alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 33977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15271]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


National Research Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act that the National Research Advisory 
Council will hold a meeting on Wednesday, September 5, 2018, at 1100 
First Street NE, Room 104, Washington, DC 20002. The meeting will 
convene at 9:00 a.m. and end at 3:30 p.m. This meeting is open to the 
public.
    The agenda will include information technology challenges, career 
development and merit awards, roadmaps overview, clinical trials, and 
cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs). No time will 
be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the 
public. Members of the public wanting to attend may contact Rashelle 
Robinson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Research and 
Development (10P9), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 443-5678, or by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#99cbf8eaf1fcf5f5fcb7cbf6fbf0f7eaf6f7d9eff8b7fef6ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8fddeefce7eae3e3eaa1dde0ede6e1fce0e1cff9eea1e8e0f9">[email protected]</span></a> no later than close of business on August 29, 
2018. Because the meeting is being held in a government building, a 
photo I.D. must be presented at the Guard's Desk as a part of the 
clearance process. Any member of the public seeking additional 
information should contact Rashelle Robinson at the phone number or 
email address noted above.

    Dated: July 12, 2018.
LaTonya L. Small,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-15271 Filed 7-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8320-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Robert L. WHITE, Appellant, v. Etta L. WHITE, Appellee.

No. 70-536.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 25, 1971.

Kenneth C. Deacon, Jr., of Harris, Barrett & Dew, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

J. Lamar Woodard, of Schuh, Schuh & Woodard, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of divorce. In divorce matters the chancellor has broad discretion and his judgment comes to us clothed in a presumption of correctness. Unless there is a showing of abuse of discretion the judgment will be affirmed.

We have studied the record, the briefs and other matters filed in this cause and no reversible error being shown the judgment is therefore affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.
# C_2022418EN.01002402.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Völkl v EUIPO — Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) (Marker Völkl)

(Case T-156/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark Marker Völkl - Earlier EU word mark VÖLKL - Relative ground for invalidity - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the goods - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 418/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Völkl GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: C. Raßmann, M. Suether and F. Adinolfi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) GmbH (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Bauer, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on 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 11 January 2021 (Case R 0055/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Völkl GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Völkl GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---
#### Video-Cinema Films, Inc., Appellant, v Seaboard Surety Company, Defendant, and John L. Vorbach, III, et al., Respondents.

[655 NYS2d 352]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered December 7, 1995, insofar as appealed from, dismissing the complaint as against defendants-respondents, and bringing up for review an order which granted defendants-respondents’ motions for summary judgment based on plaintiffs failure to comply with a conditional preclusion order, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiffs consistent failure to comply with outstanding orders, especially his failure to comply with a conditional preclusion order from which an appeal was never perfected, warrants the drastic relief of dismissal in the absence of a reasonable excuse for the failure to comply *(see, Becerril v Skate*
      *136
      *Way Roller Rink,*184 AD2d 365; *Mann v Dachel,*210 AD2d 461). We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
# C_2022171EN.01003801.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2022 — Thomas and Julien v Council

(Case T-442/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Area of freedom, security and justice - Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Euratom, of the one part, and the United Kingdom, of the other part - Council decision on the conclusion of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement - Act not of individual concern - Non-regulatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 171/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Rhiannon Thomas (London, United Kingdom), Michaël Julien (Weybridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, J. Ciantar and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants, who are United Kingdom nationals residing in the United Kingdom, seek partial annulment, first, of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (OJ 2021 L 149, p. 10) and, second, of Council Decision (EU) 2021/689 of 29 April 2021 on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, and of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information (OJ 2021 L 149, p. 2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Declares that there is no longer any need to rule on the application to intervene of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no longer any need to rule on the application to intervene of the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Ms Rhiannon Thomas and Mr Michaël Julien to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, with the exception of those relating to the application to intervene; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ms Rhiannon Thomas and Mr Michaël Julien to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, with the exception of those relating to the application to intervene;

| 4. | Orders Ms Thomas, Mr Julien, the Council and the Commission each to bear their own costs relating to the application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Ms Thomas, Mr Julien, the Council and the Commission each to bear their own costs relating to the application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7079

REGINALD FULLARD,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LETITIA OWEN; JAMES W. MCRAE; SGT. OXENDINE; CPT. ROUSH,

 Defendants - Appellees,

and

ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary of NCDPS,

 Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:15-ct-03147-BO)

Submitted: January 22, 2019 Decided: January 28, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald U. Fullard, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald U. Fullard appeals the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Fullard v. Owen, No. 5:15-ct-03147-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 

2018). We deny Fullard’s motion to bar affirmative defenses and dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2021148EN.01000902.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře (Czech Republic) lodged on 19 February 2021 — RegioJet a.s. v České dráhy a.s.

(Case C-104/21)

(2021/C 148/12)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RegioJet a.s.

Defendant: České dráhy a.s.

Questions referred

| 1. | Do information media featuring information for passengers in paper form that are placed on the premises of a railway station constitute a service facility, as defined by Article 3 [point] 11 of Directive 2012/34? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do information media featuring information for passengers in paper form that are placed on the premises of a railway station constitute a service facility, as defined by Article 3 [point] 11 of Directive 2012/34? (1)

| 2. | Is Directive 2012/34 binding for České dráhy, a.s., as the State in the broader sense of the word, pursuant to Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? Can individuals rely on the direct effect of an incorrectly transposed or untransposed directive against České dráhy, a.s.? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Directive 2012/34 binding for České dráhy, a.s., as the State in the broader sense of the word, pursuant to Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? Can individuals rely on the direct effect of an incorrectly transposed or untransposed directive against České dráhy, a.s.?

---

(1)  Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).

---
H. Res. 252

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

September 22, 1993.

Resolved, That during consideration of the bill (H.R.

2750) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes, the amendment

printed in section 2 of this resolution shall be considered as

adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.

The bill as so amended shall be considered as the original bill

for the purpose of further amendment. The amendment printed in section 3 of this resolution may amend a portion of the

bill not yet read for amendment and shall not be subject to

a demand for division of the question in the House or in the

Committee of the Whole.

SEC. 2. The amendment considered as adopted in the

House and in the Committee of the Whole is as follows:

Page 36, after line 10, insert: ‘‘$28,200,000 for the

San Francisco Airport BART Extension Project and the

Tasman Corridor LRT Project;’’; and
2

HRES 252 EH

Page 36, line 21, strike ‘‘$78,200,000’’ and insert

in lieu thereof ‘‘$50,000,000’’.

SEC. 3. The amendment that may amend a portion of

the bill not yet read for amendment is as follows:

Page 7, line 13, strike ‘‘$2,555,695,000’’ and insert

in lieu thereof ‘‘$2,560,695,000’’; and

Page 22, line 23, strike ‘‘$85,550,000’’ and insert

in lieu thereof ‘‘$62,000,000’’.

SEC. 4. House Resolutions 211 and 221 are laid on the

table.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.2



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 on Form 10-QSB ("Form 10-QSB") of Smart-tek Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Perry Law, Chief Financial 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 Form 10-QSB 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the

financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Perry Law

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

Perry Law

Chief Financial Officer

February 14, 2008
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Adam SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 61611.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1978.

In re: Adam Smith, applying for remedial writs of certiorari. Parish of Jefferson.

Granted: An evidentiary hearing is ordered and a transcript must be made of the proceedings.
#### The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Arthur Lee SAMPSON, Respondent.

No. 73-1357.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 21, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1974.

Richard E. Gerstein,' State’s Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State’s Atty., for petitioner.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Steven Rappaport, Asst. Public Defender, for respondent.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed on the authority of State v. Johnson, Fla.App.1973, 287 So.2d 322.
Argued and submitted April 8,

affirmed May 8, 2002

#### Rochelle A. HAUSER, *Appellant, v.*TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona corporation, fdba Transamerica Title Insurance Company, an Arizona corporation, and Curry County Title, Inc., an Oregon corporation, *Respondents.*

00-CV-0306; A115456

46 P3d 216

Frank C. Rote, III, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Brown, Hughes, Bird, Rote & Wetmore.

Jonathan M. Radmacher argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was McEwen, Gisvold, Rankin, Carter & Streinz, LLP.

Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Wollheim, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *Gladhart v. Oregon Vineyard Supply Co.,*332 Or 226, 26 P3d 817 (2001); *Chaney v. Fields Chevrolet Co.,*264 Or 21, 26-27, 503 P2d 1239 (1972).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          17,176
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,797
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,984
<PP&E>                                           9,881
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,328)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,955
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,002
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           145
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,714
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,955
<SALES>                                         89,202
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,202
<CGS>                                           77,388
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,718
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 123
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,072)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (497)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,575)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,575)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.07)
        

</TABLE>
#### CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation, Petitioner, v. Harry KENDEL et al., Respondents.

No. 44502.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 15, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 15, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 281 So.2d 566.

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

ERVIN, J., dissents.
#### CONTINENTAL EXPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation, and Joseph Caselli, Appellants, v. Irene M. DOWNS, Appellee.

No. 72-572.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 305 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 121

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 305

                          [Report No. 103-351]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 2401) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
   personnel strengths for fiscal year 1994, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 10, 1993

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                 House Calendar No. 121
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 305

                          [Report No. 103-351]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 2401) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
   personnel strengths for fiscal year 1994, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 10, 1993

    Mr. Frost, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 2401) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
   personnel strengths for fiscal year 1994, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
2401) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for military 
activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for fiscal year 1994, and for other purposes. All 
points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as 
read.
```
# C_2022095EN.01003802.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/38

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — IL and Others v Parliament

(Case T-724/21 R)

(Application for interim measures - Civil Service - Conditions of access to the Parliament’s buildings at its three places of work in connection with the health crisis - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2022/C 95/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: IL and 81 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and L. Panepinto, lawyers

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: D. Boytha, S. Bukšek Tomac and L. Darie, acting as Agents

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 27 October 2021 on the exceptional health and safety rules governing access to the Parliament’s buildings at its three places of work.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 15 November 2021, IL and Others v Parliament (T-724/21 R) is set aside. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 15 November 2021, IL and Others v Parliament (T-724/21 R) is set aside.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---
EXHIBIT
23.1





INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
333-134234 and 333-134233) on Form S-8 pertaining to the Stock Option Plan of
CareAdvantage, Inc. and the Directors’ Stock Option Plan of CareAdvantage, Inc.
of our report dated March 31, 2009, which included an explanatory paragraphexpressing substantial
doubt about theCompany's
ability to continue as a going concern, with respect to our audit of the
consolidated financial statements of CareAdvantage, Inc. included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008.




/s/
      Eisner, LLPNew
      York, NYMarch
      31, 2009
# C_2022191EN.01000602.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/6

---

Appeal brought on 20 September 2021 by Lajos Bese against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 July 2021 in Case T-128/21, Bese v EUIPO — Mixtec (rubyred CRANBERRY)

(Case C-611/21 P)

(2022/C 191/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lajos Bese

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 11 February 2022, the Vice-President of the Court of Justice held that the appeal was dismissed as inadmissible and that Mr Lajos Bese should bear his own costs.

---