alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019280EN.01001501.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/15

---

Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by Next design+produktion GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2018 in Case T-533/17, Next design+produktion GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-819/18 P)

(2019/C 280/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Next design+produktion GmbH (represented by: M. Hirsch, Rechtsanwalt, M. Metzner, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG

By order of 11 July 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Horse Protection Act Disqualification

List

Last Modified: 

Print

The purpose of the Horse Protection Act (HPA) is to prevent the cruel practice of

soring horses. Congress amended the HPA in 1976 to enhance the Secretary of

Agriculture’s (Secretary) ability to end soring of horses. Among the most notable

devices to accomplish this end is the authorization for disqualification, which

Congress specifically added to provide a strong deterrent to violations of the HPA.

The HPA specifically provides that disqualification is in addition to any civil penalty

assessed.  Although disqualification is discretionary, the Judicial Officer, who issues

final decisions and orders on behalf of the Secretary, has held that disqualification,

in addition to the assessment of a civil penalty, is appropriate in almost every HPA

case, including those cases involving first-time violators of the HPA. The HPA

authorizes the Secretary to disqualify violators of the HPA from showing or exhibiting

any horse; and from judging or managing any horse show, horse exhibition, horse

sale, or horse auction for a period of not less than one year for the first violation of

the Horse Protection Act, and for a period of not less than five years for any

subsequent violation of the Horse Protection Act.

Any person who knowingly fails to obey an order of disqualification under 15 USC §

1825(c) is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $3,000 for each violation,
adjusted for inflation as mandated by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment

Act Improvements Act of 2015, as amended. 

Any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction, or the management

thereof, collectively and severally, which knowingly allows any person who is under

a disqualification order to show or exhibit any horse, to enter for the purpose of

showing or exhibiting any horse, to take part in the managing or judging, or

otherwise participate in any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction in

violation of a disqualification order is subject to a civil penalty of not more than

$3,000 for each violation, adjusted for inflation as mandated by the Federal Civil

Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, as amended..

As of May 10, 2023, failure to obey a Horse Protection Act disqualification may result

in a civil penalty of no more than $13,252.

Download the Federal Disqualification and Civil Penalty List (March 2024)
CONSENT OF BDO SEIDMAN, LLP,
                    INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
MicroTel International, Inc.


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Nos. 333-74281, 333-71035, 333-69571, 333-12567, 33-22518,
33-27454, 33-77926, 33-32271 and 33-32771) on Form S-8 of our report dated
March 3, 2000, except as to the penultimate paragraph of Note 9 which is as
of January 22, 2001, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
consolidated financial statement schedule of MicroTel International, Inc.
appearing in Amendment No. 3 to the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 1999. Our report contains an explanatory paragraph
regarding the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.



                                                     /S/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP



Orange County, California
April 6, 2001
# CHAPTER 3

Issue Category: When Does This Action

Take Effect?

Pages 3- 433 – 3- 435

Response to Public Comments

Water Quality Standard Regulatory Revisions

August , 2015

40 CFR Part 131

Docket #: EPA

- HQ

- OQ

- 2010

- 0606

This document is part of a larger document

.Chapter 3 – Response Essays 11.a – Effect – Gen Supp

**Essay 11**  **.a – When Does This Action Take Effect:**  **Gen eral**  **Supp ort** 

No comments are assigned to this issue category, and thus no response is necessary.Chapter 3 – Response Essays 11.b – Effect

– Gen Opp

**Essay 11**  **.b – When Does This Action Take**  **Effect :**  **Gen eral**  **O pp**  **osition**

No comments are assigned to this issue category, and thus no response is necessary.Chapter 3 – Response Essays 11.c – Effect – Other Options

**Essay 11**  **.c – When Does This Action Take**  **Effect : Other Options EPA** 

**Should Consider**

No comments are assigned to this issue category, and thus no response is necessary.
#### Tataipu v. State

21242

12/29/98

Vacated & Remanded
# C_2018399EN.01003502.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/35

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 24 August 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva and Biotech3D v Commission

(Case T-337/18 R and T-347/18 R)

((Interim relief - Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Biocidal products - Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) - Approval refused - Application for interim measures - Prima facie case - Weighing up of competing interests))

(2018/C 399/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant in case T-337/18 R: Laboratoire Pareva (Saint-Martin-de-Crau, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Applicants in case T-347/18 R: Laboratoire Pareva (Saint-Martin-de-Crau, France) and Biotech3D Ltd & Co. KG (Gampern, Austria) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/619 of 20 April 2018 not approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 1, 5 and 6 (OJ 2018 L 102, p. 21) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/613 of 20 April 2018 approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2 and 4 (OJ 2018 L 102, p. 1), and the adoption of any other appropriate interim measures.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Cases T-337/18 R and T-347/18 R are joined for the purpose of the present order. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Cases T-337/18 R and T-347/18 R are joined for the purpose of the present order.

| 2. | The applications for interim measures are dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applications for interim measures are dismissed.

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

3.

The costs are reserved.

---
17676

#### State v. Lincoln

December 3, 1996

Order No. 96-32

Affirmed
##### 



EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

|                                      |  |                             |  |                                      
|------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                                      |  | State of                    |  | Name under which                     
|Name of Subsidiary                    |  | Incorporation/Organization  |  | Subsidiary does Business             
|                                      |  |                             |  |                                      
|CHW LLC                               |  | Delaware                    |  | CHW LLC                              
|Providence Insurance Company, Limited |  | A Bermudian Company         |  | Providence Insurance Company, Limited
|CatoSouth LLC                         |  | North Carolina              |  | CatoSouth LLC                        
|Cato of Texas L.P.                    |  | Texas                       |  | Cato of Texas L.P.                   
|Cato Southwest, Inc.                  |  | Delaware                    |  | Cato Southwest, Inc.                 
|CaDel LLC                             |  | Delaware                    |  | CaDel LLC                            
|CatoWest LLC                          |  | Nevada                      |  | CatoWest LLC                         
|Cedar Hill National Bank              |  | A Nationally Chartered Bank |  | Cedar Hill National Bank             
|catocorp.com, LLC                     |  | Delaware                    |  | catocorp.com, LLC                    

46
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

June 12, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00317

- CV

L l oyd Hurt KELLNER

, Trent C. Kellner, Linda Cunningham, Independent Administrator of The Estate of William Smith Nelson, Jr., Billie Alleen Kuhnel, Michael James Dworaczyk, Evelyn Hartman, Ka therine Zaiontz, Otto Leo Henke, Jr., Patricia Ann Henke et al

, Appellants

v.

XTO ENERGY, INC

., Newfield Exploration Company, Imperial Oil Company, Momentum Oil & Gas, LLC and Modelo Energy, LLC,

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atas cosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15

- 09

- 0864

- CVA Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This appeal was initially abated on February 22, 2018, to allow the parties time to obtain approval of a settlement agreement from the probate court. On March 21, 2018, we issued an order informing the parties that this appeal would remain abated and directing the appellees to advise this C ourt, in writing, of the status of the probate court’s review of the settlement agreement on or before May 2, 2018

.
On May 2, 2018, the appellees filed a letter informing this C ourt that the probate court signed an order granting a motion to approve a settlement agreement on April 21, 2018. The appellees said they anticipated that a request for an agreed dismissal of this appeal would follow and they requested the continued abatement of this appeal. On May 3, 2018, the appellants filed a letter informing this court that they agreed to the continued abatement of this appeal. Although we did not issue an new abatement o rder in response to the parties’ letters , we have allowed this appeal to remain abated.

As of the date of this order, a request for an agreed dismissal of this appeal has not been filed. We, therefor e, ORDER the appellees to explain

, in writing

, on or bef ore July 12, 2018

, why the abatement of this appeal should remain in effect

. T his C ourt will entertain a motion for an agreed dismissal of this appeal in lieu of an explanation from the appellees

._________________________________ Karen Angel ini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 12th day of June, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. H OTTLE

, Clerk of Court
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-11491

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER DEWAYNE JAMES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-501-3

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Christopher Dewayne James has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). James has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-11491 Document: 00514207649 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2017
No. 16-11491

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-11491 Document: 00514207649 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2017
# C_2019288EN.01005201.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/52

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2019 — W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen v EUIPO (Kordes’ Rose Monique)

(Case T-569/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Kordes’ Rose Monique - Absolute ground for refusal - Mark consisting of a plant variety denomination - Essential elements - Article 7(1)(m) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(m) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 288/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen GmbH & Co KG (Klein Offenseth-Sparrieshoop, Germany (represented by: G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 (Case R 1929/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Kordes’ Rose Monique as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 April 2017 (Case R 1929/2017-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 April 2017 (Case R 1929/2017-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen GmbH & Co. KG in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen GmbH & Co. KG in the proceedings before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---
State Offi ce of Risk



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 10, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00558

- CV

Edna A. MARTINEZ

, Appellant

v.

STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT

,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar Coun ty, Texas

Trial Court No. 2001

- CI

- 17102 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant's third motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Appellant's brief is due on or before January 7, 2015.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Jus tice

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

court on this 10th day of December, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Cl erk of Court
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Timothy Sherlock, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and Vice President of Finance ofARI Network Services, Inc., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ARI Network Services, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.
Dated: March 17, 2005
/s/ Timothy Sherlock
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                             5
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                           16,538
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                    32,995
<ALLOWANCES>                      3,166
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 57,339
<PP&E>                          227,252
<DEPRECIATION>                   57,156
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  841,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            67,200
<BONDS>                         475,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           193,539
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                            270
<OTHER-SE>                       66,383
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    841,613
<SALES>                         111,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                111,987
<CGS>                            27,024
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   119,489
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               21,801
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (21,839)
<INCOME-TAX>                     (5,683)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (16,156)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                    (16,412)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0
        


</TABLE>
#### R. L. Baker, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. R. F. Bellamy, *Defendant in Error.*

Decision Filed April 27, 1915.

Writ of error to Circuit Court for Citrus County; W. S. Bullock, Judge.

Per Curiam.

This cause having been submitted to the court at a former day of this term upon the transcript of the record of the judgment aforesaid, and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed; it is further ordered that the defendant in error do have and recover of and from the plaintiff in error his costs by him in this behalf expended, which costs are taxed at the sum of $........, all of which is ordered to be certified to the court below.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

April 12, 2024

SC-2024-0137

Ex parte Chelsea Yvette Walker PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: 

Chelsea Yvette Walker v. State of Alabama) (Jefferson Circuit Court: CC17-3013 and CC-17-3014; Criminal Appeals: CR-2022-1377).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on April 12, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Wise, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Sellers, 

Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7585

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WALTER INGRAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:10-cr-00322-JFM-5; 1:14-cv-00888-JFM)

Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Louis Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Walter Ingram seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Ingram has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED