alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Holmes et al., Appellants, *v.*Cleveland Builders Supply Co., Appellee.

(No. 31930

Decided December 14, 1949.)

*Mr. Sidney A. Levine*and *Mr. Gilbert Weil,*for appellant.

*Messrs. M. B. & H. H. Johnson*and *Mr. C. W. Lindsay,*for appellee.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000880114
<NAME> BELDEN & BLAKE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           8,631
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,628
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,816
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,458
<PP&E>                                         586,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                  80,570
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 590,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,127
<BONDS>                                        368,177
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,011
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,217
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   590,778
<SALES>                                        111,543
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,339
<CGS>                                           60,658
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,658
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                63,902
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,528
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,749)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (12,162)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,587)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,587)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2020019EN.01004701.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2019 — Werner v EUIPO — Merck (fLORAMED)

(Case T-695/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark fLORAMED - Earlier EU word mark MEDIFLOR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 19/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stefan Werner (Baldham, Germany) (represented by: T Büttner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: U. Pfleghar, M. Best, M. Giannakoulis and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 September 2018 (Case R 197/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Merck and Mr Werner.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Mr Stefan Werner to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Mr Stefan Werner to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---
#### APTITUDE ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 9034.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 6, 1963.

Decided Nov. 11, 1963.

William J. Morgan, petitioner, pro se.

Alan D. Pekelner, Atty. Dept..of Justice (John B. Jones, Jr., Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., and Meyer Rothwacks, Atty. Dept, of Justice, on brief), for respondent.

Before HAYNSWORTH and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Careful consideration of this petition for review of a decision of the Tax Court of the United States and of certain other papers submitted by the taxpayer during the hearing brings us to the conviction that the Tax Court correctly found that the contested tax deficiencies had been properly assessed by the Commissioner. The decision of the Tax Court is affirmed for the reasons stated in its memorandum opinion filed November 28, 1962.

Affirmed.
# C_2022119EN.01003102.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2022 — Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou v Commission

(Case T-757/18) (1)

(State aid - Greek casinos - System providing for a levy of 80 % on admission fees of different amounts - Differentiation between public and private casinos - Complaint - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering its recovery - Annulment of the decision by a decision of the General Court - Decision finding no State aid - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Rights of the defence)

(2022/C 119/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE (Loutraki, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki AE (Maroussi, Greece), Elliniko Kazino Parnithas AE (Maroussi) (represented by: N. Niejahr, B. Hoorelbeke, I. Drillerakis and E. Rantos, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2018/1575 of 9 August 2018 on the measures to certain Greek casinos SA.28973 — C 16/2010 (ex NN 22/2010, ex CP 318/2009) implemented by Greece (OJ 2018 L 262, p. 61).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---
January 23, 2001

22647

#### State v. Kivaha

Affirmed
# C_2018166EN.01003501.xml

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/35

---

Action brought on 2 March 2018 — Chrome Hearts v EUIPO — Shenzhen Van St. Lonh Jewelry (Representation of a cross)

(Case T-137/18)

(2018/C 166/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Chrome Hearts LLC (Hollywood, California, United States) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shenzhen Van St. Lonh Jewelry Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a cross) — Application for registration No 13 845 871

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2017 in Case R 766/2017-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO (and Intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO (and Intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation No 2017/1001, in as far as the contested goods ‘air fragrancing preparations’ and ‘dentifrices’ is concerned. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation No 2017/1001, in as far as the contested goods ‘air fragrancing preparations’ and ‘dentifrices’ is concerned.

---
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 of Fonix Corporation on Form 10-K for the
      period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas A. Murdock, Chief
      Executive 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; 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/THOMAS
                  A. MURDOCK**Thomas
                  A. MurdockChief
                  Executive Officer





Dated
      March 28, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                           4,513,986
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                         487,575,196
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,486,630
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 474,186,450
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       349,135,379
<OTHER-SE>                                    (33,807,127)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   474,186,450
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,970,624
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,514,866
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,561,319
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,225,553
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,225,553
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,225,553
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .59



</TABLE>
# C_2018301EN.01003801.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/38

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 July 2018 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA

(Case T-104/18 R)

((Application for interim measures - Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Recovery of the sums paid - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))

(2018/C 301/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation (San Sebastián, Spain) (represented by: P. Palacios Pesquera and M. Rius Coma, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of operation of the REA’s decision to seek full repayment of the grant awarded for the Food-Watch project.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 67 

Expressing support for designation of February 12, 2015, as ‘‘Darwin Day’’ 

and recognizing the importance of science in the betterment of humanity. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2015 

Mr. HIMES (for himself, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. POCAN, Ms. DELAURO, Ms. 

SLAUGHTER, Mr. HONDA, Mr. COHEN, Mr. FOSTER, Ms. LOFGREN, Ms. 

NORTON, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, and Mr. SMITH of Washington) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of February 12, 2015, 

as ‘‘Darwin Day’’ and recognizing the importance of 

science in the betterment of humanity. 

Whereas Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection, together with the monumental 

amount of scientific evidence he compiled to support it, 

provides humanity with a logical and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity of life on Earth; 

Whereas the validity of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is further strongly supported by the modern understanding of the science of genetics; 

Whereas it has been the human curiosity and ingenuity exemplified by Darwin that has promoted new scientific disVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:46 Feb 03, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR67.IH HR67

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 67 IH 

coveries that have helped humanity solve many problems 

and improve living conditions; 

Whereas the advancement of science must be protected from 

those unconcerned with the adverse impacts of global 

warming and climate change; 

Whereas the teaching of creationism in some public schools 

compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the 

United States education systems; 

Whereas Charles Darwin is a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on which to focus and around which to build 

a global celebration of science and humanity intended to 

promote a common bond among all of Earth’s peoples; 

and 

Whereas February 12, 2015, is the anniversary of the birth 

of Charles Darwin in 1809 and would be an appropriate 

date to designate as ‘‘Darwin Day’’: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘Darwin Day’’; 

3 and 

4 (2) recognizes Charles Darwin as a worthy sym5 bol on which to celebrate the achievements of reason, 

6 science, and the advancement of human knowledge. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

PROCEDURES

Step 1: All employees: Fill out blocks 1-8 on the APHIS 513 (April 2015 version)

♦ State employees: in addition, fill out blocks 11 and 12

♦ Block 1 – Name – first, last and middle initial

♦ Block 2 – Date of Request

♦ Block 3 – User phone number

♦ Block 4 – User email address

♦ Block 5 - User employer (APHIS, State, Contractor)

♦ Block 6 – Type of requested Access (Permanent or Temporary)

♦ Block 7 – System to which Access is Requested (EMRS2)

♦ Block 8 – Action Requested (New account or Modify account)

♦ Block 9 – Instructions if account is modified. Please note home state / ODS state 

♦ Block 10 – Duration / Hours of requested access – if temporary / emergency, indicate end 

date and periods of access requested. If on an incident, the end date is the demobilization 

date.

♦ Block 11 – Name and address of user employer (state employees or contractors)

♦ Block 12 – User’s supervisor (state employees or contractors)

♦ Blocks 13 and 14 – for contractors only

♦ Block 15 – Reason for Access. Request routine data access and specify state you are 

requesting access to. Can also request roles and state access to a specific incident upon 

deployment.

Step 2: Get VS official (VS Supervisor, Assistant Director or Incident Commander) to digitally sign 

Block 16. Assistant Directors or Acting Assistant Directors must sign for state employees. 

For contractors, a federal supervisor should sign. The Supervisor block should be 

checked.

Step 3: Email the request to your District EMRS Network Associate for processing. If your District 

Network Associate is not available, please email the request to the EMRS Network 

Associate mailbox emrs.training.network@aphis.usda.gov 

If on an incident, the 513 should be given to the EMRS Specialist on the Incident 

Management Team.

DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THESE PROCEDURES

♦ EMRS Training Network for End Users (April 2015)

♦ APHIS 513 Federal Employee Template (separate document)

♦ APHIS 513 State Employee Template (separate document)

♦ APHIS 513 Blank Form (separate document)

EMRS 2.0

APHIS 513 Procedures: 

Request for EMRS Access

October 1, 2015
896 P.2d 930

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### State v. Farage

18222

5/03/95

Affirmed
J L Stephan Co PC
                          Certified Public Accountants

                             862 East Eighth Street
                          Traverse City, Michigan 49686


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement of
Ajay  Sports,  Inc.  and  Subsidiaries  on Form S-8 of our report dated April 7,
2000,  appearing  in this Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Ajay  Sports,  Inc. and
Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 1999.

J L Stephan Co P.C.
--------------------
J L Stephan Co P.C.

Traverse City, Michigan
April 7, 2000
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Scott D. Howarth, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc.



By:

/s/    Scott D.
HowarthScott D. HowarthPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDecember 22, 2009


I, John M. Cobb, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc.



By:

/s/    John M. CobbJohn M. CobbVice President and Chief Financial OfficerDecember 22, 2009
10596

#### State v. Ruwol

Dismissed
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02
- 11
- 00216
- CR NO. 02
- 11
- 0021 7 - CR
EDWARD WAYNE CHAPMAN APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Pursuant to a plea bargain in each case and upon his plea s of guilty to robbery by threats and possession of one or more but less than four grams of a
controlled substance

— methamphetamine

— with intent to deliver , the trial court convicted Appell ant Edward Wayne Chapman of the two offense s , both of which

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

are second

- degree felonies. 2 Appellant signed judicial confessions in which he
also pled true to the habitual allegations in each case , making the range of confinement twenty

- five years to ninety

- nine years in each case

. 3 The trial court sentenced him to serve twenty

- five years’ confinement in each case , with the sentences to run concurrently

. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal in each

case

. For each case, t he trial court’s certification states that this is a plea

bargained case and that Appellant has no right of appeal. Accordingly, we informed Appellant by letter on June 14 , 2011, that th e s e cas es would be subject
to dismissal unless he or any party showed grounds for continuing the app eal s
on or before June 24, 2011

. 4 Neither Appellant’s retained trial counsel’s response nor Appellant’s pro se response show s grounds for continuing the se appeal s

.

2 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02(a), (b) (West 2011) (providing that robbery is a second

- degree felony); Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102(6), .112( c) (West 2010) (providing that methamphetamine is in Penalty Group 1 and that possession of one or more but less than four grams of a Penalty Group 1 substance is a second

- degree felony).

3 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (West 2011).

4 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 25.2(d).3

We therefore dismiss th ese appeal s

. 5

PER CURIAM
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: July 21, 2011

5 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).
20607

#### State v. Arenas

Affirmed