alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018341EN.01000302.xml

| 24.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/3

---

Appeal brought on 17 May 2018 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2018 in Case T-6/17, Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (Black Label by Equivalenza)

(Case C-328/18 P)

(2018/C 341/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Equivalenza Manufactory, S.L. and ITM Entreprises SAS

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | order the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) of the EU trade mark regulation for the following reasons:

| 1. | The General Court contradicted itself by acknowledging that there is a visual similarity while at the same time denying that the signs are visually similar; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court contradicted itself by acknowledging that there is a visual similarity while at the same time denying that the signs are visually similar;

| 2. | The General Court erred by confirming without qualification the alleged conceptual difference found by the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court erred by confirming without qualification the alleged conceptual difference found by the Board of Appeal;

| 3. | The General Court erred by examining buying habits in the context of the examination of the similarity of the signs, instead of doing so when carrying out the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion; |
| --- | --- |

3.

The General Court erred by examining buying habits in the context of the examination of the similarity of the signs, instead of doing so when carrying out the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion;

| 4. | The General Court erred by stating that the signs at issue are not similar, despite having acknowledged that their phonetic similarity is average. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The General Court erred by stating that the signs at issue are not similar, despite having acknowledged that their phonetic similarity is average.

---
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE NO. 17-15

TO: Veterinary Services Leadership Team

Directors, Center for Veterinary Biologics

Biologics Licensees, Permittees, and Applicants

FROM: Byron E. Rippke

Director

SUBJECT: Center for Veterinary Biologics Laboratory-supplied Reagents

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of this Notice is to inform veterinary biologics manufacturers and 

other interested parties of the process for requesting reagents from the Center for 

Veterinary Biologics (CVB) and guidance regarding use of these reagents.

II. BACKGROUND

The CVB provides standardized reagents to conduct serial release potency testing 

according to title 9, Code of Federal Regulations, corresponding Supplemental 

Assay Methods, and CVB Protocols.

The CVB Reagents Catalog lists currently available reagents. Each reagent is

requested by completing an APHIS Form 2018. The fillable PDF form and 

instructions are available via the CVB Website at 

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/library/forms/pdf/APHIS_2018.pdf. 

Each reagent is supplied with a Reagent Data Sheet (DAT) indicating testing use 

instructions, expiration date, and lot preparation information.

III. ACTION

To help expedite filling reagent requests, the updated APHIS Form 2018 indicates 

to now submit the completed forms directly to the reagents email group at 

VS.STAS.CVB.Reagent.Requests@aphis.usda.gov. 

As replacement reagent lots are cleared for use, the CVB Reagent Catalog is 

updated. The reagent lot being replaced is tested a final time and, if results warrant, 

the expiration date extended. After this time, the lot will no longer be monitored by 

the CVB. The final extension allows biologics manufacturers to use stored supplies

of the reagent lot. As DATs are updated to reflect use instruction changes or

Animal and Plant

Health Inspection

Service

Veterinary Services

Center for Veterinary 

Biologics

1920 Dayton Avenue

PO Box 844

Ames, IA 50010

(515) 337-6100
CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE NO. 17-15

Page 2

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

expiration dates, they are posted to the CVB Website

(https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/veterinary-biologics/biologicsregulations-and-guidance/ct_vb_dats). Firm personnel are responsible for following the 

most recent information. The DATs will be removed from the Website after the final 

expiration date. Any reagents previously supplied by the CVB that did not have an 

expiration date included are considered expired.

When CVB-supplied reagents are stored or used differently than stated in the DAT use 

instructions, the changes must be supported by data that has been approved by the CVB. 

IV. IMPLEMENTATION/APPLICABILITY

This process is effective immediately.
# C_2019255EN.01004302.xml

| 29.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/43

---

Order of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — Durand and Others v Parliament

(Case T-702/18) (1)

(Actions for failure to act and for annulment - Agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 - Animal welfare - Request by Members of the European Parliament to set up an inquiry committee - Defined position of the Parliament - Act not open to challenge - Informative act - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 255/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Pascal Durand (Paris, France) and the seven other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: O. Brouwer and E. Raedts, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and S. Alonso de León, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action, principally, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Parliament, by decision taken by the Conference of Presidents of the Parliament, unlawfully failed to act on a request of 17 July 2018 seeking the setting up of an inquiry committee and, in the alternative, seeking the annulment, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, of the decision contained in the letter of the President of the Parliament of 21 September 2018.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Pascal Durand and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Pascal Durand and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.

---
December 11, 1999

20371

#### Baehr v. Miike

Reversed and Remanded
#### Mawae-Idemoto v. Au

21465

06/14/1999

Vacated and Remanded
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply582Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Marty S. (not ... (not verified)PermalinkNovember 20, 2017 - 2:41pmNice!
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> CT
<CIK> 0000879555
<NAME> BOSTON CAPITAL TAX CREDIT FUND III L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             150,732,639
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               150,732,639
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               342,091
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (12,997,821)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,655,730)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6421
PRINCE S. J. WEBBER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-3093-FNS) Submitted: July 1, 2003 Decided: July 24, 2003 Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Prince S. J. Webber, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, Neil Ray White, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Prince S. J. Webber appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ a mandamus, which sought an effective parole date or an order to full term expiration from the United States Parole Commission. Mandamus relief is only available when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary situations. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Because Webber fails to establish a clear right to the relief he seeks, he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Thus, we affirm the district court’s order for the reasons stated by the district court. Webber v. Dep’t of Justice , No. CA-02-3093-FNS (D. Md. Feb. 20, 2003). We also deny Webber’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

         Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act



                                                                 March 28, 2005



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         The certifications set forth below are being submitted in connection
with the annual report on Form 10-K (the "Report") of Zix Corporation for the
purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code.

         Richard D. Spurr, the acting chief executive officer, and Bradley C.
Almond, the chief financial officer of Zix Corporation, each certifies that to
the best of their knowledge and in their respective capacities as officers of
Zix Corporation:

         1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

         2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Zix
Corporation as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



                                                 /s/ Richard D. Spurr
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                Name:             Richard D. Spurr
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                Title:   Chief Executive Officer,
                                         President & Chief Operating Officer
                                         ---------------------------------------

                                                /s/ Bradley C. Almond
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                Name:             Bradley C. Almond
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                Title:   Vice President, Chief Financial
                                         Officer, and Treasurer
                                         ---------------------------------------
July 17, 1997

18518

#### Dohmen-Ramirez v. Freis

Affirmed
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 59 

Recognizing the National Construction Equipment Museum established, operated and maintained by the Historical Construction Equipment Association located in Bowling Green, Ohio, as the National Construction Equipment Museum. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2015 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the National Construction Equipment Museum 

established, operated and maintained by the Historical 

Construction Equipment Association located in Bowling 

Green, Ohio, as the National Construction Equipment 

Museum. 

Whereas the Historical Construction Equipment Association, 

located in Bowling Green, Ohio, was incorporated in 

1987 and organized as a not-for-profit organization in 

the State of Ohio and is recognized as a 501(c)(3) charitable educational organization by the Internal Revenue 

Service; 

Whereas the Historical Construction Equipment Association 

is recognized as an official archive of the national construction equipment industry; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HRES 59 IH 

Whereas the Historical Construction Equipment Association 

is devoted to preserving for public education the history 

of all types of construction, surface mining, and dredging 

equipment and established the National Construction 

Equipment Museum in furtherance of this purpose; 

Whereas the National Construction Equipment Museum has 

an extensive collection of restored, historically significant 

equipment in operating condition for public tours and 

demonstrations; 

Whereas the National Construction Equipment Museum 

seeks to educate a diverse audience through exceptional 

exhibits that document the importance of this equipment 

and these industries in building the Nation’s infrastructure while also raising job and career awareness in these 

fields; and 

Whereas the National Construction Equipment Museum is a 

destination attraction, located in northwest Ohio, an area 

which has a long history of equipment manufacturing, 

and is the only public museum of its kind in the Nation: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes the National Construction Equipment Museum es3 tablished, operated and maintained by the Historical Con4 struction Equipment Association located in Bowling 

5 Green, Ohio, as the National Construction Equipment 

6 Museum. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2021098EN.01002801.xml

| 22.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/28

---

Order of the General Court of 4 February 2021 — Germann Avocats v Commission

(Case T-352/18) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Follow-up study on trade union practices on non-discrimination and diversity - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award criteria - Action in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law and in part manifestly inadmissible)

(2021/C 98/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Germann Avocats LLC (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Giannakopoulos and N. Skandamis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents, and by R. van Melsen, lawyer)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the Commission’s decision to reject the applicant’s bid submitted in response to the call for tenders JUST/2017/RDIS/FW/EQUA/0042 (‘Follow-up study on trade union practices on non-discrimination and diversity’ (2017/S 215-446067)) and, secondly, application based on Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of that decision.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Germann Avocats LLC shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Germann Avocats LLC shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.

---
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-18-00038-CR 

DERRICK JAMES WILLIAMS, JR., APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 272nd District Court 

Brazos County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 17-02667-CRF-272, Honorable Travis B. Bryan, Presiding 

 

August 2, 2018 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Derrick James Williams, Jr., appellant, appeals his conviction for unauthorized use 

of a motor vehicle, enhanced. After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty and punishment 

was assessed at eight years’ imprisonment. Appellant filed an appeal and counsel was 

appointed.1

 

1 Because this appeal was transferred from the Tenth Court of Appeals, we are obligated to apply 

its precedent when available in the event of a conflict between the precedents of that court and this Court. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2

Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders2 brief in the cause. 

Through those documents, counsel certified that, after diligently searching the record, the 

appeal was without merit. Accompanying the brief and motion is a copy of a letter 

informing appellant of his counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of 

appellant’s right to file a response, pro se. So too did the letter indicate that a copy of the 

appellate record was provided to appellant. By letter dated May 3, 2018, this Court also 

notified appellant of his right to file his own response by June 29, 2018. Appellant filed a 

response.

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel 

discussed one potential area for appeal, which included whether the evidence was 

sufficient to support guilt. However, counsel then explained why the issue lacked merit. 

In addition, we conducted our own review of the record and appellant’s response to 

assess the accuracy of counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant 

to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), and Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). No such error was uncovered. 

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.3

Brian Quinn 

Chief Justice

Do not publish. 

 

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). 

3 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals.
18816

#### Hawai'i State Asbestos Cases, In re

Affirmed
#### State v. Maxwell

23877

07/31/2002

Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
#### F. L. KLAUS et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Frank N. FLEMING, Defendant in Error.

No. 36946.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec. 11, 1956.

Jack B. Sellers, Drumright, for plaintiff in error F. L. Klaus.

Young, Young & Young, by Glenn A. Young, Sapulpa, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This action was commenced by Frank N. Fleming against F. L. Klaus and ■ John Chronister, d/b/a Klaus Radio and Television, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff as the alleged result of the defendant’s failure to furnish him proper equipment with which to perform his job. During trial the action was dismissed as to John Chronister and he is not a party to this appeal. The case was tried to a jury who returned a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which judgment was entered. The defendant, F. L. Klaus, appeals.

The defendant argues his appeal under the following proposition:

> “The statutes pleaded are not applicable and the trial court erred in overruling the Motion to Strike of defendant and erred in instructing the jury on such inapplicable statutes, * *

*991Thus, those assignments of error in the petition in error not contained in this proposition argued in the brief will be treated as abandoned. Chancellor v. Chancellor, 202 Okl. 389, 214 P.2d 261.

The court’s action in overruling the motion to strike is likewise not open to review for the reason that the defendant failed to include this as one of its grounds for a new trial. Alleged errors must be called to the trial court’s attention in the motion for new trial or they will not be reviewed on appeal. Logan v. Logan, 197 Okl. 88, 168 P.2d 878.

Finally, the defendant failed to properly record his objections to the instructions of which complaint is made. In order to have a review of the action of a trial court in giving certain instructions, it is necessary that the exceptions to the instructions as given be signed by the trial judge, as provided by statute, 12 O.S.1951 § 578. The only exception to this rule is where prejudicial error, erroneous statements of fundamental law, appear upon the face of the instructions. In the instant case the questioned instructions contain no misstatement of any fundamental principle of law. Thus, any latent error is not now open to review. Mason v. McNeal, 187 Okl. 31, 100 P.2d 451; Anthony v. Colvin, 191 Okl. 476, 130 P.2d 819, 145 P.2d 384. Judgment affirmed.

WILLIAMS, V. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, HALLEY, JACKSON and CARLILE, JJ., concur.

BLACKBIRD, J.,

dissents.

The Court acknowledges the aid of the Supreme Court Commissioners in the preparation of this opinion. After a tentative opinion was written by Commissioner James H. Nease, and approved by Commissioners J. W. Crawford and Jean R. Reed, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this Court for examination and report to the Court. Thereafter upon report and consideration in conference, the foregoing opinion was adopted by the Court