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

TENTH CIRCUIT

PROLINE MATERIALS, INC., a Texas corporation,

Plaintiff Counter Defendant - Appellant,

v.

PROLINE PRODUCTS, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company,

Defendant Counterclaimant - Appellee. No. 14-6216 (D.C. No. 5:13-CV-00156-C) (W.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HARTZ

, HOLMES , and MATHESON , Circuit Judges.

* After examining the briefs and the appella te record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not mate rially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1( G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order a nd judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its pe rsuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit


### April 3, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Proline Products, LLC (Products) preva iled in litigation with Proline Materials,

Inc. (Materials) and was awarded $110,984 in attorney fees. Materials appeals the

attorney-fee award on several grounds. We need address only one, and reverse.

The district court granted the fee awar d under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 936 (West

2014). Products (quite correctly and admira bly) makes three concessions regarding the

application of § 936 to this case : (1) the district court’s award of attorney fees is contrary

to this court’s holding in Specialty Beverages, LLC v. Pabst Brewing Co ., 537 F.3d 1165

(10th Cir. 2008); (2) we must follow a prior panel’s interpretation of state law “unless an

intervening decision of th e state’s highest court ha s resolved the issue,” Wankier v.

Crown Equip. Corp ., 353 F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir. 2003); and (3) “[t]he Oklahoma

Supreme Court has not spoken on the [pertinent issue] since Specialty Beverages .” Aplee.

Br. at 18. Bound by Specialty Beverages , we therefore cannot affirm the fee award.

Products has two avenues still available. First, it can seek review by the en banc

court. This opinion does not foreclose that possibility. Second, it ca n obtain a contrary

decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court thro ugh certification of the issue from this

court. In that regard, it has filed a motion re questing us to certify the issue. In our view,

however, this is not an appropr iate issue to certify because a resolution by the Oklahoma

court may not be determinative; Materials ha s raised other substantial challenges to the3 fee award that may require reversal of the award even if this court misinterpreted

Oklahoma law in Specialty Beverages

. Accordingly, we reverse the award of atto rney fees and remand to the district court

for entry of judgment in favo r of Materials on the issue of attorney fees. We deny

Products’ motion to certify, and we de ny the other pending motions as moot.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Mr. PALAZZO:
        H.R. 6341.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       The powers granted through Article 1 Section 8, and 
     Amendment XVI to the Constitution of the United States of 
     America
```
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Terra Trema, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the
undersigned's knowledge, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


8/19/02                                    /s/ Gerry Martin
---------------                            -------------------------------------
Date                                       President and Chief Executive Officer

8/19/02                                    /s/ Gerry Martin
---------------                            -------------------------------------
Date                                       Principal Financial Officer
# C_2010179EN.01005702.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/57

---

Order of the General Court of 11 May 2010 — Shetland Islands Council v Commission

(Case T-44/08) (1)

(2010/C 179/98)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

---
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 12.01

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
     <S>                                           <C>          <C>
     Earnings Before Taxes                                     $(11,575,352)
                                                                 ==========
     FIXED CHARGES:
          Interest Expense                                     $  9,812,130
          Amortization of Deferred Loan Costs                       849,808

          Rental Expense year ended June 30, 1996 $1,499,029
          Divided By:  3                                    3
                                                                    499,676

               Total Fixed Charges                               11,161,614
                                                                 ==========
          Earnings                                             $   (413,738)

          Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                          (0.04)
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1376]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RUSS CARNAHAN

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I regrettably missed the suspension votes 
on July 31, 2012. Please let the record reflect my position on each of 
these pieces of legislation.
  (1) S. 679 (Roll no. 537)--Presidential Appointment Efficiency and 
Streamlining Act of 2011. I would like the record to reflect that I 
would have voted in favor of this legislation, which I support, had I 
been present to record my vote.
  (2) H.R. 828 (Roll no. 538)--Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act 
of 2011, as amended. I would like the record to reflect that I would 
have voted against this legislation, which I oppose, had I been present 
to record my vote. I believe that holding individuals with seriously 
delinquent tax debts accountable is important--to address our fiscal 
deficit and to ensure all Americans are fulfilling their 
responsibilities as citizens of this country. However, this legislation 
unnecessarily and unfairly singles out federal employees. For this 
reason, I oppose this legislation.
  (3) H.R. 3803 (Roll no. 539)--District of Columbia Pain-Capable 
Unborn Child Protection Act. I would like the record to reflect that I 
would have voted against this legislation, which I strongly oppose, had 
I been present to record my vote.
  The District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act 
represents just one more step in the Republican's agenda to undermine 
women's access to reproductive health care. This measure cruelly 
contains no exemptions in the case of rape, incest, or a terminal fetal 
anomaly, requiring a woman to carry a non-viable fetus to term. 
Moreover, this bill is another instance of a congressional overreach 
into the District of Columbia's affairs. If supporters truly deemed 
this legislation acceptable for all Americans, they would have moved to 
enact it nationally, as opposed to imposing it solely on D.C.'s 
population.
  I have long been a strong supporter of women's reproductive rights, 
and I have continued to work to ensure that women's rights and access 
to abortion care remain safe and legal. This Congress, we have seen the 
rights of women come under attack repeatedly in the House of 
Representatives. Though I firmly believe in encouraging healthy debate, 
the attacks we have seen are an affront to the rights and health of 
women around this country. I have, and will continue to, consistently 
oppose measures like this legislation, which undercut critical access 
to reproductive health care.

                          ____________________
```
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 11 November 2009 – Bayer Healthcare v OHIM – Uriach-Aquilea OTC
(CITRACAL)**

**(Case T-277/08)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark CITRACAL – Earlier national word mark CICATRAL – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the goods – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39, 59-60)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 May 2008 (Case R 459/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Uriach-Aquilea OTC, SL and Bayer Healthcare LLC. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Bayer Healthcare LLC |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark CITRACAL for goods in Class 5 – Application No 1757855 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Uriach-Aquilea OTC, SL |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National word mark CICATRAL for goods in Classes 1 and 5 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Bayer Healthcare LLC to pay the costs. |
SCPR-22-0000677 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
IN RE GANSIN K. LI, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN IN GOOD STANDING (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition to resign from the practice law in the State of Hawai # i , filed by attorney Gansin K. Li, pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai# i (RSCH), but to retain the paper license as a memento, as authorized by RSCH Rule 1.10(b), and the affidavits submitted in support thereof, we conclude that Petitioner Li has fully complied with the requirements of RSCH Rule 1.10. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g), that the Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and record requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g). Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPR-22-0000677 28-NOV-2022 02:27 PM Dkt. 6 OGPIT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the

name of Petitioner Li, attorney number 5331, from the roll of attorneys of the State of Hawai # i, effective with the filing of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai# i, November 28, 2022. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
#### Robert ADAMS, d/b/a Bob Adams Realty and the Adams Mortgage Company, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. James B. GRAY, Sina Lillie Hanson, Viola Theresa Tipton, Orlee Mae Palmer and Robert I. Palmer, Appellees (Defendants below).

No. 3009.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Oct. 11, 1961.

Carroll & Cole, Bernard E. Cole, Cheyenne, for appellant.

Paul B.-. Godfrey of Henderson & God-frey, Cheyenne, for appellees.

Before BLUME, C. J., and PARKER, HARNSBERGER, and McINTYRE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This cause was tried to a jury May 11-13, 1960. A verdict for defendants was returned May 13, and on the same day, the court entered judgment. Plaintiff filed and served notice of appeal May 25. On June 22 the trial court entered an order extending the time for filing and docketing the record on appeal to July 23, and on July 22 entered a further order extending the time to August 15. On August 11 plaintiff filed his designation of record on appeal and on August 15 filed the record in this court. The case is before us on defendants’ motion to dismiss because of plaintiff’s failure to comply with the rules regarding appeals.

Rule 73(a), Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that:

> “ * * * The appellant shall concurrently [with the filing of notice of appeal] order and arrange for the payment of a transcript of the portions of the evidence deemed necessary for the appeal, and written evidence of the compliance with this requirement shall be filed in the case or endorsed upon the notice of appeal. * * * ”

Rule 75(a), Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that:

> “Within thirty days after filing the notice of appeal the appellant shall serve upon the appellee and file with the district court a designation of the portions of the record, proceedings, and evidence to be contained in the record on appeal, unless the appellee has already served and filed a designation. 3⁄8 *3⁄8.*3⁄8 »

*459There was no compliance - with either of these provisions, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

Incidentally, it should probably be noted that the appellees on June 30, 1960, several days after appellant’s designation was due, filed their designation and now explain that this was done as a basis for a motion to dismiss the appeal. Such filing was unnecessary since appellees could have accomplished their purpose by proceeding under Rule 75(j), Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure.

Appeal dismissed.
# Broome - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Southern Tier 8 Regional Board Executive Director Jennifer Gregory Email &#x63;&#x6f;&#x6e;&#x74;&#x61;&#x63;&#116;&#64;&#115;&#111;uthe&#x72;&#x6e;&#x74;&#x69;&#x65;&#x72;&#56;&#46;&#111;&#114;&#103;The post Southern Tier 8 Regional Board appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# C_2019093EN.01006801.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/68

---

Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO — New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX BRENT)

(Case T-760/18)

(2019/C 93/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: R. Hoy, Solicitor, and J. Bowhill, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark NYMEX BRENT — Application for registration No 15 333 891

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2018 in Case R 102/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-11193

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:16-cr-00001-DHB-BKE-6

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DARRELL CORRELL HALL, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(June 14, 2018)

Before JULIE CARNES, BRANCH and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Charles Butler, appointed counsel for Darrell Correll Hall in this direct 

criminal appeal, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief 

Case: 17-11193 Date Filed: 06/14/2018 Page: 1 of 2 
2

prepared under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent 

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of 

the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals 

no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and 

Hall’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-11193 Date Filed: 06/14/2018 Page: 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TYLER KLINE

,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 4

- 00 005

- C R

Appeal from the

384th D istrict Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20120D04322 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Tyler Kline , has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. Rule 42.2(a) permits an

appellate court to dismiss a criminal appeal on the appellant ’ s motion at any time before the

appellate court ’ s decision. T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.2(a). Because the Appellant has complied with the

requirements of Rule 42.2(a), we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

February 19, 2014

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Orlando Roldan, Appellant, v James Racette, as Superintendent of Adirondack Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Viscardi, J.), entered December 12, 1990 in Essex County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Judgment affirmed, without costs, upon the opinion of Justice Dominick J. Viscardi.

Casey, J. P., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs, upon the opinion of Justice Dominick J. Vascardi.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AVTAR SINGH RIAT,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-72142

Agency No. A075-019-619

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 5, 2011** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges. 

Avtar Singh Riat, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen deportation

proceedings held in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

FILED

APR 27 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-72142

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of

discretion, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400

F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition

for review. 

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Riat’s motion to reopen

based on ineffective assistance of counsel where Riat failed to show he had been

prejudiced by former counsel. See id. at 793-94 (“[P]rejudice results when ‘the

performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of

the proceedings.’”). 

In his opening brief, Riat fails to address, and therefore has waived any

challenge to, the agency’s determination that his motion to reopen to adjust status

was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.

1996) (holding issues that are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s

opening brief are waived).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision not to invoke its sua

sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, No. 07-

74277, 2011 WL 240357, at *4 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2011). 

Riat’s remaining contention is unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.