alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
~D S~11 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 October 17, 2014

Mexican Water Chapter, Navajo Nation Reservation Red MesaTP #1019, HC 61 Box 38 TeecNosPos, AZ 86514 ATTN: Martha Saggboy Subject: Public documents at the Mexican Water Chapterfor public inspection Dear Ms. Saggboy: The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency sentyou apackage containing a number ofdocuments regarding the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation nearthe city ofAneth, San Juan County, Utah. Two ofthese documents contained an error, and need to be replaced. Please replace the following documents in the package previously sentto you with the enclosed documents: 1. PUBLIC 11’JFORMATION SHEET 2. AMBIENTAIR QUALITY IMPACT REPORT & FACT SHEET Yourassistance with this matteris greatly appreciated. Feel free to contact me at (415) 947-4156 or ke1ly.shaheerah(~epa.gov ifyou have any questions.Sincerely,



# ii, Shaheerah ‘~ elly, Environmental Engineer Permits Office Air Division

Enclosures
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND> 
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM, 
BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, AND STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS AND 
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10KSB, FOR 
DECEMBER 31, 1997. 
</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1 
        
<S>                             <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997 
<CASH>                                       1,466,760 
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  270,264 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,284 
<INVENTORY>                                    319,127 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,065,479 
<PP&E>                                         347,415 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 214,491 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,205,811 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,213 
<BONDS>                                              0 
<COMMON>                                         4,954 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,123,644 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,205,811 
<SALES>                                      1,337,303 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,476,487 
<CGS>                                          575,163 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  642,568 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               209,862 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                247,760 
<INCOME-TAX>                                    81,559 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            166,201 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   166,201 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03 
         

</TABLE>
# C_2023035EN.01005701.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/57

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — Lila Rossa Engros v EUIPO (LiLAC)

(Case T-780/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark LiLAC - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 35/68)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Lila Rossa Engros SRL (Voluntari, Romania) (represented by: O. Anghel, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 September 2021 (Case R 441/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lila Rossa Engros SRL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lila Rossa Engros SRL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

---
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Donald Gee, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Royce Biomedical, Inc.;



2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 quarterly 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)) 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) 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



c) 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weakness 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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date: May 13, 2005

/s/ Donald Gee



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



Donald Gee, President





and Chief Executive Officer
256 La. 615

#### LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS v. Frank MOORING.

No. 50652.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 29, 1970.

In re: Frank Mooring and Mrs. James Coombes, et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of revew, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of St. Charles.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
#### HEUSS v. UNITED STATES.

No. 8348.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 23, 1937.

H. Sylvester Garvin and Granville Egan, both of Seattle, Wash., for appellant.

J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., and Gerald Shucklin and F. A. Pellegrini, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Seattle, Wash., for the United States.

Before MATHEWS and HANEY, Circuit Judges, and NETERER, District Judge.

NETERER, District Judge.

This appeal is to reverse a judgment on a verdict of guilty on the following assignment of errors:

1. That the court erred in admitting testimony of the witness, A. E. Rosenfeldt, of a purported voluntary confession of defendant.

2. That the court erred in giving the following instruction: “You are instructed that the Government does not desire to have you conclude against the defendant, unless the conclusion is supported by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; but that neither does the Government want a guilty man to escape.” “To the giving of which instruction the defendant excepted, and his exception was allowed.”

Rule 11 of this court provides among other things, “when the error alleged is to the admission or rejection of evidence, the assignment of errors shall quote the full substance of the evidence admittled or rejected. * * * When this is not done, counsel will not be heard, except * * * the Court at its option may notice a plain error not assigned.”

The first assignment of error is not tenable for nonconformity to rule 11 of this court. This court has consistently adhered to rule 11, supra. O’Brien Manual Federal Procedure, 1936 Cumulative Supplement, p. 93. See, also, Goldstein v. United States (C.C.A. 9) 73 F.(2d) 804; Mullaney v. U. S. (C.C.A. 9) 82 F.(2d) 638.

The second alleged error is likewise not tenable for that the exception is insufficient to raise any question on appeal in that the exception does not show the ground of objection to the instruction. Royal Finance Company of California v. Miller (C.C.A.) 47 F.(2d) 24, at page 27; Dayton Rubber Mfg. Co. v. Sabra (C.C.A.) 63 F.(2d) 865.

No possible prejudicial error can be based on the instruction and an examination of the testimony in the record clearly shows no plain error.

Affirmed.
#### Morris MEYERS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee.

No. 7408.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 4, 1937.

Donald B. Frederick, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

John C. Lehr, U. S. Atty., of Detroit, Mich.

Before PUCKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing to the court that notice of appeal was filed in the above cause on May 4, 1936, and that no further steps have been taken since that date, it is therefore ordered that the appeal be, and the same is, dismissed for want of prosecution.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Deborah J. GRAVES, Appellee.

No. 73-289.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 29, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Raymond Van Dyke STODDART, II, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-976.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2023261EN.01002801.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/28

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — LM v KP

(Case C-654/21, (1) LM (Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Dispute before the national court - Jurisdiction of EU trade mark courts - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 124 - Action for infringement - Article 128 - Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity - Subject matter of that counterclaim - Article 129(3) - Rules of procedure governing the same type of action relating to a national trade mark - Principle of procedural autonomy)

(2023/C 261/39)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant and counter-defendant: LM

Defendant and counter-claimant: KP

Operative part of the judgment

Article 124(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, read in conjunction with Article 128(1) thereof,

must be interpreted as meaning that a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of an EU trade mark may relate to all the rights which the proprietor of that mark derives from its registration and that the subject matter of that counterclaim is not restricted by the scope of the dispute as defined by the action for infringement.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 26, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00682

- CV

IN RE Reina S.C.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

After relator filed her petition for writ of mandamus, this court ordered that the real

parties in interest could file a response in this court on or before October 25, 2018. The attorney

ad litem for the children, who are real parties in interest, has filed a motion for extensi on of time,

asking for an additional fourteen days in which to file a response. After review, we GRANT the

motion for extension of time and ORDER the attorney ad litem for the children to file a

response, if any, on or before November 8, 2018.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel.

PER CURIAM

I t is so ORDERED o n October, 2018

.

ATTESTED TO:

________________________________

KEITH E. HO TTLE

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018

- PA

- 01865 , styled In the Interest of J.J.R.S. and L.J.R.S., Children

, pending in the 37th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

. T he Honorable Charles E. Montemayor

, Associate Judge, signed the order at issue in this original proceeding

.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-06409, 333-35745, 333-57031, 333-68499, 333-83927, 333-86861,
333-32380, 333-46640, 333-58334, 333-73882, 333-99093, 333-100130) of SkillSoft
Plc of our report dated May 16, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of SkillSoft Plc included in the Form 10-K/A for the year ended
January 31, 2003, as filed on May 23, 2003.

                                         /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
September 22, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HARBINGER CORPORATION FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH
31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,680
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,386
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,643
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,022
<PP&E>                                          16,871
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,235
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,143
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,162
<BONDS>                                          1,305
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,674
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,143
<SALES>                                          4,886
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,003
<CGS>                                              694
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,527
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,802
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (64)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,280)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        23
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,419
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15,722)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.83)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

Certification of Annual Report

I, Caroline M.Loewy, Chief Financial Officer of Poniard Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1.                the Annual Reporton Form 10-K for the Company for the year ended December 31,2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(12 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

2.                theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: March 15, 2007 | By:    | /s/ CAROLINE M. LOEWY                      |
|---------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Caroline M. Loewy  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Vergie Baskett PEARSON, next friend v. James H. BASKETT et ux.

No. 50034.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 28, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1977.

Peter K. Smith, Quitman, William B. Sullivan, Laurel, for appellant.

Self, Jordan & Jones, Daniel P. Self, Jr., Meridian, for appellees.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Jasper County; Osborn Guyton Idom, Chancellor.

AFFIRMED.
I am seeking an exemption from 14 CFR 91.147(d). The reason that I am is asking for the exemption is 

that the personnel that operate in safety sensitive positions on the Letter of Authorization (VPEJ6471) 

are all on the drug program for our Part 135 certificate (VPEA116U). The 135 certificate is for Prairie 

Aviation dba North Star Aviation and Choice Aviation. In our organization we have a limited number of 

trained and qualified people to oversee a drug program. In our case the exemption would not only 

provide a level of safety equal to that provided by the rule, but would provide for a higher level of 

safety. With the exemption we could better utilize our trained staff, and enhance the integrity of the 

program decreasing the potential for mistakes and thereby decreasing the exposure of the public to a 

potentially unsafe situation. In short, the intent of the rule is met, all safety sensitive personnel are on a 

drug program and subject to random testing, and we manage a better program with a higher level of 

safety having all employees under the same program.

Leland Blatter

North Star Aviation (VPEJ6471)

516 Airport Rd

Hamilton, Mt 59840

406-363-6471(office)

lblatter@choiceaviation.com
#### Samuel W. CLARK, Petitioner, v. Lucia P. MYRICK, Respondent.

No. 42063.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 30, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (1)
    
    the accompanying Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the
Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/  Charles L. McNairyCharles L. McNairyExecutive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 23

- 1094

_____________

PORT HAMILTON REFINING AND TRANSPORTATION, LLLP,

Petitioner

v.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

____________ _____________

SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

_________________

Present: RESTREPO, M c KEE, and SMITH

, Circuit Judges

The petition for rehearing filed by Respondent in the above

- entitled case having

been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court, it is hereby

ORDERED that the petition for panel rehearing is granted as set forth in the amended

precedential opinion filed simultaneously with this order. Because the amendments to the

opinion do not alter the Court’s decision in this case, the judgment will remain as filed.

BY THE COURT,

s/D. Brooks Smith

Circuit Judge

Dated: November 2 2 , 2023

A mr/ cc: All counsel of record
#### Michael V. COSTELLO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-218.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 26, 1972.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Robert W. Tyson, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Ruth Scally, Widow of Robert Scally, deceased, *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellant.

Argued June 3, 1975,

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

*David A. Ody,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *Samuel C. Vary,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

*Joseph Gale,*with him *James N. Diefenderfer,*for appellees.

*34June 25, 1975:

Opinion by

Judge Wilkinson,

This case involves substantially the same issue as was raised in *Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board and Klebick v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,*19 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 499, 338 A.2d 758 (1975). In this case, the claimant’s husband died on July 21,1973, as a result of anthraco-silicosis. Competent testimony was offered that claimant’s husband and a silica hazard exposure for a number of years before June 30,1973, as well as from June 30, 1973, until July 20, 1973, the day before his death. There is competent medical testimony from claimant’s husband’s physician who testified that “the disease and disability are the result of the accumulated effect of his exposure in working for various coal companies in and around the anthracite region from 1933 to 1973.”

While the referee’s findings could have been more specific, the Board, in its opinion, states:

> “The medical testimony (N. T. 20) clearly establishes that the decedent’s occupational disease and disability are ‘the result of the accumulated effect of his exposure in working around the anthracite region from 1933 to 1973.’ Based on the evidence in this record, we believe that claimant’s exposure to a silica hazard after June 30, 1973, contributed substantially to his occupational disease.”

We agree and we can see no good purpose being served by remanding the record for perhaps a more specific finding on this point.

Accordingly, we enter the following

Order

Now, June 25, 1975, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, dated December 12, 1974, affirming the referee’s award of compensation to Ruth Scally, is hereby affirmed.