alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023179EN.01003202.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-575/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van den Bergh, A. van Hoek and B. Brouwer, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Tinnus Enterprises LLC, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2021 (Case R 1006/2018-3) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Koopman International BV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Koopman International BV.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

---
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Shawn Smith, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00156

- CR v. The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 102nd District Court of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 13F0106

- 102 ). Opinion delivered by Just ice Carter
, * Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley
, participating. *Justice Carter
, Sitting by Assignment.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellan t, Shawn Smith, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JUNE 16, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORR ISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                    JUNE 30,
                                                                           ------------------------------
                                                                              1997                1996
                                                                              ----                ----
<S>                                                                        <C>                 <C>       
Net income (in thousands)                                                  $      265          $      254
                                                                           ===========         ==========

Weighted average shares outstanding  *                                      1,418,804           1,467,819
Common stock equivalents due to the dilutive effect of
    stock options under the treasury stock method                              31,450                  --
                                                                           -----------         ----------
  Weighted average shares outstanding and
    common stock equivalents                                                1,450,254           1,467,819

Primary earnings per share                                                 $     0.18          $     0.17
                                                                           ===========         ==========

Weighted average shares outstanding and
   common stock equivalents (above)                                         1,450,254           1,467,819
Additional dilutive common stock equivalents using period end
   market value versus average market value for the period                      9,339                  --
                                                                           -----------         ----------

Fully diluted weighted average shares and
  common stock equivalents                                                  1,459,593           1,467,819

Fully diluted earnings per share                                           $     0.18          $     0.17
                                                                           ===========         ==========
</TABLE>

* Includes only the portion of ESOP shares committed to be released to
participants.


                                       18
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 532 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 532

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 26, 1994.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 4448) to amend the Act establishing Lowell National Historical Park, 
and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be 
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute 
rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order against the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with 
clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate 
vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000458 23-FEB-2018 07:54 AM
**EXHIBIT
      31.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**





I,
      Frederick R. Klug, certify that:





1)           I
      have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Merchants and Manufacturers
      Bancorporation, Inc.; and





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.




Date:  August 22,
      2007




/s/
                Frederick R.
                Klug
              Frederick
                R. Klug
              Chief
                Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER





I, Larry F. Vance, certify
that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on
Form 10KSB of Earth Search Sciences, 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) 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 (the registrant's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 (or persons performing the
equivalent function):





a) All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which could 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:
      April 23 , 2008
            /s/ Larry F. VanceLarry F.
    VanceChief Executive
      Officer
256 La. 617

#### Merville N. PITRE et ux. v. EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORP., Ltd. et al.

No. 50686.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 29, 1970.

In re: Mrs. Theresa Barrilleaux, wife of/and Merville N. Pitre applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Lafourche. 234 So.2d 847.

The application is denied. According to the facts of the case, as found to be by the Court of Appeal, there appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STEPHEN DANIEL LEMIEUX

,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHITE

HOUSE

,

Defendant. Case No. 24

- cv

- 1056 (JMC)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 12, 2024, p ro se P laintiff Stephen Daniel Lemieux filed a civil complaint against

Defendant United States of America White House

. ECF 1. On April 16, 2024, this Court dismissed

his complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).

ECF 2; ECF 3. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint by May 16, 2024, and this Court

warned Plaintiff that the action could be dismissed “if he d[id] not file an amended complaint

within that timeframe.” ECF 2 at 2 (citing Brown v. WMATA , 164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C.

2016)). Plaintiff’s deadline to file an amended complaint has come and gone, but Plaintiff has not

filed an amended complaint, so the Court will now DISMISS this action and order that the case

be terminated. A separate orde r accompanies this memorandum opinion.

SO ORDERED.

_________ ___ ______________ JIA M. COBB

United States District Judge

Date: May 2 3 , 2024
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2074
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWIN ARNOLDO REYES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:01-cr-00533-PJM; 8:05-cv-00255-PJM) Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: March 27, 2008 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin Arnoldo Reyes, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
- 2 - PER CURIAM: Edwin Arnoldo Reyes seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s final order was entered on the docket on December 14, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on October 6, 2007. *Because Reyes failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the- 3 - materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 00-1101.

#### Mitchell *v.*Chapman.

Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Bradley J. RAGAN, Appellee.

No. 91-2098.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 12, 1991.

Decided Jan. 3, 1992.

Anita Mortimer, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., argued, for appellant.

Patrick O’Brien, Kansas City, argued, for appellee.

Before BOWMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and VAN SICKLE,* District Judge.

*

 The HONORABLE BRUCE M. VAN SICKLE, Senior United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

The government filed this appeal challenging the decision of the District Court1 to depart downward from the sentencing guidelines range when sentencing Bradley J. Ragan, who had pled guilty to three counts of distributing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(C) (1988). The District Court granted the downward departure because Ragan had stopped using drugs for over a year before his indictment and had maintained steady employment during that time. Further, the court noted that Ragan had been willing to provide substantial assistance to the government but, because he was not indicted until over a year after he committed the offenses, his information was no longer timely.

At the sentencing hearing, the government failed to object to the District Court’s decision to grant a downward departure. Accordingly, the government has waived this issue, and may not raise it before this Court unless it can demonstrate that the downward departure was “plain error resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” *United States v. Carnes,*945 F.2d 1013, 1014 (8th Cir.1991); *see also United States v. Houston,*892 F.2d 696, 707 (8th Cir.1989) (“The government could have articulated a clear objection at any point during these [sentencing] proceedings and preserved this argument for appeal. [It] did not do so, and thus, arguments raised for the first time on appeal shall not be considered.”); *United States v. Garciar-Pillado,*898 F.2d 36, 39-40 (5th Cir.1990); *United States v. Prichett,*898 F.2d 130, 131 (11th Cir.1990). Here, the downward departure from the sentencing range, even if erroneous (a question we do not decide), did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and therefore was *1050not plain error. The sentence imposed by the District Court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Scott O. Wright, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of

- )

)

Joint Forces Construction LLC ) ASBCA Nos. 62618, 62619, 62620

)

Under Contract No. W91236

- 18

- C

- 0020 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : David A. Hearne, Esq.

ReavesColey, PLLC

Chesapeake, VA

James R. Harvey, Esq.

Anthony J. Mazzeo, Esq.

Vandeventer Black LLP

Norfolk, VA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

John R. Lockard

, Esq.

Mark R. Higgins, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorneys

U.S. Army Engineer District, Norfolk

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal s are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: May 2 7 , 2021

LAURA EYESTER

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals2 I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 62618, 62619, 62620

, Appeals of

Joint Forces Construction LLC , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: May 27, 2021

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HABERSHAM BANCORP FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      14,517,283
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             1,714,720
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 38,819,827
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      14,201,702
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        13,664,089
<LOANS>                                    365,498,686
<ALLOWANCE>                                  3,181,553
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             461,975,733
<DEPOSITS>                                 317,420,309
<SHORT-TERM>                                99,183,020
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          9,943,723
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,698,746
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,729,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             461,975,733
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             28,487,996
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            3,536,915
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               119,229
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            32,144,140
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          12,554,788
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          16,516,906
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       15,627,234
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  985,800
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              19,898
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             28,417,448
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,701,476
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,701,476
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,753,969
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.11
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,203,471
<LOANS-PAST>                                   338,677
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               781,803
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,709,570
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  640,859
<RECOVERIES>                                   127,042
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            3,181,553
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         3,181,553
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00472

- CV

B.K.

, Appellant

V

.

T.K.

, Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 442nd District Court

of Denton County ( 19

- 6678

- 442 )

M ay 2 7, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in part of the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the

trial court is af

fir med in part and reversed in part. We affirm that portion of the trial

court’s judgment that grants the divorce. We reverse the remainder of the judgment

and remand the case for a new trial.

It is further ordered that each party shall bear their own c osts of this appeal, for

which l et execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALSBy

__ /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

________________ Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7245
ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VALLEY GUN SMITH; MELVIN ABRAMS; VALLEY GUN SHOP; TOWSON JERRERSONIAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:07-cv01747-AMD) Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 27, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Junior Wardrick, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert Junior Wardrick appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wardrick v. Valley Gun Smith , No. 1:07-ct-01747-AMD (D. Md. July 31, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED