) - Article 141 - Exemption - Triangular transaction - Designation of the final recipient of a supply as being liable for VAT - Invoicing - Reference to ‘Reverse charge’ - Mandatory - Omission of that reference on an invoice - Retroactive correction of the invoice)

(2023/C 35/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Luxury Trust Automobil GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Österreich

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 42(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, read in conjunction with Article 197(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112, as amended,
  must be interpreted as meaning that, in a triangular transaction, the final customer has not been validly designated as liable for the value added tax (VAT) where the invoice issued by the intermediary acquiring the goods does not contain the words ‘Reverse charge’, referred to in Article 226(11a) of Directive 2006/112, as amended. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 42(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, read in conjunction with Article 197(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112, as amended,

must be interpreted as meaning that, in a triangular transaction, the final customer has not been validly designated as liable for the value added tax (VAT) where the invoice issued by the intermediary acquiring the goods does not contain the words ‘Reverse charge’, referred to in Article 226(11a) of Directive 2006/112, as amended.

| 2. | Article 226(11a) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45,
  must be interpreted as meaning that the omission, on an invoice, of the words ‘Reverse charge’, required under that provision, may not subsequently be corrected by adding a statement that that invoice relates to an intra-Community triangular transaction and that the tax liability is transferred to the person to whom the supply is made. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 226(11a) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45,

must be interpreted as meaning that the omission, on an invoice, of the words ‘Reverse charge’, required under that provision, may not subsequently be corrected by adding a statement that that invoice relates to an intra-Community triangular transaction and that the tax liability is transferred to the person to whom the supply is made.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2022.

---
No. 10771.

#### The Continental Casualty Co. *v.*Lawhorn.

Decided February 23, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Pike- county.

*Mr. Mantón*
      *478
      *Maverick; Messrs. Bcnnon & Ban;:on*and *Messrs. Eylar & Douglas,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. J. W. Goldsberry*and *Mr. F. E. Dougherty,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Sitauck and Price, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.3


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Avery Communications, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Patrick J. Haynes, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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
Company.


/s/ Patrick J. Haynes, III
----------------------------------
Patrick J. Haynes, III
Chief Executive Officer
December 16, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       4,105,971
<SECURITIES>                                   991,665
<RECEIVABLES>                               41,383,621
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (919,081)
<INVENTORY>                                 61,760,025
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           113,152,538
<PP&E>                                      40,265,030
<DEPRECIATION>                            (18,164,471)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             164,363,760
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       70,480,942
<BONDS>                                     29,655,194
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    27,570,456
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,385,061
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               164,363,760
<SALES>                                    151,486,676
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           151,486,676
<CGS>                                       95,340,542
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               95,340,542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            43,434,605
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (2,990,615)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,295,505
<INCOME-TAX>                               (3,705,394)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,590,111
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,590,111
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44


</TABLE>
No. 10961.

#### Collins, Admx., *v.*The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.

Decided November 24, 1908.

Error to the Circuit Court of Richland *443county.

*Messrs. Skiles, Green & Skiles,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. F. A. Durban*and *Messrs. Cummings, McBride & Wolfe,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Shauck, Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concu.-.