alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019288EN.01005001.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Pet King Brands v EUIPO — Virbac (SUIMOX)

(Case T-366/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SUIMOX - Earlier EU word mark ZYMOX - Obligation to state reasons - Notification of a decision of the Board of Appeal - Good faith and diligence on the part of the addressee - Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 288/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pet King Brands, Inc (Bartlett, Illinois, United States) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter and S. Bauer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and H. O’Neill, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Virbac SA (Carros, France) (represented by D.-I. Tayer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2018 (Case R 1835/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Pet King Brands and Virbac.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2018 (Case R 1835/2017-5) in so far as it concerns ‘veterinary preparations; the aforesaid goods not including ear drops for animals’, ‘veterinary preparations and animal health care products, including antibiotics for animals; the aforesaid goods not including ear drops for animals’ and ‘preparations for destroying vermin; the aforesaid goods not including ear drops for animals’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2018 (Case R 1835/2017-5) in so far as it concerns ‘veterinary preparations; the aforesaid goods not including ear drops for animals’, ‘veterinary preparations and animal health care products, including antibiotics for animals; the aforesaid goods not including ear drops for animals’ and ‘preparations for destroying vermin; the aforesaid goods not including ear drops for animals’;

| 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 276, 6.8.2018.

---
NUMBER 13

- 11

- 00 405

- CV



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________
ROBERT ZUNIGA , A ppellant ,

v.
EDINBURG REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL. , A ppellees

.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 389 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on June 22, 2012 . On July 3,

2012 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been timely filed and

that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of th e

Court's letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not2

significantly i njured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. To date, no response

has been received from appellant.

Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain his failure to file a brief, file a

motion for extension of time to file his brief, or fil e his brief. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed this 23rd day of August , 20 12

.
2 P.3d 143

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

April 25, 2000

22332

#### State v. Adams

Vacated and Remanded
APHIS

Implication of Potency 

Specifications

Scott Taylor, DVM 

Center for Veterinary Biologics

April 2015
APHIS

• "Sometimes the first duty of 

intelligent men is the restatement of 

the obvious." - George Orwell
APHIS

Goal

• To ensure that Safe and Effective 

products are available to the end- users
APHIS

Implication of Potency Specifications

• What impact does potency specifications 

have on efficacy and safety of veterinary 

biologics?

• At the core of our goal.
APHIS

Expectations: Safety and Efficacy

• Veterinary biologics are not 100% safe 

and effective.
APHIS

User Expectations

• Users expect products to be safe and 

effective.
APHIS

Industry Expectations

• The expectation of the veterinary 

biologics industry is to market products 

with predictable performance profiles.
APHIS

User Feedback

• How well are our current potency 

standards performing?

• Reports of potential lack of efficacy are 

infrequent.

• Majority of cases received by CVB are 

AERs associated with safety issues.
APHIS

Difference in User Expectations

• User

• Products used

• Application; expectations may vary 

depending on product application. e.g., 

inoculation vs course spray.

• Species (e.g., Companion vs livestock vs 

poultry & aquaculture)

• Multiple products administered

• Off-label use (expectations?)
APHIS

Challenges to Expectations 
APHIS

Expectations in High Risk Animals
APHIS

Potency Considerations

• We are currently considering how data 

could be used to replace potency 

standards while ensuring product 

efficacy and safety.
APHIS

Implication of Potency Specifications

• Potency is a balance between efficacy 

and safety

• Minimal potency requirements to ensure 

efficacy

• Should there be maximum potency 

requirements regarding safety?
APHIS

Potency

• Does changing potency specifications 

impact efficacy and safety of veterinary 

biologics?

• What users expect?

• Is there an opportunity to improve safety 

of products by implementing new 

potency specifications? 
APHIS

Role of Pharmacovigilance

• "However beautiful the strategy, you 

should occasionally look at the results." 

- Winston Churchill

• No potency assay correlates perfectly 

with efficacy in the field. Thus, 

pharmacovigilance plays a significant 

part of understanding how potency 

specifications impact observed product 

performance. 
APHIS

Goals regarding PV & User Expectations

• Narrow the gap between product 

performance and user’s expectations.

• Aligning user’s expectations with 

product performance profile.
APHIS

What Pharmacovigilance cannot do

• Make end users report all events

– Lack of reporting = lack of detection

• Eliminate reporting bias:

– Selection based on seriouness, animal, media

• Determine causality

– Accuracy of information reported

– No control group

– Other factors

• Handling, storage, administration, health status, 

concomitant product
APHIS

Summary

• The impact of product safety and 

efficacy must be considered when 

proposing changes to potency specs.

• The expectations of users.

• PV as a tool to assess impact

• An opportunity to improve product 

safety?
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Bradley Jared Barton v. Office of Attorney General

Appellate case number: 01-19-00677-CV

Trial court case number: 2018-84841

Trial court: 309th District Court of Harris County

Appellant Bradley Jared Barton and appellee the Office of the Attorney General of Texas 

attached exhibits to their respective briefs that contain unredacted, sensitive information. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 9.8(b), 9.9. Accordingly, we strike Exhibit A to appellant’s brief and Exhibits A-E to

appellee’s brief. Although we are striking the appendices, the individual documents are already 

included in the clerk’s record or supplemental clerk’s record filed in this case. Appellant and 

appellee may file a redacted version of their respective appendix that complies with the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. The revised appendices, if any, are due by August 19, 2021.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Veronica Rivas-Molloy___________________________________

Acting individually 

Date: August 10, 2021
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Quarterly Report of Genaera Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Leanne M. Kelly,
Senior Vice President and 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 Report 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/ Leanne M. Kelly                              
|Leanne M. Kelly                                  
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|August 11, 2008
980 P.2d 1012

#### Doe v. Doe

20608

8/31/98

Vacated & Remanded
April 4, 2007

27879

#### Kaiser v. Kaiser

Affirmed
EXHIBIT 21

              Subsidiaries of American HealthChoice, Inc.


                    Subsidiary                          Clinic
                    ----------                          ------
  1  AHC Chiropractic Clinics, Inc.,           Bandera, Wurzbach, San Pedro,
        a Texas corporation                    Corpus Christi, San Benito,
                                               Laredo & Katy Chiropractic

     AHC Physicians Corporation, Inc.,         San Pedro & Southcross medical
       a Texas corporation

     AHC Physicians Corporation, Inc.,         Inactive
       a Georgia corporation

     Total Medical Diagnostics, Inc.,          Inactive
       a Delaware corporation

     Nationwide Sports and Injury, Inc.,       Inactive
       a Texas corporation

     New Orleans East Chiropractic Clinics,    Inactive
       Inc., a Louisiana corporation

     AHC Clinic Management, L.L.C.,            Inactive
       a Texas limited liability company

     American HealthChoice, Inc.,              Corporate office
       a Texas corporation

     Diagnostic Services, Inc.,                Inactive
       a Texas corporation

     Katy Sports Injury and Rehab,             Inactive
       Incorporated, a Texas corporation

     Pacific Chiropractic (San Pedro),         Inactive
       Incorporated, d/b/a United Chiropractic
       Clinic, a Texas corporation

     Apple Chiropractic Clinic of Wurzbach,    Inactive
       Incorporated, a Texas corporation

     Valley Family Health Center, L.L.C.,      Inactive
        a Texas limited liability company
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 497 

Congratulating Army Reserve Major Lisa Jaster on her graduation from 

the Army Ranger School. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 27, 2015 

Mr. GROTHMAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating Army Reserve Major Lisa Jaster on her 

graduation from the Army Ranger School. 

Whereas the Army Ranger School (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘Ranger School’’) was established in 1950 during the Korean War to develop elite leaders to command 

difficult combat missions; 

Whereas Ranger School is one of the most challenging training courses for which members of the Armed Forces may 

volunteer; 

Whereas Ranger School pushes the physical and mental limits of students for more than 2 months; 

Whereas on average— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 497 IH 

(1) 36 percent of Ranger School students fail the 

course during the first 4 days after the date on which the 

course begins; and 

(2) only 45 percent of Ranger School students ultimately graduate from the course; 

Whereas the Army Reserve is— 

(1) a highly trained force that comprises approximately 20 percent of the total Army; and 

(2) always available to meet the needs of the Army 

and Joint Force; 

Whereas, on August 21, 2015, Army Captain Kristen Griest 

and First Lieutenant Shaye Haver became the first 2 

women to graduate from Ranger School; 

Whereas, on October 16, 2015, Major Lisa Jaster became the 

third woman, and the first woman with the Army Reserve, to graduate from Ranger School and earn the distinctive black and gold Ranger tab; 

Whereas Major Lisa Jaster overcame the extreme fatigue, 

hunger, and stress involved in Ranger training in order 

to graduate from Ranger School; and 

Whereas Major Lisa Jaster has— 

(1) dedicated her life to serving and protecting the 

United States; 

(2) deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan; and 

(3) earned the Bronze Star and the Combat Action 

Badge: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) honors Major Lisa Jaster for the accom3 plishment of becoming the first woman from the 

4 Army Reserve to graduate from Ranger School; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 497 IH 

1 (2) commends the groundbreaking achievements 

2 of the first 3 women to graduate from Ranger 

3 School— 

4 (A) Captain Kristen Griest; 

5 (B) First Lieutenant Shaye Haver; and 

6 (C) Major Lisa Jaster; 

7 (3) recognizes the vital role that the Army Re8 serve plays in protecting and defending the United 

9 States; and 

10 (4) celebrates the determination, patriotism, 

11 and willingness to lead of all Ranger School grad12 uates. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2019213EN.01003202.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Mauritsch v INEA

(Case T-271/18) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Initial rejection by the applicant of the offer of extension of contract - Resignation - Refusal of entitlement to unemployment benefits - Liability)

(2019/C 213/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Walter Mauritsch (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (represented by: I. Ramallo, acting as Agent, and by A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

Action based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment, firstly of the decision of the INEA of 24 January 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 4 October 2017 and, secondly, the decision of the INEA of 2 August 2017 rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation of 10 April 2017, and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Walter Mauritsch to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Walter Mauritsch to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---
Gary Charles Brestle, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Department of Justice eta!., 

Respondents. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

JUN 2 0 2012 

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

courts for the District of Columbia 

This matter, brought prose, is before the Court on its initial review of the petition for a 

writ of mandamus and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Upon review 

of the petition, the Court finds that petitioner has failed to state a claim for such extraordinary 

relief. It therefore will grant the IFP application and dismiss the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A (requiring dismissal of a prisoner's complaint upon a determination that the complaint, 

among other grounds, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). 

Petitioner, a federal prisoner in Jesup, Georgia, seeks an order to compel the Department 

of Justice to investigate his claims of "preindictment" civil rights violations allegedly 

"committed by agents of the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation ... operating under the control and 

instruction" of an assistant United States attorney in West Palm Beach, Florida. Pet. at 2. 

The extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus is available to compel an "officer or 

employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to plaintiff." 28 

U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner bears a heavy burden of showing that his right to a writ of 

mandamus is "clear and indisputable." In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005) 

(citation omitted). "It is well-settled that a writ of mandamus is not available to compel 

3 
discretionary acts." Cox v. Sec'y of Labor, 739 F. Supp. 28, 30 (D.D.C. 1990) (citing cases). The 

United States Attorney General has absolute discretion in deciding whether to investigate 

petitioner's accusations. As a general rule applicable to the circumstances of this case, such 

decisions are not subject to judicial review. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 

1480-81 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see id. at 1480 ("A court may properly issue a writ of mandamus only 

if the duty to be performed is ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory and clearly defined. 

The law must not only authorize the demanded action, but require it .... ") (citations, internal 

quotation marks and footnote omitted). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion. 

Date: June __J_J:_, 2012 

United States District Judge 

2
Order entered October 22, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01125-CR

BILLY RAY PERKINS JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-00206-T

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
DISMISSED and Opinion Filed February 5, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00066-CR

EX PARTE RODNEY COLLINS SMITH

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. W18-00143-V(A)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Nowell

Rodney Collins Smith has filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal an adverse 

decision by the court of criminal appeals on his application for writ of habeas corpus. 

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Our records show appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in 

prison. On direct appeal, the Court modified and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. 

See Smith v. State, No. 05-18-00491-CR, 2019 WL 1615353, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Apr. 15, 2019, pet. ref’d). In his notice of appeal, appellant states he is 

appealing a November 4, 2020 decision denying relief on his writ application 

docketed as cause number W18-00143-V(A) and WR-91,767-01. Enclosed with the 

notice of appeal is a postcard from the court of criminal appeals indicating it had, on 
–2–

November 4, 2020, denied without written order appellant’s writ application 

docketed as trial court no. W18-00143-V(A) and as writ no. WR-91,767-01. The 

clerk’s record has been filed and it confirms appellant is attempting to appeal an 

adverse decision of the court of criminal appeals.

After a final felony conviction, the court of criminal appeals has exclusive 

authority to grant post-conviction habeas relief. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.

11.07, § 5; Bd. of Pardons and Paroles ex rel. Keene v. The Eighth Court of Appeals, 

910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

A court of appeals may only review appeals when authorized by law. See 

Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Article 11.07 does 

not authorize this Court to review the court of criminal appeals’ determinations on 

an article 11.07 writ application. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, §§ 3, 5; 

Keene, 910 S.W.2d at 483; In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

Because we have no jurisdiction to review the denial of appellant’s writ 

application, we dismiss the appeal.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

210066F.U05

/Erin A. Nowell/

ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

EX PARTE RODNEY COLLINS 

SMITH

No. 05-21-00066-CR

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. W18-00143-

V(A).

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. 

Justices Molberg and Reichek 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered this 5th day of February, 2021.