alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIFESCAN, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON, Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v. SHASTA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; CONDUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; PHARMATECH SOLUTIONS, INC.; DECISION DIAGNOSTICS, CORP., Defendants - Appellants. No. 13-16042 D.C. No. 3:12-cv-06360-JST
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 3, 2013 San Francisco, California Before: TROTT, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Defendants appeal the district court’s order granting plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief, enjoining de fendants from using images of plaintiffs’ 

# FILED
JAN 08 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.products on defendants’ Shasta GenStrip packaging and in its advertising. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm. Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief, and we conc lude that the district court properly exercised its discretion. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council , 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, Inc. , 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir. 1982) (explaining limited scope of review). AFFIRMED.
April 8, 1998

20571

#### Association of Apartment Owners of Aikahi Gardens v. Lepere

Affirmed
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7008** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. SHARU BEY, a/k/a Jeffrey Lewis , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. ( 3:07

- cr - 00079

- FDW

- 2 )

Submitted : November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Sharu Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sharu Bey appeals the district cou rt ’ s text order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Bey , No. 3:07

- cr - 00079

- FDW

- 2 (W.D.N.C. July 14, 2016) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
September 6, 2002

24187

#### State v. Lopes

Affirmed
No.

___________

In the

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

______________________________________

On Appeal from the 22nd Judicial District Court of
Hay s County, Texas

Cause Number 12

- 0 00 6 ; and the Opinion of the T hird Court of Appeals

in Cause Number 03

- 13

- 00 131

- CR, Delivered May 13 , 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD GUZMAN

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

_____________________________________

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

PRO SE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

______________________________

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL

APPEALS :

COMES NOW, Kristen Jernigan

, the undersigned attorney of record for

Edward Guzman

, the Appellant, herein, and files this Motion for Extension of

Time to File Pro Se Petition for Discretionary Review. As set out below, the

undersigned respectfully requests a sixty

- day extension so that Appellant can file

his Pro Se Petition for Discretionary Review. In s upport of said motion, the

undersigned would show the Court the following:

1. Appell ant’s Petition for Discretionary Review is currently due in this

case on June 12 , 2015

. PD-0594-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 5/15/2015 3:31:09 PM Accepted 5/19/2015 2:21:49 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK2. Appellant seeks an extension of six ty days in which to file his Petition for Discretionary Review , making his Petition due on or before August 11 , 2015

.

3. The undersigned counsel will not be representing Appellant after the filing of this motion. Appellant will now have to obtain and review the record in order to prepare and file a Pro Se Petition for Discretionary Review . The

undersi gned believes that there is insufficient time between now and June 12

, 2015 , to accomplish those goals. Consequently, the undersigned respectfully requests that the Court grant Appellant the additional time.

4

. The undersigned has not filed any previous motions for extension of

time in this case.

5

. For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully requests that Appellant b e granted an extension of six ty days so that his brief in this case

will now be due on August 11 , 2015

.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the undersigned

respectfully requests that this Court grant t his Motion for Extension of Time to File

Pro Se Petition for Discretionary Review

.

Respectfully submitted,

_______ /s/

__ Kristen Jernigan

______ KRISTEN JERNIGAN

State Bar Number 90001898

207 S. Austin Ave.
Georgetown , Texas 78 626 ( 512) 904

- 0123 (512) 931

- 3650 (fax) Kristen@txcrimapp.com2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the

foregoing Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time has been mailed to the Hays

County District Attorney’s 712 Stagecoach

, San Marco s , Texas 7 8666 on May 15

,

2015

.

__ /s/ Kristen Jernigan

___ _______________ Kristen Jernigan
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                         JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                           DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                   5,437,350
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              529,767
<ALLOWANCES>                                                30,000
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         6,863,210
<PP&E>                                                   2,237,973
<DEPRECIATION>                                             989,712
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           8,196,745
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    3,069,321
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                     5,111
<OTHER-SE>                                               4,505,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             8,196,745
<SALES>                                                  1,012,159
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         1,012,159
<CGS>                                                      205,795
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            9,218,909
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         805,761
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (8,933,990)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (8,933,990)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         (1,629,494)
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (10,563,484)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                (3.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (3.77)


</TABLE>
# C_2020297EN.01001601.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/16

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București — Romania) — JE v KF

(Case C-249/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 - Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation - Uniform rules - Article 10 - Application of the law of the forum)

(2020/C 297/20)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JE

Defendant: KF

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘where the law applicable by virtue of Article 5 or Article 8 makes no provision for divorce’ applies only where the foreign law applicable makes no provision for divorce in any form.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---
# ~OEING

June 16, 2015 9R-TE-BBXA-BRB-15-0230

Docket Management Facility U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey A venue, SE West Building Ground Floor Room Wl2-140 Washington, DC 20590 The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124-2207

Attention: Federal Aviation Administration, Director, Flight Standards Service, AFS-1

Subject:

References: Petition for Renewal of Exemption No. 9569 from 14 CFR Section 91.611, Authorization for Ferry Flight with One Engine Inoperative

(a) Exemption No. 9569, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-9135, dated November 10, 2009 (Enclosure 1) (b) Exemption No. 4467, dated August 28, 1985 (c) Exemption No. 9569C, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-9135, dated August 14, 2013 (Enclosure 2)

The Boeing Company hereby petitions for a re-issuance of the Reference (a) exemption from 14 CFR, Section 91.611 authorizing it to conduct ferry flights with one engine inoperative without obtaining a Special Flight Permit. Boeing was originally granted the Reference (b) partial exemption from the requirements of 14 CFR § 91.45 (superseded by 14 CFR § 91.611) authorizing Boeing to conduct ferry flights without holding an air carrier operating certificate or

an aircraft operating certificate issued under Part 125. Reference ( c) is the current version of the exemption to 14 CFR § 91.611.

The requirements for, and the rationale in support of, the exemption remain valid and unchanged. The Boeing Company requests a two year extension of the previously granted Reference (c) exemption from an expiration date of November 30, 2015, to November 30, 2017.

# ~O.EIND

June 16, 2015 9R-TE-BBXA-BRB-15-0230

If additional information is required pursuant to this petition, please contact Colin S. Fender at 206-544-1974.

Regards,

Caitlin M. Randles Supervisor, FAA Coordination Boeing Flight Test Engineering 9R-TE-BBXA MIC: 14-KF Tel. (206) 304-0075

Enclosures (2)

2Enclosure 1 to Boeing Letter 9R-TE-BBXA-BRB-15-0230 

### Page 1 of 3Enclosure 1 to Boeing Letter 9R-TE-BBXA-BRB-15-0230 

### Page 2 of 3Enclosure 1 to Boeing Letter 9R-TE-BBXA-BRB-15-0230 

### Page 3 of 3Enclosure 2 to Boeing Letter 9R-TE-BBXA-BRB-15-0230 

### Page 1 of 3Enclosure 2 to Boeing Letter 9R-TE-BBXA-BRB-15-0230 

### Page 2 of 3Enclosure 2 to Boeing Letter 9R-TE-BBXA-BRB-15-0230 

### Page 3 of 3
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATE OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18United States Code**

The undersigned, being the Principal Executive Officerof Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”), hereby certifies thatthe Partnership’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended June 30, 2007, filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and that information contained in such Quarterly Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Partnership.

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to thePartnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| Date: July 30, 2007 |     |
|--------------------------|----------|
|                     | By:      | /s/ STEPHEN J.  J. LETWIN |
| * *                 | * * | Stephen J. J. Letwin |
| * *                 | * * | *Managing Director* |
| * *                 | * * | *(Principal Executive Officer)* |

 

----
SERVED: MARCH 26, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF M.T.I. TRAVEL, INC. DOCKETNO. FAA-2014-0110 (Civil Penalty Action)
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2013S0950011) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons onthe attached Service List.

Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Fede al Aviation Administration 800 ndependence Avenue, S.W. Was ington, DC 20591 Atte tion: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1



### Dav'dP. Affinito, Respondent's Counsel 

### Dell Italia, Affinito & 

### Santola 18 ny Galento Plaza ge, NJ 07050 973-672-8000 : 973-672-8215 ONE COPY



### Mic ael F. McKinley, Complainant's Counsel 

### Sen'or Attorney, Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Fed ral Aviation Administration 800 ndependence Avenue, S.W. Wa hington, DC 20591 TE 202-267-7100 F : 202-267-5106 Ho
. J.E. Sullivan,Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S Department ofTransportation 120 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Wa hington, DC 20590 TE 202-366-6941 F : 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0110 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Avi tion Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 0591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
# C_2018104EN.01005201.xml

| 19.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/52

---

Action brought on 26 January 2018 — NGV v EUIPO (LIEBLINGSWEIN)

(Case T-55/18)

(2018/C 104/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: NGV GmbH (Wildeshausen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘LIEBLINGSWEIN’ — Application for registration No 15 326 515

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2018 in Case R 291/2017-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation 2017/1001.

---
# C_2019423EN.01003601.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 –Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-300/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2019/C 423/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Feodorovych Yanukovych (Rostov on Don, Russia) (represented by: T. Beazley QC, E. Dean and J. Marjason-Stamp, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič and J. P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 48) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 5), in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as Mr Viktor Feodorovych Yanukovych’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as Mr Viktor Feodorovych Yanukovych’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---
#### State v. Loo

20893

1/19/99

Affirmed
2/6/2015 Refrackt | AngelList

https://angel.co/refrackt­1 1/5

SYNDICATES STARTUPS FUNDS INVESTORS STARTUP JOBS RECRUITING MORE ▾ SEARCH Join Log In



FUNDRAISING

To find out whether Refrackt is fundraising, apply for investor status.

Apply to Invest

JOBS

Refrackt hasn't added any jobs yet.

AngelList is where the world meets startups like Refrackt Sign Up Now Log in

Overv  www.dukestartupchallenge.org/ iew Activity Followers 21

Share Follow

Refrackt

Purifying oil and gas produced water with membrane distillation

Durham · Oil and Gas · Natural Gas Uses · Water Purification · Duke Start­Up

Challenge 2012­2013 Round 2
2/6/2015 Refrackt | AngelList

https://angel.co/refrackt­1 2/5

26 Sep 2013

PRODUCT

Find a Startup Job

LATEST

COMMENT Roy Burlingame

What do you do with the waste...is it slurry or dry...can it be separated??

All Comments ▸
2/6/2015 Refrackt | AngelList

https://angel.co/refrackt­1 3/5

Hydraulic fracturing is a water intensive method of increasing recovery of oil and natural gas from low yield wells. Refrackt offers a portable

and modular platform for the treatment of waste water produced by these wells. Refrackt's treatment method uses waste heat to drive the

purification of the produced waters.

FOUNDERS

Refrackt ­ The Clear Water Solution

from Mark

02:51
2/6/2015 Refrackt | AngelList

https://angel.co/refrackt­1 4/5

Judy Winglee

Founder Refrackt • Worked at @United Technologies •

Studied at @Duke, @Tufts

Victor Smith

Founder Refrackt • Worked at @Duke University • Studied

at @Duke

Mark Panny

Founder, Refrackt

Daniel Chow

TEAM

ADVISORS

Martin Doyle Donna Robertson Martin De Vries

Q&A

No questions yet.
2/6/2015 Refrackt | AngelList

https://angel.co/refrackt­1 5/5

SEE WHO'S TRENDING

Browse and connect with the most popular

startups on AngelList this week.

INVEST IN FUNDS

For investors new to startup investing who

want a "set and forget" index­fund style

investment.

INVEST WITH NOTABLE INVESTORS

Access top deals through investor­led

syndicates. Or start your own syndicate.

RAISE FUNDS

Connect with investors. Raise funds online

by leveraging your offline investor

relationships.

RECRUIT YOUR TEAM

A new job matching service. No recruiters.

High­quality talent. Fun.

FIND A STARTUP JOB

Apply privately. See salary up­front. Speak

directly to the startup’s founders. No

recruiters.

Also on AngelList

About Jobs Reviews Help · Blog Twitter · API Terms Risks · View Desktop Site

AngelList is not responsible for the contents of this profile. Do your own diligence.
CSB BANCORP, INC.EXHIBIT 32.2SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONIn connection with the quarterly report of CSB Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thenine-month period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paula J. Meiler, Senior Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Paula J. Meiler Paula J. Meiler
CSB BANCORP, INC.EXHIBIT 32.1SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONIn connection with the quarterly report of CSB Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thenine-month period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, John J. Limbert, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ John J. Limbert John J. Limbert