alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 27, 2013

N o. 04

- 12

- 00395

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.M., A CHILD

,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2004

- CI

- 13517

Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena O. Chapa, Justice

On November 7, 2012, this court issued an opinion dismissing this appeal for want of

jurisdiction. Appellant timely filed a motion for rehearing asserting that th e appeal should not

have been dismissed because the October 31, 2012 order is a final, appealable order.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.3 (“ A motion for

rehearing may be granted by a majority of the justices who parti cipated in the decision of the

case. Otherwise, it must be denied .”).

However, we construe Appellant’s notice of appeal as prematurely filed for the final

order dated October 31, 2012. Therefore, su a sponte , we WITHDRAW our opinion and

judgment of Novemb er 7, 2012, in this appeal and REINSTATE this appeal on the court’s

docket.

The clerk’s and reporter’s records have been filed. A supplemental clerk’s record

containing a copy of the October 31, 2012 order has also been filed. See id. R. 34.5(c)(1).

Appellant’s brief is due thirty days from the date of this order. See id. R. 38.6(a).



### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

, Clerk of CourtVOL. _____ PAGE _______ MINUTES

Court of Appeals

Fourth Court of A ppeals District

San Antonio, Texas

February 27, 2013

N o. 04

- 12

- 00395

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.M., A CHILD

,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2004

- CI

- 13517

Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena O. Chapa, Justice

On November 7, 2012, this court issued an opinion dismissing this appeal for want of

jurisdiction. Appellant timely filed a motion for rehearing asserting that the appeal s hould not

have been dismissed because the October 31, 2012 order is a final, appealable order.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.3 (“ A motion for

rehearing may be granted by a majority of the justices who participated in the decision of the

case. Otherwise, it must be denied .”).

However, we construe Appellant’s notice of appeal as prematurely filed for the final

order dated October 31, 2012. Therefore, su a sponte , we WITHDRAW our opinion and

judgment of November 7, 2012 , in this appeal and REINSTATE this appeal on the court’s

docket.

The clerk’s and reporter’s records have been filed. A supplemental clerk’s record

containing a copy of the October 31, 2012 order has also been filed. See id. R. 34.5(c)(1).

Appellant’ s brief is due thirty days from the date of this order. See id. R. 38.6(a).



### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:_ /S/ Keith E. Hottle

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court

ENTERED THIS 27 TH DAY OF February, 2013

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements for the six months ended September 30, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          30,853
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,379,679
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,000
<INVENTORY>                                    944,342
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,907,358
<PP&E>                                       2,342,561
<DEPRECIATION>                                 103,330
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,762,884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,795,028
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          944,756
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,958
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,898,403
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,762,884
<SALES>                                      2,137,237
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,137,237
<CGS>                                        2,212,851
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,212,851
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               161,860
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              68,077
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,180,674)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,355
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,191,029)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,527,304)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.97)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1



                                   EXHIBIT 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


The following list contains the names and jurisdictions of organization of
Habersham Bancorp's direct and indirect subsidiaries. Habersham Bancorp owns
100% of the outstanding stock of each listed entity, except for BancMortgage
Financial Corp. and Appalachian Travel Service, which are a wholly owned
subsidiaries of Habersham Bank.

Name and Jurisdiction

Habersham Bank, a Georgia state bank.
Security State Bank, a Georgia state bank.
The Advantage Group, Inc. a Georgia corporation.
BancMortgage Financial Corp., a Georgia corporation.
Appalachian Travel Service, Inc., a Georgia corporation.





                                       69
# C_2022463EN.01003702.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — WV v CdT

(Case T-618/21) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary agents - Sick leave - Unjustified absences - Termination of contract without notice - Article 16 of the CEOS - Article 48(b) of the CEOS - Liability)

(2022/C 463/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WV (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (represented by: M. Garnier, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the Director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (‘CdT’) of 26 November 2020 terminating without notice his permanent employment, and, in so far as necessary, the decision of 17 June 2021 rejecting his complaint and, second, compensation for the harm which he claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 26 November 2020, by which the Director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (‘CdT’) terminated the employment of WV as a temporary agent; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 26 November 2020, by which the Director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (‘CdT’) terminated the employment of WV as a temporary agent;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the CdT to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the CdT to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

---
Aurelio C Gonzalez

1941 East Ave

Hayward CA 94541

(510)220-2555

chris24g@yahoo.com

Abstract

Aurelio C. Gonzalez seeking exemption under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization

and Reform Act of 2012, the following:

14 CFR 45.23(b), 14 CFR 61.113(a), 14 CFR 61.113(b),14 CFR 91.7(a),14 CFR

91.9(b)(2),14 CFR 91.103,14 CFR 91.109,14 CFR 91.119(c),14 CFR 91.121,14 CFR

91.151(a),14 CFR 91.203(a),14 CFR 91.203(b),14 CFR 91.405(a),14 CFR

91.407(a)(1),14 CFR 91.409(a)(1),14 CFR 91.409(a)(2),14 CFR 91.417(a),14 CFR

91.417(b)

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012,

I, Aurelio C. Gonzalez, (“owner/operator”) of an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) as

defined by the FAA, apply for an exemption from the aforementioned FARs to allow

commercial operation of a compliant UAS.

Basis for Exemption Request

I, Aurelio C. Gonzalez, have been involved in remotely operated aerial vehicles since

2002, and have been a member in good standing with the American Modelers Association

(AMA). Over a decade of experience in building, designing and operating model aircraft

has taught me how to maintain the highest levels of safety when in the presence of a

UAS.

The UAS will be operated commercially for the purpose of Aerial Photography and

Aerial Videography, serving the Real Estate, Entertainment and other private industries.

The UAS will not be used for clandestine operations or operations deemed unsafe or

illegal.

The following safety measures seeks to ensure a level of safety equal to manned aircraft

operation. They include the following, but are not limited to:

The UAS will be operated at an altitude no greater than 200 ft above ground level.

Operator will maintain visual Line of Sight (LOS) of UAS at all times.

Operator will observe restrictions placed on proximity to airports:  5 nautical miles (NM) from an airport having an operational control tower; or  3 NM from an airport with a published instrument flight procedure, but not an

operational tower; or  2 NM from an airport without a published instrument flight procedure or an
operational tower; or  2 NM from a heliport with a published instrument flight procedure

SUAS complies with the 55lb maximum weight restriction. Currently, the UAS is a

custom-built vehicle weighing 15 lbs.

Additionally, operator will not fly over freeways, large gatherings of people or densely

populated urban areas.

Operator will perform necessary preventative maintenance to ensure UAS is in safe

working condition.

Operator will abort and ground any UAS exhibiting any abnormal operation until it has

been thoroughly inspected, repaired as necessary and deemed safe for operation.

Operator will abort any mission due to inclement weather.

Operator will fly UAS at a safe speed, and no more than 40 knots.

The UAS will be not be operated at night.

Operator will purchase and maintain private insurance for the benefit and protection of

the public at large.

Thank you for your consideration,

Aurelio C Gonzalez

Owner/Operator
# C_2023179EN.01003602.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Casa International v EUIPO — Interstyle (casa)

(Case T-650/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark casa - Absolute ground for invalidity - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2023/C 179/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Casa International (Olen, Belgium) (represented by: F. Cornette and T. Poels-Ryckeboer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Doherty and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Interstyle BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Verbeek, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 July 2021 (Case R 1280/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 July 2021 (Case R 1280/2020-2) in so far as it dismissed the appeal filed by Casa International as regards the following goods in Class 16: ‘Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists’ materials; brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); [instructional and teaching materials (except apparatus)]; plastic materials for packing (not included in other classes); printing types; [printing blocks]’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 July 2021 (Case R 1280/2020-2) in so far as it dismissed the appeal filed by Casa International as regards the following goods in Class 16: ‘Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists’ materials; brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); [instructional and teaching materials (except apparatus)]; plastic materials for packing (not included in other classes); printing types; [printing blocks]’;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 490, 6.12.2021.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1078 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1078

     To direct the Secretary of Defense to provide certain TRICARE 
 beneficiaries with the opportunity to retain access to TRICARE Prime.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2013

  Ms. Klobuchar (for herself and Ms. Hirono) introduced the following 
   bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To direct the Secretary of Defense to provide certain TRICARE 
 beneficiaries with the opportunity to retain access to TRICARE Prime.

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

SECTION 1. FUTURE AVAILABILITY OF TRICARE PRIME FOR CERTAIN 
              BENEFICIARIES ENROLLED IN TRICARE PRIME.

    Section 732 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 1816) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
        subsection (b):
    ``(b) Access to TRICARE Prime.--
            ``(1) One-time election.--Subject to paragraph (3), the 
        Secretary shall ensure that each affected eligible beneficiary 
        who is enrolled in TRICARE Prime as of September 30, 2013, may 
        make a one-time election to continue such enrollment in TRICARE 
        Prime, notwithstanding that a contract described in subsection 
        (a)(2)(A) does not allow for such enrollment based on the 
        location in which such beneficiary resides. The beneficiary may 
        continue such enrollment in TRICARE Prime so long as the 
        beneficiary resides in the same ZIP code as the ZIP code in 
        which the beneficiary resided at the time of such election.
            ``(2) Enrollment in tricare standard.--If an affected 
        eligible beneficiary makes the one-time election under 
        paragraph (1), the beneficiary may thereafter elect to enroll 
        in TRICARE Standard at any time in accordance with a contract 
        described in subsection (a)(2)(A).
            ``(3) Residence at time of election.--An affected eligible 
        beneficiary may not make the one-time election under paragraph 
        (1) if, at the time of such election, the beneficiary does not 
        reside in a ZIP code that is in a region described in 
        subsection (c)(1)(B).''.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 7, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00663

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.J.,JR ., a child,

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- PA

- 02667

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The State ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The brief is

deemed filed.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of January, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1171 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to allow a veterinarian to transport 

and dispense controlled substances in the usual course of veterinary 

practice outside of the registered location. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 17, 2013 

Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr. KING, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. 

GRASSLEY, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. ENZI, and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to allow a veterinarian to transport and dispense controlled substances 

in the usual course of veterinary practice outside of 

the registered location. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TRANSPORTING AND DISPENSING CON4 TROLLED SUBSTANCES IN THE USUAL 

5 COURSE OF VETERINARY PRACTICE. 

6 Section 302(e) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

7 U.S.C. 822(e)) is amended— 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1171 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘(e)’’ and inserting ‘‘(e)(1)’’; 

2 and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a registrant 

5 who is a veterinarian shall not be required to have a sepa6 rate registration in order to transport and dispense con7 trolled substances in the usual course of veterinary prac8 tice at a site other than the registrant’s registered prin9 cipal place of business or professional practice, so long as 

10 the site of transporting and dispensing is located in a 

11 State where the veterinarian is licensed to practice veteri12 nary medicine and is not a principal place of business or 

13 professional practice.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 4.11
​
English summary of Principal Terms of the Fourth Addendum to the Lease Agreement (dated March 22, 2015, as amended by that certain Second Addendum entered on February 27, 2017 and that certain Third Addendum entered on August 8, 2018) entered into on March 11, 2021, by and between Mintz K. Construction Company Ltd. (the “Landlord”), as landlord, and Galmed Research and Development Ltd. (the “GRD”), as tenant (the “Addendum”).
​
The Addendum
​
		●	Premises covered by the Addendum: Approximately of 590 square meters (the “Total Premises”).

​
		●	Term of Lease: According to the Addendum, the term of the lease of the Total premises shall be from March 22, 2021 until March 21, 2023 (the “New Lease Term”), provided however that GRD shall have an option to extend the New Lease Term in accordance with the terms of the Lease Agreement, from March 22, 2023 until March 21, 2024 (the “Option Period”).

​
		●	Fees: GRD shall pay a monthly rental fee in the amount of NIS 35,000 plus VAT for the Total Premises. In the event that the option is exercised by GRD, GRD shall pay monthly rental fees for the Total Premises in the amount of NIS 38,290 during the Option period.

​
		●	Security: GRD shall provide the Landlord with an autonomous bank guarantee of NIS 172,264.

​
EXHIBIT 23.2


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports  included  in  this  Form  10-K  into  the  Company's  previously  filed
Registration  Statements,  File Nos.  33-43860,  33-46317,  33-87108,  33-60029,
33-64992, 33-63169, 333-00785, 333-05661, 333-25161, and 333-32583.


                                                             Arthur Andersen LLP
Seattle, WA
March 30, 1998
Exhibit 10.7


 


SIDDHI ACQUISITION CORP.

c/o Graubard Miller

405 Lexington Ave, 11th Floor

New York, New York 10174


 


[●], 2021


 


Graubard Miller

405 Lexington Ave, 11th Floor

New York, New York 10174


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


This letter will confirm
our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration statement
(the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”)
of securities of Siddhi Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of (i) the
consummation by the Company of an initial business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case as described
in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”),
Graubard Miller shall make available to the Company certain office space and administrative and support services as may be required
by the Company from time to time, situated at 405 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, New York 10174 (or any successor
location) free of charge.


 


[Signature
Page Follows]


 






     


     


    

 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 	 
	 	SIDDHI ACQUISITION CORP.
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name:	                   
	 	 	Title:	 


 


	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:	 
	 	 	 	 
	GRAUBARD MILLER	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	 	 
	 	Name:	                   	 
	 	Title:	 	 


 


[Signature
Page to Administrative Services Agreement]