alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019255EN.01001702.xml

| 29.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/17

---

Appeal brought on 27 December 2018 by Aldo Supermarkets against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2018 in Case T-359/17: Aldo Supermarkets v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf

(Case C-822/18 P)

(2019/C 255/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Aldo Supermarkets (represented by: M. Thewes, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG

By order of 4 June 2019 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1 

 

CERTIFICATIONS BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Education Management Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, John R. McKernan, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify in such capacity, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

1.    The Report fully complies with therequirements 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. 

 

Date: November 14, 2003 

 

/s/    John R. McKernan, Jr.

John R. McKernan, Jr. 

Chief Executive Officer 

 

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Education Management Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Robert T. McDowell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify in such capacity, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

1.    The Report fully complies with therequirements 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. 

 

Date: November 14, 2003 

 

/s/    Robert T. McDowell

Robert T. McDowell 

Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 10.2

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

In consideration of value received, the undersigned (hereinafter "Borrower")
does hereby jointly and severally promise to pay to Amortibanc Management L.C.
(hereinafter "Lender"), the amount of $974,470.00, upon which interest will
accrue at Eight percent (8%) per annum. Borrowers agree to pay in conformity
with these terms:

This note may be paid in whole or in part at any time without penalty charges.
Such payments shall be first applied to interest and then to the principal.
Lender reserves the right to demand payment in full or in part, together with
interest accrued, at any time and for any reason upon 30 days written notice to
the Borrower.

In the event this Note shall be in default, and collection proceedings are
instituted, then the Borrowers agree to pay all reasonable attorney fees and
costs of collection. Payments not made within 30 days of due date shall be
subject to a late charge of 15% of the principal balance then due and payable.

The undersigned and all other parties to this Note, whether as endorsers,
guarantors or sureties waive demand, presentment and protest and all notices
thereto and further agree to remain bound, notwithstanding any extension,
modification, waiver, or other indulgence by any holder or upon the discharge or
release of any obligor hereunder or to this Note, or upon the exchange,
substitution, or release of any collateral, if any, granted as security for this
Note.

1st Realty Investments Inc.                      December 31, 2000
5115 North Scottsdale Road
Scottsdale, AZ    85250
Borrower

/s/   William Szilagyi
      ----------------
Name  William Szilagyi
      ----------------
Title President
      ---------

Witness:
/s/   Edward W. Dietrich
      ------------------
Name  Edward W. Dietrich
      ------------------
Exhibit
      32





CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Itec Environmental Group, Inc., a Nevada
      corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31,
      2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
      Gary
      M. De Laurentiis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Frederick W. Smith,
      Principal Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to
§ 906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to their
      knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/
      Gary M. De
      Laurentiis


By:
      Gary
      M. De Laurentiis


Its:
      Chief Executive Officer, Director





/s/
      Frederick W.
      Smith


By:
      Frederick W. Smith


Its:
      Principal Financial Officer/


Acting
      Chief Financial Officer, Director





May
      12,
      2006





[A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Itec Environmental Group, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elmer Enrique MARQUEZ-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41420.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

*943Paula Camille Offenhauser, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Elmer Enrique Marquez-Flores appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation. He was sentenced to 33 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release. He argues that, in light of *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), his sentence is invalid because the district court applied the Sentencing Guidelines as if they were mandatory. We review for plain error. *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 513, 520-22 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517); *United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556).

Marquez-Flores is unable to establish plain error with regard to his *Booker*claim because he cannot establish that being sentenced under a mandatory Guidelines scheme affected his substantial rights. The record does not indicate that the district court “would have reached a significantly different result” under a sentencing scheme in which the Guidelines were advisory only. *See Mares,*402 F.3d at 520-22; *Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d at 733-34.

Marquez-Flores also asserts that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) are unconstitutional. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed, but he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). This issue is foreclosed. *See Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).

*944Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### Joan W. Kesseler, Plaintiff, *v.*Howard J. Kesseler, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

June 30, 1959.

*William Gold*for plaintiff,

*Dillon & O’Brien (Henry S. Michaelson*and *Thomas K. O’Brien*of counsel), for defendant.

Henry Epstein, J.

This is a motion on behalf of Joan W. Kesseler, the mother of an infant, Heidi Kesseler, for a *de novo*hearing in order to have the prior award of custody of said infant changed. The sole basis for this application seems to be that the mother was successful in defending a divorce action against her on the ground of adultery. Nothing is shown on which this court can find reason for such change of custody. Quite the contrary:

Since September, 1958, Heidi has been “ under intensive psychiatric treatment ” by Dr. Harry Luloff, a practicing medical and psychiatric specialist. His report to this court under date *499of June 25, 1959, states that since Easter 1959 “ Mrs. Kesseler has not had Heidi visit her at all. On several occasions when Heidi went to her mother’s homes, Mrs. Kesseler was not ready to see Heidi. Through the closed door, Heidi was asked to wait for her mother in the lobby of the building”. Dr. Luloff relates the effects of the mother’s actions and the child’s reactions on her schoolwork.

The doctor, having a proper regard for the child’s physical and mental well-being, strongly recommends that the mother’s visitation “ be limited to once per month so that the impact of such visitation on Heidi will be minimized.” In the light of this case history and the background already reviewed in the prior proceedings, it would be a grave mistake to allow this mother to further injure Heidi’s health.

The motion for further hearings on custody is denied. If, after school resumes in September, the disturbing factors caused by the mother continue, visitation may be further restricted, as recommended by Dr. Luloff.

In the supplemental affidavit of counsel for Mrs. Kesseler, an application is made for an order to compel Dr. Kesseler to pay the costs of an appeal and for counsel fees. No such application is in the motion papers, but, considering such affidavit as making the application, it is denied.

The papers on this motion and the report from Dr. Luloff are important for consideration on any appeal dealing with the custody provisions and should be part of such record on appeal.

Order signed.
EXHIBIT
      32.1




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 Quarterly Report of MISONIX, INC. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael A. McManus,
      Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
                Company.




Dated:
                  November 14, 2007/s/
                  Michael A. McManus, Jr.Michael
                  A. McManus, Jr.President
                  and Chief Executive Officer


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to MISONIX, INC. and will be retained by
      MISONIX, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.
#### Royal Aloha Vacation Club v. Fortune Marketing Group, Inc.

17506

12/19/97

Affirmed and Reversed in part, Vacated and Remanded in part
Questions? Email us at CenterforAnimalWelfare@usda.gov 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Animal Care • AC-19-011

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Issued November 2019 • Reviewed February 2024

ANIMAL CARE AID

Protecting Giraffes in Cold Weather

This Animal Care Aid is part of a series developed to provide information about the physical and behavioral health of animals. 

Refer to the other topics in the series for more information.

HEATED BARNS

Giraffes need continuous access to a heated barn 

(65 °F or higher) when outside temperatures 

consistently drop below 50 °F. It is important to 

measure barn temperature at the giraffe’s chest 

level to ensure the warmth is reaching its body. 

WHAT ELSE CAN I DO?

KEEPING YOUR GIRAFFES HEALTHY 

is an important part of protecting 

them. Healthy giraffes are less 

vulnerable to colder weather. Here are 

some ways you can help them thrive:

• Feed a diet designed for giraffes.

Your veterinarian or a veterinary

nutritionist can help you create

the optimal diet.

• Provide regular veterinary care.

• Avoid overcrowding or housing

giraffes with incompatible

herd-mates.

• Maintain social bonds by grouping

giraffes with others they prefer

(females especially will show

a preference).

l Younger animals, especially

calves and juveniles

l Geriatric animals

l Health issues

l Wet or windy weather conditions

l Inadequate diet

COMPOUNDING 

RISK FACTORS 

PRACTICAL TIP

Be safe! Be sure 

to check your barn 

heaters in late summer—before

you need them—to make sure 

they are working properly. 

Remove any bird’s nests, dust, 

or other flammable debris before 

turning them on.

Giraffes are more sensitive to cold 

temperatures (consistently below 50 °F) 

than other hoofed animals. 

Giraffes do not develop a heavy layer of body fat or a warm winter coat. 

They also lose body heat more quickly due to the large surface area of 

their long necks and legs. This makes giraffes more susceptible to low 

body temperature, which may impair a giraffe’s immune system and 

lead to sickness or even death. 

Barns with heated floors or low heater 

vents are best, as the heat will rise 

and warm the animal’s legs and body. 

Heaters located at the top of a barn 

will warm a giraffe’s head and neck, 

but may not properly warm its body. 

Placing fans at the top of the barn, 

well out of reach from the giraffes, 

will help to distribute the heat.

Measure barn 

temperature 

at giraffe’s 

chest level
19356

#### State v. Paned

Affirmed
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS 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 Perfumania Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael W. Katz, Chief Executive
Officer and President 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, to my knowledge:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/S/ Michael W. KatzMichael W. KatzPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDecember 15, 2009
U

. S

. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON TEST PROCEDURE NOTICE OF PROPOSED

RULEMAKING AND ENE RGY CONSERVATION STANDARD S

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS FOR CEILING FAN LIGHT KITS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20 585

Tu esday

, November 1 8 , 201 4

Room 8 E

- 0 8 9

Purpose

The Department of Energy (DOE) is holding this public meeting to discuss the test

procedure Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) and energy conservation standard s

Preliminary Analysis for ceiling fan light kits . DOE will discuss the scope of coverage

for the rulemakings, the proposed test procedures for ceiling fan light kit s, and the

methodology and results obtained from the Preliminary Analysis . DOE will also seek

comment on the rulemaking s , including methodol ogies, assumptions, and data sources.

Agenda

9:00 am

- 9:30 am Welcome and Introductions ; Opening Statements ; Test

Procedure Regulatory History ; Rulemaking Overview

Lucy d e B utts , DOE Project Manager

9:30 am

- 10: 5 0 am Existing Product Classes, Metrics, and Test Procedures;

Proposed Amendments to Current Test Procedures ;

Proposed Test Procedures to Support Standards

Rulemaking

Colleen Kantner, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

1 0 : 5 0 am

- 11 : 0 0 am Break

11 : 0 0 am

- 1 1 : 5 0 a m Updated Guidance on Accent Lighting; Clarifications to

10 CFR 430.32(s); Effective and Compliance Dates;

Sampling Plan ; Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

Colleen Kantner, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

11: 50 am

- 12:00 p m Closing Remarks on Test Procedure NOPR

Lucy deButts, DOE Project Manager

12 : 00 pm

- 1: 00 pm Lunch

1: 00 pm

- 1 : 20 pm Opening Statements ; Energy Conservation Standards

Regulatory History ; Rulemaking Overview

Lucy deButts, DOE Project Manager

1 : 20 pm

- 1 : 4 0 pm Scope ; Market & Technology Assessment

Colleen Kantner, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory1: 4 0 pm

- 2:10 pm Screening Analysis ; Engineering Analysis

Julie Pierce , Navigant Consulting, Inc.

2:10 pm

- 2:20 pm Product Price Determination

Aisha Husain

, Navigant Consulting, Inc.

2: 20 pm

- 2: 30 pm Break

2: 30 pm

- 2:5 5 pm Energy Use; Life Cycle Cost Analys i s

Colleen Kantner

, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

2:55 pm

- 3:30 pm Shipments Analysis; National Impact Analyses

Mohan Ganeshalingam, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

3:30 pm

- 3:40 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Aisha Husain , Navigant Consulting, Inc.

3:40 pm

- 3:50 pm NOPR Analyses

Colleen Kantner, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

3 : 50 pm

- 4 : 00 pm Closing Remarks and Adjourn

Lucy deButts, DOE Project Manager
94Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21D0045. GREGORY DAVIS v. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION

LOCAL 732 et al.

Gregory Davis filed a suit against multiple defendants, including

Amalgamated Transit Union Local 732 and itsrepresentative, Rufus Silas. Silasfiled

a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted because Davis did not assert any

claims against Silas in his personal capacity. Davis then filed this application for

discretionary appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

“In a case involvingmultiple parties or multiple claims, a decision adjudicating

fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of [fewer] than all the parties is

not a final judgment.” Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 192 Ga. App. 628, 629

(385 SE2d 731) (1989) (punctuation omitted). Under such circumstances, there must

be either an express determination that there is no just reason for delay under OCGA

§ 9-11-54 (b) or compliance with the interlocutory appeal requirements of OCGA

§ 5-6-34 (b). See id. 

The record provided by Davis contains no indication that the trial court

directed the entry of judgment under § 9-11-54 (b) or that the other defendants have

been dismissed from this action. Although the trial court stated that the order was

final and that the case should be marked closed, the claims against the other

defendants appear to remain pending. Consequently, the order Davis seeks to appeal

is a non-final order that did not resolve all issues in the case. See Conseco Finance

Servicing Corp. v. Hill, 252 Ga. App. 774, 775 (1) (556 SE2d 468) (2001); Johnson

v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 192 Ga. App. 628, 629 (385 SE2d 731) (1989). Davis

therefore was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in

September 04, 2020
OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 SE2d 213)

(1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) (408

SE2d 103) (1991). Davis’s failure to follow the proper appellate procedures deprives

us of jurisdiction over this application, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/04/2020
26062

#### State v. Unciano

Reversed
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 621 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the future 

of the Supreme Court. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2016 

Mr. CARTER of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 

regarding the future of the Supreme Court. 

Whereas the Administration of President Barack Obama has 

been one of the most divisive Presidencies in American 

history; 

Whereas the election of 2016 will be a historic election that 

will shape the future for generations to come; 

Whereas Justice Antonin Scalia was a critical force on the 

United States Supreme Court in defending the Constitution; 

Whereas the Founding Fathers endowed the Supreme Court 

with power to strictly interpret the law within the bounds 

of the Constitution, never intending for Judges to write, 

change, or create laws; and 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 621 IH 

Whereas the Founding Fathers established a series of checks 

and balances with the spirit and understanding that a 

limited government is the best form of governance: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) expresses its firm disapproval of the con3 firmation of any liberal Justices to the United 

4 States Supreme Court nominated by President 

5 Barack Obama; and 

6 (2) urges the Senate to hold any nomination to 

7 the United States Supreme Court until the Amer8 ican people have a chance to speak in the next Presi9 dential election. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS