alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010134EN.01003101.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2010 — Nestlé v OHIM — Master Beverage Industries (Golden Eagle and Golden Eagle Deluxe)

(Joined Cases T-5/08 to T-7/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community marks Golden Eagle and Golden Eagle Deluxe - Earlier international and national figurative marks representing a mug and coffee beans - Relative ground for refusal - 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))

2010/C 134/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by A. von Mühlendahl, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by R. Pethke, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Master Beverage Industries Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by N. Clarembeaux, D. Vervaet and P. Maeyaert, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court:

Re:

Re:

Actions brought against three decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2007 (Cases R 563/2006-2, R 568/2006-2 and R 1312/2006-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Société des produits Nestlé SA and Master Beverage Industries Pte Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 October 2007 (Cases R 563/2006-2, R 568/2006-2 and R 1312/2006-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 October 2007 (Cases R 563/2006-2, R 568/2006-2 and R 1312/2006-2);

| 2. | Dismisses the actions as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM and Master Beverage Industries Pte Ltd to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by Société des produits Nestlé SA. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM and Master Beverage Industries Pte Ltd to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by Société des produits Nestlé SA.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
# C_2019044EN.01007601.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/76

---

Action brought on 26 November 2018 — Apera Capital Master v EUIPO — Altera Capital (APERA CAPITAL)

(Case T-699/18)

(2019/C 44/101)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apera Capital Master Ltd. (St Peter Port, Guernsey) (represented by: C. Schröder and A. von Alten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Altera Capital (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

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 word mark APERA CAPITAL — Application for registration No 15 640 436

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2018 in Case R 1091/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | refer the case back to EUIPO for reconsideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to EUIPO for reconsideration;

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

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 104(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 104(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the applicant’s right to good administration and a fair trial. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the applicant’s right to good administration and a fair trial.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1345]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

         DEBRINA WORKMAN 30 YEARS WITH CONGRESSMAN NICK RAHALL

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 26, 2012

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, thirty years ago today, a young woman joined 
my Congressional Staff to help serve our fellow West Virginians in the 
midst of our State's rich coalfields. She hailed from the community of 
Holden and still resides there near her parents' home.
  Though she was very young, she had a burning passion to help people. 
And so she has, by the hundreds, nay thousands, over the decades 
working from her home base in my Logan District Office. For years, once 
a week, she did outreach work, bringing the constituent services of 
this Member of Congress to the good people of Mingo County. Working 
from the Mingo County seat of government in Williamson, she keeps me 
abreast of the important issues confronting the citizens of the Tug 
River Valley, the demarcation line of the famed Hatfield and McCoy 
Feud.
  To say she is a seasoned expert in agency process, procedure and 
practice is an understatement. She knows constituent casework inside 
and out. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, she knows the families of the 
coalfields, where they came from and where most of them are headed. She 
knows this because she cares, cares deeply that people are treated 
justly, and that justice is meted in a timely manner. She can scrap the 
varnish off truth faster and cleaner than anyone I know, whether you 
want her to or not.
  In the office she laughs with family members when things go right for 
them, and at home in the evening, she sheds tears for them when they 
are troubled. Indeed her passion still burns brightly, though now 
through these many years, it takes on the golden hue of seasoned 
compassion. She knows just the right thing to say to put people at 
ease. Not the art of politics, just working the Golden Rule, overtime.
  In these past thirty years, she has stuck with the people of southern 
West Virginia, through floods, blizzards and now a derecho. Her loyalty 
knows no bounds, even by Mother Nature's standards. Those in West 
Virginia's Third Congressional District and I are indeed fortunate to 
have Debrina Taylor Workman on our side because when the need arises, 
she can be a force of nature all by herself.
  Members of Congress are indeed blessed with godsends like Debrina to 
help us serve. While we don't say it often enough, we are thankful for 
their many sacrifices on our and the good people we represent behalves. 
Please join me in thanking Debrina for thirty years of service to her 
country and its families. May the good Lord's blessings continue to 
shine upon Debrina, her son, Jordan, and her many friends and family.

                          ____________________
```
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4326 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 3, 2018 

Received 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 200 West North Street in Normal, Illinois, 

as the ‘‘Sgt. Josh Rodgers Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

HR 4326 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SGT. JOSH RODGERS POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 200 West North Street in Nor4 mal, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Sgt. 

5 Josh Rodgers Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sgt. Josh Rodgers 

10 Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 29, 

2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS AT JUNE 30, 1999 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,999
<SECURITIES>                                     8,380
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,220
<ALLOWANCES>                                       696
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,625
<PP&E>                                           1,343<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,464
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,836<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,112
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           254
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,470
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,836
<SALES>                                         10,124
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,124
<CGS>                                            3,902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,902
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (392)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  18
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,189)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,209)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,209)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)
<FN>
<F1>PP&E IS NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION OF $5,421.
<F2>TOTAL ASSETS INCLUDE $327 OF OTHER ASSETS AND INVESTMENTS OF $1,437.
</FN>


</TABLE>
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MATTHEW IRVIN , ) ) Plaintiff, ) )

v. ) Civil Action No: 1: 22

- cv - 00385 ( UNA ) ) FACEBOOK , et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the c ourt on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint , ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The c ourt will grant

the IFP application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Federal Rule 8, in addition to other Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

P ro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch , 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Preliminarily, neither the complaint nor the IFP application are captioned for this court. The complaint is captioned for the “ Circuit Courts of the District of Columbia,” and the “Circuit Civil Courts of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit

. ” The IFP application lacks a caption entire ly . Therefore, both submissions fail to comply with Federal Rule 10(a). Additionally, plaintiff provides piecemeal information regarding the intended defendants, in further contravention of Federal Rule 10(a) and D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1).

Moreov er, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain “(1) a short and plain stateme nt of the grounds for the court’ s jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678

- 79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA , 355 F.3d 661, 668

- 71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted2 so that they can prepare a re sponsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the

doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano , 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). A complaint “that is excessively long, rambling, disjointed, incoherent, or full of irrelevant and confusing material will patently fail [Rule 8(a)’s] standard, and so will a complaint that contains an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated, nor meaningfully distinguished from bold conclusions, sharp h ar angues and personal comments.” Jiggetts v. D.C ., 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’ d sub nom

. Cooper v. D.C ., No. 17

- 7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). The instant complaint falls within this category. The prolix complaint totals 128 pages . It is disorganized and incomprehensible. Neither

the court nor the defendant s can be expected to decipher what claim s plaintiff attempts to bring , or to discern any basis for jurisdiction or to plaintiff’s entitlement to relief , if any . Conseque ntly,

it fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Federal Rule 8(a), a s well as the strictures of Federal Rule 10(b) and D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(d)

– (e). For all of these reasons, the complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed. An order consistent with

this memorandum o pinion is issued separately.

TREVOR N. McFADDEN Dated: May 10, 2022 United States District Judge
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 3, 2023 No. 04-22-00857-CV STUDIO E. ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIORS, INC. , Appellant

v. Emily LEHMBERG , Appellee From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CI-10649 Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R The trial court clerk has filed a notification of late record, stating that appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record and that appellant is not entitled to preparation of the clerk’s record without paying the fee. We, therefore, ORDER appellant to provide written proof to this court on or before January 19, 2023 , that the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 37.3(b); see also T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(c) (allowing dismissal of appeal if appellant fails to comply with an order of this court).

_________________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 3rd day of January, 2023.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
1 ... See Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 346- CR L ONN E Y R OB E R T O AN T ONI O B R OW N AP P E L L ANT A / K /A L O N N E YR . B R O WN V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 372ND DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NTCO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ft e rp le a d in g t r u e t o h a v in g v io la t e d t h et e r m sa n d c o n d it io n so fh is d e ferred ad j u d i c a ti o n co m m u n i ty s u p e rv i sion , a p p e l l a n t Lo n n e yR o b e rt o A n to n i o B ro w n a /k /a L o n n e yR . B ro w n a p p e a l sh i sc o n v i c ti o n a n d te n -y e a ra n d -o n e -d a ys e n te n c e fo r b u rg l a ryo f a h a b i ta ti o n . W ea ffir m .2 ... 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S . C t. 1 3 9 6 (1 9 6 7 ). 3 ... Se eS taffo rd v. S tate , 8 1 3 S .W .2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ); Mays v. State, 904 S . W . 2d 920, 9 22– 23 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 1995, no p e t.). 4 ... See Pens on v. Ohi o, 488 U. S. 75, 82–8 3, 1 09 S . C t . 346, 351 (1 9 8 8 ). A p p e l l a n t’ s c o u rt -ap p o i n ted a p p e l l a te c o u n se l h a s fi l e d a m o ti o n to w i th d raw as co u n se l an d a b rie f in su p p o rto f t h a t m o ti o n . I n the b ri e f, coun sel aver s t hat , i n hi s pr of essi onal opi ni on, t he appeal i s f r i v o l ous. C o u n se l ’s b ri e f a n d m o ti o n m e e t t h ereq u i rem e n ts o f A n der sv. Ca lif

o r nia 2 b y p re s e n ti n g a p ro fe s s i o n a l e v a l u a ti o n o f th e re c o rd d e m o n s tra ti n g w h yth e re a r e n o a r g u a b le g r o u n d sf o rr e lie f . W eg a v ea p p e lla n tt h eo p p o rt u n it yt o f ile a p ro s e b ri e f, a n d h e h a s n o t f i l e d o n e . T h eS tate also h a s n o t f i l e d a b ri e f. O n c e an ap p e l l a n t’ s c o u rt -ap p o i n ted att o rne yfi l e s a m o ti o n to w i t hdr aw on t he gr ound t hatt he app ea l i s f r i vol ousan d f ul f i l l s t he req u i rem e n ts o f A n ders , t hi s cou rti s obl i gat ed t o und ert ak e a n i nde pen den t exa m i nat i on oft he r ec or d. 3O n lyt h e n m a yw eg ran t co u n se l ’s m o ti o n to wi t h d r a w. 4 W e have car ef ul l y r evi ew ed t he r ecor d and counsel ’ s br i ef . W e agr ee w i t h couns elt hatt hi s app ea l i s w hol l y f r i vol ousand w i t houtm er i t ; w e f i nd5 ... See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S. W . 3d 824 , 827 –28 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp.

2 0 0 5 ); see al

so Meza v. State, 206 S . W . 3d 684, 685 n. 6 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 6 ). n o t h in g in t h e r e c o r d t h a t m ig h t a r g u a b lys u p p o rtt h ea p p e a l. 5Accor di ngl y, w e g ran t co u n se l ’s m o ti o n to w i th d raw an d affi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

P E RCU R I AM PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d M EI ER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: M a y 28, 2009
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6066]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                MEASURE PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--S. 3519

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I understand that S. 3519 is at the desk 
and due for a second reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill by title for the 
second time.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3519) to require sponsoring Senators to pay the 
     printing costs of ceremonial and commemorative Senate 
     resolutions.

  Mr. DURBIN. I would object to any further proceedings with respect to 
the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The bill will be placed on the calendar.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dresser, Inc. (Dresser) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on December 12, 2003 (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his
knowledge and upon a review of the Report, that, subject to the qualifications noted below:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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 Dresser as of the dates and for periods
presented as required by such Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In
rendering this certification, the undersigned notes the following qualifications, each of which limits and qualifies the above certification because they may materially alter the information required to be in the Report for the above certification
to be correct:



| | (a) | The Report was not filed within 45 days after the end of Dressers fiscal quarter as required by General Instruction A to Form 10-Q.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | Each of the qualifications and limitations set forth in the Report, including the notes to the financial statements contained therein and the matters covered under Item 2.
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Item 4. Controls and Procedures.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This certification is qualified by the foregoing and is based upon, among other things, the undersigneds
responsibilities as chief executive officer, his own due diligence and representations made by certain members of Dressers senior management.



Dated: December 11, 2003



/s/    Patrick M. MurrayPatrick M. Murray Chief Executive
Officer






This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Dresser for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16


             [EOTT ENERGY OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LETTERHEAD]



November 30, 2001


Mr. Gary Pittman
Coho Resources, Inc.
14785 Preston Road, Suite 860
Dallas, TX 75240

                                                                   VIA FACSIMILE

Re: EOTT Contract Number TP00-1018776

Dear Gary:

As agreed, the above referenced contract between EOTT and Coho will be amended,
effective January 1, 2002. The amendments will extent the current term through
January 31, 2002, and then continuing on a thirty-day evergreen thereafter. You
will receive a formal amendment in the near future.

If there are any questions or if I can be of assistance please feel free to
contact me at (601) 969-1568.

Sincerely,

/s/ STEVENS HOLLISTER

Stevens Hollister
Area Manager, Lease Acquisition