alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          19,483
<SECURITIES>                                    46,609
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,927
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,012
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,198
<PP&E>                                          21,930
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,872
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 152,529
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,530
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           431
<OTHER-SE>                                     128,860
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   152,529
<SALES>                                        104,596
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               104,596
<CGS>                                           11,837
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,047
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,033)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,328)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,705)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,705)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)


</TABLE>
# C_2008272EN.01003701.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/37

---

Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Pescatori San Francesco di Paola v Commission

(Case T-324/08)

(2008/C 272/72)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Società Cooperativa Pescatori San Francesco di Paola (Vibo Valentia, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.

Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c

Commission

---
# C_2009233EN.01001703.xml

| 26.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/17

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2009 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

(Case T-376/08) (1)

1

(Appeal - Public service - Officials - Evaluation report for 2005/2006 - Decision not to promote the appellant in 2007 - Decision of the Court of Auditors to renew the mandate for its Secretary General - Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

2009/C 233/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger and A. Hertzog, lawyers)

Appellant:

Defendant: Court of Auditors (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and G. Corstens, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2008 in Case F-1/08 Nijs v Court of Auditors [2009] ECR I-0000 seeking that that order be set aside.

Nijs

Court of Auditors

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Bart Nijs to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Auditors of the European Communities in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bart Nijs to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Auditors of the European Communities in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 301 of 22.11.2008.

1

---
EX-10.9
                      PROMISSORY NOTE

                      PROMISSORY NOTE

Principal amount $12,667.67                             Date: April 26, 2004

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, RMD Technologies, Inc. hereby promise to
pay to the order of Patrick A. Galliher the sum of Twelve Thousand Six
Hundred, Sixty Seven Dollars and Sixty Seven Cents, together with
interest thereon at the rate of 1% per month on the unpaid balance.
Said sum shall be paid upon demand.

     This note shall at the option of any holder thereof be
immediately due and payable upon the occurrence of any of the
following:  1) Breach of any condition of any security interest,
mortgage, loan agreement, pledge agreement or guarantee granted as
collateral security for this note. 2) Breach of any condition of any
loan agreement, security agreement or mortgage, if any, having a
priority over any loan agreement, security agreement or mortgage on
collateral granted, in whole or in part, as collateral security for
this note. 3) Upon the death, incapacity, dissolution or liquidation
of any of the undersigned, or any endorser, guarantor to surety
hereto. 4) Upon the filing by any of the undersigned of an assignment
for the benefit of creditors, bankruptcy or other form of insolvency,
or by suffering an involuntary petition in bankruptcy or receivership
not vacated within thirty (30) days.

     In the event this note shall be in default and placed for
collection, then the undersigned agree to pay all reasonable attorney
fees and costs of collection. All payments hereunder shall be made to
such address as may from time to time be designated by any holder.

     The undersigned and all other parties to this note, whether as
endorsers, guarantors or sureties, agree to remain fully bound until
this note shall be fully paid and waive demand, presentment and
protest and all notices hereto and further agree to remain bound,
notwithstanding any extension, modification, waiver, or other
indulgence or discharge or release of any obligor hereunder or
exchange, substitution, or release of any collateral granted as
security for this note. No modification or indulgence by any holder
hereof shall be binding unless in writing; and any indulgence on any
one occasion shall not be an indulgence for any other or future
occasion. Any modification or change in terms, hereunder granted by
any holder hereof, shall be valid and binding upon each of the
undersigned, notwithstanding the acknowledgement of any of the
undersigned, and each of the undersigned does hereby irrevocably grant
to each of the others a power of attorney to enter into any such
modification on their behalf. The rights of any holder hereof shall be
cumulative and not necessarily successive. This note shall take effect
as a sealed instrument and shall be construed, governed and enforced
in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

                                       RMD Technologies, Inc.


                                       By: /s/  Pat Galliher
                                       Pat Galliher, President
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4507 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4507

To require assurances that certain family planning service projects and 
 programs will provide pamphlets containing the contact information of 
                           adoption centers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 30, 2017

 Mr. Wittman (for himself, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Harris, Mr. Jody B. 
Hice of Georgia, Mr. Massie, Mr. Pearce, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Rouzer, and 
    Mr. Franks of Arizona) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require assurances that certain family planning service projects and 
 programs will provide pamphlets containing the contact information of 
                           adoption centers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be referred to as the ``Adoption Information Act''.

SEC. 2. PROVISION IN FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES OF PAMPHLETS CONTAINING 
              ADOPTION CENTER CONTACT INFORMATION.

    Title X of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300 et seq.) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

                 ``adoption center contact information

    ``Sec. 1009.  (a) A grant may be made or contract entered into 
under section 1001 for a family planning service project or program 
only upon assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that the project or 
program will--
            ``(1) provide to each person to whom the project or program 
        provides family planning services, at the time the person 
        inquires about the services, a pamphlet that contains--
                    ``(A) a comprehensive list of the adoption centers 
                located in the State where the services are provided; 
                and
                    ``(B) the address and telephone number of each such 
                center;
            ``(2) at the same time, orally inform each such person that 
        the pamphlet--
                    ``(A) was provided by the Department of Health and 
                Human Services; and
                    ``(B) contains a comprehensive list of the adoption 
                centers located in the State where the services are 
                provided; and
            ``(3) provide each such person an opportunity to read the 
        pamphlet.
    ``(b) The Secretary shall prepare, annually update, and distribute 
to each project or program referred to in subsection (a) pamphlets 
described in that subsection.
    ``(c) No funds may be used to carry out this section, except funds 
that are appropriated to carry out this title.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Habeas Corpus of Harold D. HEARD, Petitioner, v. R. R. RAINES, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. A-12998.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 15, 1961.

Harold D. Heard, pro se.

*742Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent,

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner filed herein a petition asking for his release from the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. The petition is unverified and does not have attached thereto a copy of the judgment and sentence upon which petitioner was confined.

Petition alleges in his application for release that he was sentenced to ten years in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at the January term of Court 1958 held in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. That said sentence was the result of the charge of burglary 2nd degree, second and subsequent offense.

Petitioner first contends that said sentence is excessive and further alleges that he was denied a fair and impartial trial. Petitioner bases his allegation of an unfair trial upon the fact that he was charged conjointly with two other defendants who received less punishment than did the petitioner; one received seven years, the other three. Petitioner contends this showed prejudice toward him during the trial and therefore he was denied a fair and impartial trial to which he was entitled.

The attorney general filed a response to said petition in substance stating that petitioner did not state any allegation sufficient to grant relief by habeas corpus. With this the Court agrees. It is quite evident that the court had jurisdiction of the person, of the subject matter and a right under the law to pronounce such a sentence. This court will only consider such matters on habeas corpus as question the jurisdiction of the Court. See In re Scearce, 336 P.2d 1110. Even though allegations of the petitioner were true they are matters that should have been considered on appeal and not by way of habeas corpus. This court is consistent in its rulings that 3⁄8 habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for an appeal. A close review of the petition indicates that petitioner is merely contending that his punishment was excessive and should be modified. This court is not permitted to consider modification upon application by habeas corpus, but only on appeal. The rule was stated in the case of Bow v. Raines, Okl.Cr., 353 P.2d 145, 146, wherein the Court said:

> “Power of Court of Criminal Appeals to modify a sentence is limited to appealed cases and cannot be exercised in an original habeas corpus proceeding.”

In line with the above and foregoing reasons and the authorities herein cited, the writ is denied.
# C_2008092EN.01002001.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 15 February 2008 — Copad SA v 1. Christian Dior couture SA, 2. Vincent Gladel, acting as receiver of Société industrielle de lingerie (SIL), 3. Société industrielle de lingerie (SIL)

(Case C-59/08)

(2008/C 92/37)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de Cassation (France)

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Copad SA

Claimant:

Defendants: 1. Christian Dior couture SA, 2. Vincent Gladel, acting as receiver of Société industrielle de lingerie (SIL), 3. Société industrielle de lingerie (SIL)

Defendants:

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 8(2) of First Council Directive No 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark can invoke the rights conferred by that trade mark against a licensee who contravenes a provision in the licensing contract prohibiting, on grounds of the trade mark's prestige, sale to discount stores? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 8(2) of First Council Directive No 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark can invoke the rights conferred by that trade mark against a licensee who contravenes a provision in the licensing contract prohibiting, on grounds of the trade mark's prestige, sale to discount stores?

1

| 2. | Must Article 7(1) of that directive be interpreted as meaning that a licensee who puts goods bearing a trade mark on the market in the European Economic Area in disregard of a provision of the licensing contract prohibiting, on grounds of the trade mark's prestige, sale to discount stores, does so without the consent of the trade mark proprietor? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 7(1) of that directive be interpreted as meaning that a licensee who puts goods bearing a trade mark on the market in the European Economic Area in disregard of a provision of the licensing contract prohibiting, on grounds of the trade mark's prestige, sale to discount stores, does so without the consent of the trade mark proprietor?

| 3. | If not, can the proprietor invoke such a provision to oppose further commercialisation of the goods, on the basis of Article 7(2) of that directive? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If not, can the proprietor invoke such a provision to oppose further commercialisation of the goods, on the basis of Article 7(2) of that directive?

---

(1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Arthur Zafiropoulo, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Annual Report of Ultratech, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Ultratech, Inc.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|       |  |                         |  |                    
|------ |  | ----------------------- |  | -------------------
|       |  |                        
|By:    |  | /S/ ARTHUR ZAFIROPOULO  |  | Date: March 1, 2010
|       |  |                        
|Name:  |  | Arthur Zafiropoulo      |  |                    
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |                    

I, Bruce Wright, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Annual Report of Ultratech, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Ultratech, Inc.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|       |  |                         |  |                    
|------ |  | ----------------------- |  | -------------------
|       |  |                        
|By:    |  | /S/ BRUCE WRIGHT        |  | Date: March 1, 2010
|       |  |                        
|Name:  |  | Bruce Wright            |  |                    
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer |  |
Exhibit 32.1

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 In connection with  the Annual Report  of American  HealthChoice, Inc.  (the
 "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as  filed
 with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the
 "Report"), I  Dr. J.  W. Stucki,  Chief Executive  Officer of  the  Company,
 certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 1350, as  adopted pursuant to S 906 of  the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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


 /s/ Dr. J. W. Stucki

 Dr. J. W. Stucki
 Chief Executive Officer
 January 13, 2006
# C_2008223EN.01005302.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/53

---

Action brought on 30 June 2008 — Biotronik v OHIM (BioMonitor)

(Case T-257/08)

(2008/C 223/94)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Biotronik Meβ- und Therapiegeräte GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander and R. Böhm, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 April 2008 in Case No R 466/2007-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 April 2008 in Case No R 466/2007-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BioMonitor’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 10 and 38, in which the additional list of goods for Class 10 would be restricted (Application No 4 556 023).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) in that the trade mark applied for does not lack distinctive character and it is not a descriptive term.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---