alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

Zalzar FZE ASBCA No. 59341 

Under Contract No. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

SDZ-OEF /OIF-06-011-08-006-08027 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

Mr. Zalzar Temiraliev 

Director 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

CPT Vera A. Strebel, JA 

Erica S. Beardsley, Esq. 

Trial Attorneys 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

By notice of appeal dated 29 May 2014, appellant appealed from a 23 May 2014 

notice of non-default contract termination. By letter dated 6 June 2014, appellant 

submitted an unopposed request to withdraw the appeal, along with two related appeals, 

"without prejudice to re-file appeals of these claims, if necessary, when the Contracting 

Officer has issued a Final Decision on each claim." 

In response to the Board's request for further information, by Order dated 16 June 

2014, appellant stated: 

Zalzar ... confirms that it intends to withdraw [this appeal] 

without prejudice. Zalzar is in the process of filing a claim 

with the Contracting Officer concerning the termination and 

will request a final decision upon the receipt of which Zalzar 

intends to file a new notice of appeal with the Board .... 

The government having no objection to appellant's request, this appeal is 

dismissed without prejudice to a timely appeal to the Board from the denial or deemed 

denial of Zalzar's claim. 

Dated: 10 July 2014 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59341, Appeal of Zalzar FZE, 

rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREYD. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
AUBURN NATIONAL BANCORPORATION, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES

EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the Report), I, E.L. Spencer, Jr., President, Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2010                                        
|                                                            
|/s/ E.L. Spencer, Jr.                                       
|                                                            
|E.L. Spencer, Jr.                                           
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
# C_2022207EN.01004201.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/42

---

Order of the General Court of 8 March 2022 — UNIS v Commission

(Case T-431/21) (1)

(Application for annulment - Social security - Bodies entrusted with the management of statutory health insurance and old-age insurance schemes - Caisse nationale d’assurance vieillesse - Economic activity - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 207/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Union nationale des indépendants solidaires UNIS (Lorient, France) (represented by: F. Ortega, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, H. van Vliet, T. Baumé and A. Boitos, agents)

Re:

By this action, brought pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, which is a professional organisation established 21 February 2020 under French law, seeks the annulment of a letter of the European Commission of 18 May 2021 declaring that it was not competent to review the questions raised by the applicant in its complaint of 7 April 2021.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | L’Union nationale des indépendants solidaires (UNIS) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

L’Union nationale des indépendants solidaires (UNIS) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---
# C_2023015EN.01003801.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Société Elmar Wolf v EUIPO — Fuxtec (Representation of the head of an animal)

(Case T-596/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a head - Earlier national figurative mark representing the head of a canine - Earlier international registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing the head of a canine - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion)

(2023/C 15/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Société Elmar Wolf (Wissembourg, France) (represented by N. Boespflug, 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: Fuxtec GmbH (Herrenberg, Germany) (represented by M. Hammer and C. Koller, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2021 (Case R 2834/2019-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Société Elmar Wolf, since it has been unsuccessful, to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Société Elmar Wolf, since it has been unsuccessful, to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

---
Exhibit
23.1







INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT







We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
HealthWarehouse.com, Inc. on Form S-8 [File No. 333-139072] of our report, which
includes an explanatory paragraph as to the Company’s ability to continue as a
going concern, dated April 15, 2010, with respect to our audit of the
consolidated financial statements of HealthWarehouse.com, Inc. as of December
31, 2009 for the year then ended, which report is included in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of HealthWarehouse.com, Inc. and  for the year ended
December 31, 2009.







/s/
Marcum LLP




New York,
New York


April 15,
2010
#### Elijah RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 66-918.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 8, 1967.

On Rehearing Sept. 27, 1967.

*138Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Marvin J. Emory, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., BARKDULL, J., and LOPEZ, AQUILI-NO, Jr., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order summarily denying his third petition, filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.

The appellant first pleaded not guilty and then changes his plea to guilty, and was adjudged guilty of the crime of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment in the State penitentiary. Subsequent thereto, he has filed three petitions to vacate under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. He filed the instant petition [the third] alleging, in part, a new ground that he was coerced into pleading guilty by his court-appointed counsel in concert with the judge.

Although we may doubt whether the appellant can establish these charges, under the decision of Jones v. State, ■ Fla. App.1964, 165 So.2d 191, we are compelled to reverse this order summarily denying relief, because the record fails to refute the allegations made by the petition.

Therefore, the order under review is hereby reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of receiving pleadings and/or affidavits, exhibits, etc., from the State in response to the appellant’s petition and evidence on the issues as made. See: King v. State, Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 440.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

ON REHEARING GRANTED

The record on appeal has been supplemented by the proceedings which took place before the trial judge on the change of plea from not guilty to guilty. The court having considered same in reference to the appellant’s contention that his guilty plea was coerced, we grant the petition for rehearing and, upon reconsideration of the order appealed, we affirm the trial court’s action denying the appellant’s third petition for relief pursuant to petition under Criminal Rule No. 1, and recede from our prior opinion dated August 8, 1967.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,180,029
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  612,673
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (24,095)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      19,395,510
<DEPRECIATION>                             (7,997,592)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,301,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      5,293,017
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,911,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,301,732
<SALES>                                      4,186,633
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,505,695
<CGS>                                        1,928,045
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,838,164
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               629,920
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               220,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             387,432
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                430,179
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            430,179
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   430,179
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Abatement Order filed July 2, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00332

- CR

____________ BENJAMIN EUGENE ALLE N , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 8

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2000794



### ABATEMENT ORDER
The reporter ’ s record has not been filed in this appeal. The court reporter has informed the court that appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the reporter ’ s fee to prepare the reporter ’ s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(A). This court is unaware whether appellant is entitled to proceed without the payment
of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(B). Accordingly, we enter the following
order. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c).W e ORDER the judge of the County Criminal Court at Law No. 8 to

immediately conduct a hearing at which appellant, appellant ’ s counsel, if any, and counsel for the State shall participate, either in person or by video teleconference, to determine whether app ellant desires to prosecute his appeal, and, if so, whether appellant is indigent and, thus entitled to a free record and appointed counsel on appeal. The judge may appoint appellate counsel for appellant if necessary. The judge shall see that a record of the hearing is made, shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall order the trial clerk to forward a record of the hearing and a supplemental clerk ’ s record containing the findings and conclusions. The transcribed record of the hearing, th e court ’ s findings and conclusions, and a videotape or compact disc, if any, containing a recording of the video
teleconference shall be filed with the clerk of this court within thirty days of the
date of this order.
The appeal is abated, treated as a clo sed case, and removed from this court ’ s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court ’ s active docket when the
trial court ’ s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to schedule a hearing in compliance with this court ’ s order. If the parties do not request a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties of such date.

PER CURIAM
#### J. B. CLAIBORNE, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, a municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. O-453.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 1972.

David W. Foerster, of Jones, Foerster & Hodge, Jacksonville, for appellants.

James C. Rinaman, Jr., David U. Tumin, and William Lee Allen, Jacksonville, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in an eminent domain proceeding, in which the appellants claim error by the trial court, inter alia, in excluding evidence relating to two sales of similar property located some distance from the property which is the subject of this eminent domain proceeding.

One expert appraiser, in testifying or attempting to testify, for the appellants, submitted as a comparable sale a parcel of land of 39.71 acres located several miles from the subject property, and described the same as being now improved with a mobile home park. The other appraiser testifying for appellants attempted to use as a comparable sale a parcel of 82 acres, located in the Ponte Vedra area, about 8.6 miles south of the subject property.

The trial court sustained objections against the use of these two sales as not being comparable because of distance, and due to the fact that one sale was located in St. Johns County.

In reviewing the descriptions of these properties, it is our conclusion that *258the two sales were comparable to the subject property, and the distance was not so remote as to render them inadmissible as evidence, and the fact that one sale was located in an adjoining county does not lessen its admissibility.1 For these reasons we hold that the trial court did commit error in excluding the testimony of appellants’ appraisers as to the sales mentioned supra.

In view of the fact that a retrial of this cause must be had because of the error set forth above, we do not deem it necessary to consider or pass upon the other errors assigned on this appeal particularly in view of the unlikelihood that they will reoccur on a new trial of this cause.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.

1

. Rochelle v. State Road Department, 196 So.2d 477 (Fla.App.2nd, 1967).
# C_2022237EN.01005202.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/52

---

Order of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Sunshine Smile v EUIPO (PlusDental+)

(Case T-265/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 237/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sunshine Smile GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: D. Weller and V. Wolf, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 (Case R 1834/2020-2), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign PlusDental+ as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

---
#### Clarence SIMPSON v. STATE.

No. 37838.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 211 So.2d 862.
# C_2022359EN.01000902.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 July 2022 — Romania v European Commission

(Case C-401/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Cohesion Fund and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 - Co-financing rate applicable - Amendment of the rate between the submission of the final application for an interim payment and the acceptance of the accounts - Principle that accounts relate to a specific year and principle of non-retroactivity)

(2022/C 359/10)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Appellant: Romania (represented by: L.-E. Baţagoi and E. Gane, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Armenia and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Romania to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Romania to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1211 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1211

      To extend the suspension of duties on certain glass fibers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 1 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

   Mr. Brown introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend the suspension of duties on certain glass fibers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    Headings 9902.70.19 and 9902.70.20 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States are each amended by striking ``12/31/92'' 
and inserting ``12/31/94''.

SEC. 2. PRODUCT DESCRIPTION.

    Headings 9902.70.19 and 9902.70.20 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States are each amended by striking ``9 microns 
in diameter or 10 microns in diameter'' and inserting ``7 microns in 
diameter to 11.5 microns in diameter''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--The amendments made by sections 1 and 2 apply to 
articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Provision.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law, upon a request filed 
with the appropriate customs officer on or before the 90th day after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry, or withdrawal from 
warehouse for consumption, of an article described in heading 
9902.70.19 or 9902.70.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992; and
            (2) before the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act;
and with respect to which there would have been no duty or a lower duty 
if the amendment made by section 1 or section 2 applied to such entry 
or withdrawal, shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry 
or withdrawal occurred on such 15th day.

                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 66 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 66

  Designating membership on certain standing committees of the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1993

Mr. Armey submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Designating membership on certain standing committees of the House.

    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are hereby, 
elected to the following standing committees of the House of 
Representatives:
    Committee on Ways and Means: Dave Camp of Michigan.
    Committee on the District of Columbia: Cass Ballenger of North 
Carolina.
    Committee on House Administration: Jennifer B. Dunn of Washington.
    Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries: Richard W. Pombo of 
California; [vacancy]; and [vacancy].

                                 <all>
```
# Court of Appeals **First District of Texas**

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 14

- 00530

- CV
Syed Hasan

v . Bellcroft Properties, LLP

NO. 2013

- 74060 IN THE 55TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY FILING $195.00 06/27/2014 NOT PAID ANT


### The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $195.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine , Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this January 2, 2015

.