alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALICIA SERRANO,

 Appellant,

v.

RAMSEY ESPER,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-09-00261-CV

Appeal from

 County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2009-J00058-CC3)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion for determination whether the appeal

should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that Appellant has not filed a brief or a motion

for extension of time, we dismiss the appeal.

Appellant failed to file her brief by the due date and the Clerk of the Court sent the parties

a notice that Appellant had not filed her brief or motion for extension of time. Further, the notice

advised the parties of the Court’s intent to dismiss for want of prosecution unless one of the parties

responded showing grounds to continue the appeal. No response has been received. This Court

possesses the authority to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when the appellant has failed

to file her brief in the time prescribed, and gives no reasonable explanation for such failure. 

TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1); Elizondo v. City of San Antonio, 975 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex.App.--San

Antonio 1998, no pet.). Because Appellant failed to file her brief and has not responded to our

inquiry, we dismissthe appeal for want of prosecution pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),

and 42.3(c).
October 12, 2011 

ANNCRAWFORDMcCLURE, ChiefJustice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, J., and Chew, C.J. (Senior)
# C_2009141EN.01002202.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/22

---

Appeal by VDH Projektentwicklung GmbH and Edeka Handelsgesellschaft Rhein-Ruhr mbH against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2008 in Case T-185/08 VDH Projektentwicklung GmbH and Edeka Handelsgesellschaft Rhein-Ruhr mbH v Commission of the European Communities, brought on 27 August 2008

(Case C-387/08 P)

2009/C 141/39

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellants: VDH Projektentwicklung GmbH and Edeka Handelsgesellschaft Rhein-Ruhr mbH (represented by: C. Antweiler, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

On 27 August 2008 VDH Projektentwicklung GmbH and Edeka Handelsgesellschaft Rhein-Ruhr mbH brought an appeal before the Court of Justice of the European Communities against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 25 June 2008 in Case T-185/08 VDH Projektentwicklung GmbH and Edeka Handelsgesellschaft Rhein-Ruhr mbH v Commission of the European Communities. The appellants are represented by Dr Clemens Antweiler, Rechtsanwalt, Rotthege Wassermann & Partner, Postfach 20 06 69, DE-40103 Düsseldorf.

VDH Projektentwicklung GmbH and Edeka Handelsgesellschaft Rhein-Ruhr mbH

Commission of the European Communities

By order of 3 April 2009, the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and decided that the appellants must bear their own costs.

---
# C_2008223EN.01003701.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/37

---

Action brought on 10 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-308/08)

(2008/C 223/59)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillan and D. Recchia, agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, interpreted by the judgments of the Court of Justice on 13 January 2005 in Case C-117/03 and on 14 September 2006 in Case C-244/05, and its obligations stemming from Article 12(4) of that directive in relation to the project for improvement of the rural path from Villamanrique de la Condesa (Seville) to El Rocio (Huelva). |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, interpreted by the judgments of the Court of Justice on 13 January 2005 in Case C-117/03 and on 14 September 2006 in Case C-244/05, and its obligations stemming from Article 12(4) of that directive in relation to the project for improvement of the rural path from Villamanrique de la Condesa (Seville) to El Rocio (Huelva).

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that in carrying out the project for improvement of the rural path from Villamanrique de la Condesa (Seville) to El Rocio (Huelva) without at the same time taking adequate protective measures, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, interpreted by the judgments of the Court of Justice on 13 January 2005 in Case C-117/03 and on 14 September 2006 in Case C-244/05, and its obligations under Article 12(4) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, p. 7.

1

---
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 55 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-61592) and Amendment No. 445 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 31, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 12, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.









/s/ Ernst &  Young LLP




Philadelphia, Pennsylvania




December 27, 2016
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. CRENSHAW:
       H.R. 6307.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, 
     commonly referred to as the Commerce Clause. The Commerce 
     Clause states that the Congress shall have power to regulate 
     Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, 
     and with the Indian tribes. This bill changes U.S. trade
```
#### FRANK GRUMMISCH, PROSECUTOR-APPELLANT, v. BARNEY CONSTRUCTION CO., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued September 15, 1948

Decided October 4, 1948.

*Miss Elsie White*argued the -cause for the prosecutor-appellant *(Loiiis Steisel,*-attorney).

*Mr. Clarance B. Tippett*argued the cause for the defendant-respondent.

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein is affirmfed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion Per Curiam Filed in the Supreme Court. i

*For affirmance:*Chief Justice Vanderbilt and Justices Olirhant, Wacheneeld, Burling, and Ackerson—5.

*For reversal:*None.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JAMES RAY BOOTH, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D22-1394

LT Case No. 2006-CF-002030-A

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_______________________________/ 

Decision filed August 2, 2022

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Hernando County, 

Daniel B. Merritt, Jr., Judge.

James Ray Booth, Daytona Beach, 

pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
# Office of Inspector General - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Philip Heneghan Inspector General.The post Philip Heneghan appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Rhonda Turnbow Deputy Inspector General.The post Rhonda Turnbow appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Clayton Fox Counsel-Investigator.The post Clayton Fox appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Joshua Baker The post Joshua Baker appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Virginia King Program Analyst.The post Virginia King appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# C_2018352EN.01003901.xml

| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/39

---

Action brought on 24 July 2018 — Biasotto v EUIPO — OOFOS (OO)

(Case T-454/18)

(2018/C 352/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Biasotto (Treviso, Italy) (represented by: F. Le Divelec Lemmi, R. Castiglioni and E. Cammareri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: OOFOS LLC (Reno, Nevada, United States).

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade mark OO — Application for registration No 14 961 791

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2018 in Case R 1281/2017-2.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | fully uphold the present action; |
| --- | --- |

—

fully uphold the present action;

| — | entirely reject the contested decision, confirming, in substance, the conclusion reached by the EUIPO in its decision of 17 May 2017 relating to opposition proceedings No B 2683558 and, consequently, allowing EUTM application No 14 961 791 to proceed to registration in relation to all products and services claimed by the same in classes 18, 25 and 35; |
| --- | --- |

—

entirely reject the contested decision, confirming, in substance, the conclusion reached by the EUIPO in its decision of 17 May 2017 relating to opposition proceedings No B 2683558 and, consequently, allowing EUTM application No 14 961 791 to proceed to registration in relation to all products and services claimed by the same in classes 18, 25 and 35;

| — | order the Intervener to bear all the costs related not only to the present proceedings before the General Court but also to the opposition and appeal proceedings before the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Intervener to bear all the costs related not only to the present proceedings before the General Court but also to the opposition and appeal proceedings before the EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Exhibit 21
                                       LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

     Name                                    State Of Incorporation    Trade Names
<S>                                          <C>                       <C>
Kenneth O. Lester Company, Inc.              Tennessee                 PFG Customized

Caro Foods, Inc.                             Louisiana

Fresh Advantage, Inc.                        Virginia                  Dixon
                                                                       Fresh Advantage
                                                                       Prime Source

Performance Transportation Systems, Inc.     Tennessee

Southland Distribution
System, Inc.                                 Louisiana

PFG Lester-Broadline, Inc.                   Tennessee

Hale Brothers/Summit, Inc.                   Tennessee                 PFG Hale

Pocahontas Foods, USA, Inc.                  Virginia                  Pocahontas USA

T & S Transportation of
Richmond, Inc.                               Virginia                  T & S Transportation

PFG Holding, Inc.                            Florida

Performance Food Group of Texas, L.P.        Texas                     PFG of Texas

Performance Food Group of Georgia, Inc.      Georgia                   PFG Milton's
                                                                       PFG Powell

AFI Food Service Distributors, Inc.          New Jersey

AFFLINK Incorporated                         Alabama                   AFFLINK

Virginia Foodservice Group, Inc.             Virginia                  Nesson Meats

NorthCenter Foodservice Corporation          Maine

PFG of Texas, Inc.                           Texas

Carroll County Foods, Inc.                   Maryland

Redi-Cut Foods, Inc.                         Illinois                  Redi-Cut

K.C. Salad Holdings, Inc.                    Missouri

Kansas City Salad, L.L.C.                    Illinois                  Redi-Cut

K.C. Salad Real Estate, L.L.C.               Delaware

</TABLE>
H. Res. 893 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 27, 2016. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 954) to 

amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt from 

the individual mandate certain individuals who had coverage 

under a terminated qualified health plan funded through the 

Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO–OP) program. 

All points of order against consideration of the bill are 

waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 

amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 

as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 

passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 

debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and rank-
2 

•HRES 893 EH 

ing minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 

and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
tf£.-iZ{0&& pL'V?'py'

a,lUe. 5\<Al af "Tm< [^ ^{U<l Pity, cuk \aj<t\

'\K« 2*0 RltfcC Cc*yT4

(LktX\ LHkw MlCan/if• — RECEIVED IRS

©^RTOFCRlMIMAlAPPEALa '

NOV16'-2ob'.. •

L"L/-t iuAi^iA 0«T ,

.Clerk

\/Ooi<i\lwmbe.r ' \mwM®&gp

Cfa \lli- &C I

Cct \.m- \kc\

•Cr* 'nft-Ht* 1

Cf( 11L0 UC\ .

' -

1 • y '•'

tW A-cidaA Nlgifemb^iT L? 3d1<" IW IiaAim# ^r Wt-anA. f&> -

h tuft* StvsV h> 4-U BilLildKlA^ 1*-A, tou^f ^ ouviU.

klWA (JL»\*t~ in (Qeuj liisWn ^SSLfxi >

1>a (W ht-Whoi/i for 4a.& ImC(/»<&- HWfC Ua£ <wV Ul&a fcS^crS-Wi
• - •

: IWr

uviWtf Lui Uifct^ P^ {U^t *tw$ U>ok\ l_9 * 3. A. t Auis

kAe>1W \qX £x4£jaV&ia ©V Mn*£.

'

. " ' '

&4ctcdii <aU;MJ ' • . - . •

I 6bale«A-/p ±A~.

icW\ \J*a' jAthrOif MHibW •

-

TliWa thV\ -

1K<\ 54 U*H A?

KW fetfW /k '/ftK --

-

' •- - " ;

•

'

.. • - .

- . • .' ,. i .-

. •.. -

1 ••

• • •••

•

. - > • , - ,
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Premier Development & Investment,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Eric R. Boyer, 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of this
14th day of May, 2003.



/s/ Eric R. Boyer
-------------------------------
Eric R. Boyer
President and CEO
Premier Development & Investment, Inc.
Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Premier Development & Investment,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Victoria Z. Carlton, Treasurer and Secretary 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of this
12th day of November, 2004.



/s/ Andrew L. Jones
-------------------------------
Andrew L. Jones
Treasurer and Secretary
Premier Development & Investment, Inc.
# C_2010051EN.01001401.xml

| 27.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/14

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 December 2009 — Powerserv Personalservice GmbH, formerly Manpower Personalservice GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs), Manpower Inc.

(Case C-553/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 7(1)(c) and 51(1) and (2) - Invalidity proceedings - Cross Appeal - Community word mark MANPOWER - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Distinctive character acquired through use)

2010/C 51/22

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Powerserv Personalservice GmbH, formerly Manpower Personalservice GmbH (represented by: B. Kuchar, Rechtsanwältin)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), and Manpower Inc. (represented by: A. Bryson, Barrister and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 October 2008 in Case T-405/05 Powerserv Personalservice v OHIM and Manpower by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment brought by the appellant against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 22 July 2005 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division refusing the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of Community word mark ‘MANPOWER’ for goods in Classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42 — Incorrect assessment of the distinctive character of the mark — Failure to reassess the evidence relating to the acquisition of distinctive character through use, after extending the relevant public by comparison with the contested decision of the Board of Appeal

Powerserv Personalservice

OHIM and Manpower

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The main appeal brought by Powerserv Personalservice GmbH is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The main appeal brought by Powerserv Personalservice GmbH is dismissed.

| 2. | The cross appeal brought by Manpower Inc. is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The cross appeal brought by Manpower Inc. is dismissed.

| 3. | Powerserv Personalservice GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Powerserv Personalservice GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.

1

---
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                    SUBSIDIARIES OF MANUGISTICS GROUP, INC.

         Listed below are the significant subsidiaries of the Company and their
jurisdictions of organization. All of these subsidiaries are wholly-owned by
the Company.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     State or
                                                   Jurisdiction
                                                 of Incorporation      Name Under Which
 Name                                            or Organization      Subsidiary Does Business
 ----                                            ---------------      ------------------------
 <S>                                           <C>                    <C>
 Manugistics Colorado, Inc.                    Delaware               Manugistics, Inc.

 Manugistics, Inc.                             Delaware               Manugistics, Inc.

 Manugistics France S.A.                       France                 Manugistics France S.A.

 Manugistics, Inc. Foreign                     Virgin Islands         Manugistics, Inc.
  Sales Corporation

 Manugistics U.K. Ltd.                         United Kingdom         Manugistics U.K. Ltd.

 Manugistics Canada Ltd.                       Ontario                Manugistics Canada Ltd.

 Manugistics (Deutschland) GmbH                Germany                Manugistics (Deutschland) GmbH

 Manugistics European Holding                  Netherlands            Manugistics European
  Company B.V.                                                         Holding Company B.V.

 Manugistics Services, Inc.                    Delaware               Manugistics, Inc.

 Manugistics Japan K.K.                        Japan                  Manugistics Japan K.K.
</TABLE>
# Appalachian STEM Academy - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Krystina Burton Program Analyst.The post Krystina Burton appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Gloria Baca The post Gloria Baca appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Jessica Mosley Program Manager.The post Jessica Mosley appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7205

QUINCY DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FRANK DREW, Sheriff, personally and officially; CAPTAIN O'BRIEN, personally and

officially; LIEUTENANT ORTIZ, personally and

officially,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District

Judge. (CA-94-499-2)

Submitted: December 26, 1995 Decided: May 21, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and HALL and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quincy Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Christopher Sams, SAMS &

HAWKINS, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Davis v. Drew, No. CA-94-499-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 1995). 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