alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009019EN.01003503.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/35

---

Action brought on 26 November 2006 — Laboratorios Byly v OHIM — Ginis (BILLY'S Products)

(Case T-514/08)

(2009/C 19/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Byly, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: L. Plaza Fernandez-Villa, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vasileios Ginis (Athens, Greece)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | The contested decision be annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

The contested decision be annulled;

| — | the defendant be ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

the defendant be ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Vasileios Ginis.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘BILLY'S products’ (application No 4.215.273) for goods in Class 3.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Laboratorios Byly.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word marks ‘BYLY’ (application No 156.216) for goods in Class 3, and ‘byly’ (application No 2.604.015) for goods in Classes 3 and 5, and services in Class 35.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Command Center, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeff R. Mitchell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 at the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.





It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.








Dated:  November 14, 2011
  /s/Jeff R. Mitchell Jeff R. Mitchell
 Chief Financial Officer
# C_2008128EN.01003601.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/36

---

Action brought on 4 April 2008 — Aurelia Finance v OHIM (AURELIA)

(Case T-136/08)

(2008/C 128/76)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Aurelia Finance SA (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by M. Elmslie, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 9 January 2008 in case R 1214/2007-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 9 January 2008 in case R 1214/2007-1;

| — | Remit the applicant's application for restitutio in integrum to OHIM for reconsideration; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Remit the applicant's application for restitutio in integrum to OHIM for reconsideration; and

restitutio in integrum

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: A word mark consisting of the word AURELIA for various services in class 36 — application No 274 936

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the OHIM: Refusal of the application for restitutio in integrum

Decision of the OHIM:

restitutio in integrum

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 78 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the standard of due care required in connection with administrative renewals is lower than that for a party to proceedings before OHIM.

Pleas in law:

---
### Does the Ingredient Material Satisfy the Legitimacy Criteria? Has the Ingredient Material Been Discarded in the First Instance (i.e. disposed, abandoned, thrown away)?

Is the ingredient

material managed as

a valuable commodity ? Does the ingredient material provide a useful contribution to the production or

manufacturing process? Does use of the ingredient material result in products that do not contain contaminants significantly higher in

concentration than found in products that are manufactured with traditional ingredients? Ingredient Material is

a Waste

Ingredient Material is Not a Waste YES

NO

YES TO ALL NO TO ONE Has the Material Been Sufficiently Processed? NO

YES 

### Flow Chart for Determining Wh ether Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Used as Ingredients In Combustion Units are Solid Wastes

Ingredient Material is a Waste Is the ingredient

material used to produce a

valuable product or intermediate ?
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5325]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              ADJOURNMENT

  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 39 minutes 
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, July 
30, 2012, at 2 p.m.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2008301EN.01004201.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/42

---

Action brought on 27 August 2008 — Peek & Cloppenburg and van Graaf v OHIM — Thailand (Thai Silk)

(Case T-361/08)

(2008/C 301/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicants: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany) and van Graaf GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: V. von Bombard, A. Renck, T. Dolde and J. Pause, lawyers)

Applicants:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Thailand

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) No R 1677/2007-4 of 10 June 2008 |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) No R 1677/2007-4 of 10 June 2008

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Thailand

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark ‘Thai Silk’ with the colours ‘dark blue and white’ for goods in Classes 24 and 25 (Registration No 4 099 297)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the Applicants

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Representation of a black and white peacock for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue due to their similar overall impression.

Pleas in law:

---
# Business and Entrepreneurship Development - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Jennifer Simon Program Manager.The post Jennifer Simon appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
Exhibit 23.2



CONSENT OF EXPERT



I consent to the reference to me under
the headings “Item 3.A Selected Financial Data–Risks Relating To Our Business–Our Reserve Estimates Could
Be Subject To Significant Changes,” “Item 4.D Property, Plant and Equipment–Caliche: Facilities and Reserves”
and “Item 19. Exhibits” in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A. (“SQM”)
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016:



|April
    26, 2017 | /s/
    Orlando Rojas                                                       
|------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   | Orlando
    Rojas                                                           
|                   | Partner
    and Chief Executive Officer of EMI-Ingenieros y Consultores S.A.
# C_2009205EN.01001901.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/19

---

Appeal brought on 1 August 2008 by Dr Hans Kronberger against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2008 in Case T-18/07 Dr Hans Kronberger v European Parliament

(Case C-349/08 P)

2009/C 205/32

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Dr Hans Kronberger (represented by: W. Weh, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Dr Hans Kronberger brought an appeal on 1 August 2008 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities against the order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2008 in Case T-18/07 Dr Hans Kronberger v European Parliament. The appellant is represented by Dr Wilfried Ludwig Weh, Rechtsanwalt, of Wolfeggstraße 1, AT-6900 Bregenz.

Dr Hans Kronberger

European Parliament

By Order of 19 May 2009 the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay his own costs.

---
NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED BY TRANSFER AGENT
               INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

     NUMBER                                                          SHARES




                                                                CUSIP NO.
                               ATM FINANCIAL CORP.

                    AUTHORIZED COMMON STOCK:  100,000,000 SHARES
                                PAR VALUE $.0001

THIS CERTIFIES THAT




Is The Record Holder Of




                  Shares of ATM FINANCIAL CORP. Common Stock
transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof, in person or
by duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this Certificate properly
endorsed.  This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer
Agent and registered by the Registrar.

     Witness the facsimile seal of the corporation and the facsimile signatures
of its duly authorized officers.

Dated:



     /s/Viktoria Vynnyk        ATM FINANCIAL CORP.        /s/Arthur Davis
     Secretary                   CORPORATE SEAL           President
                                     NEVADA
Exhibit 12.1

IPC HOLDINGS, LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED
SHARE

DIVIDENDS

Our consolidated ratios of earnings to fixed charges for each of the five fiscal years ended December 31, 2007 are as follows:



|                                                                          |  |                         |          |      |   |          |  |   |          |   |      |   |         |  |   |        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | -------- | ---- | - | -------- |  | - | -------- | - | ---- | - | ------- |  | - | -------
|                                                                          |  | Year ended December 31,
|                                                                          |  | 2007                    |          | 2006 |   | 2005     |  |   | 2004     |   | 2003
|                                                                          |  | ($ in thousands)       
|Net income (loss)                                                         |  | $                       | 385,412  |      | $ | 394,585  |  | $ | (623,399 | ) |      | $ | 138,613 |  | $ | 260,629
|Preferred share dividends                                                 |  |                         | 17,128   |      |   | 17,176   |  |   | 2,644    |   |      |   |        |  |   |       
|Fixed charges                                                             |  |                         |         |      |   |         |  |   |         |   |      |   |        |  |   |       
|Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred share dividends |  |                         | 22.5 : 1 |      |   | 23.0 : 1 |  |   | (1       | ) |      |   |        |  |   |       



|(1) | Earnings for the year ended December 31, 2005 were insufficient to cover combined fixed charges and preferred share dividends by $626.0 million.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 21, 1997

19290

#### Ah-Nee v. Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Dismissed
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 Quarterly Report of City Network, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Alice Chen, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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 the Company.

                                      /s/  Alice Chen
                                      -------------------------------------
                                      Alice Chen
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer
                                      May 22, 2006


This  Certification  is made  solely for  purposes  of 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,
subject  to the  knowledge  standard  contained  therein,  and not for any other
purpose.

A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff
upon request.  This written  statement shall not be deemed to be "filed" as part
of the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB that it accompanies.
#### Arley WARD, Petitioner, v. R. R. RAINES, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. A-13002.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 29, 1961.

Arley Ward, Petitioner, pro se.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner filed herein a proceedings, titled habeas corpus, to secure his release from confinement in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.

The record before the Court reflects that petitioner was charged with murder by information in the district court of Tulsa County. He was tried before a jury and after all the testimony was in and both state and defendant rested their case, petitioner, after a brief recess, withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty. Pie was sentenced to 40 years in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.

*954It has been called to the attention of the court by the attorney general that after petitioner’s conviction his case was appealed to this Court and was affirmed. Ward v. State, 90 Okl.Cr. 120, 210 P.2d 790. The appeal was lodged in this Court on May 15, 1958; an opinion was rendered by the Court affirming said case on October 19, 1949. In that appeal petitioner was represented by able counsel who filed therein a very thorough brief.

This Court has stated in numerous decisions the rule as adopted in In re Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406, 126 P.2d 751, wherein the Court said:

> “The Criminal Court of Appeals will not issue writ of habeas corpus where accused has appealed his judgment of conviction, the judgment is affirmed and questions raised in habeas corpus proceedings were in existence and known to petitioner at time of appeal and were matters which properly should have been presented by appeal.”

The Court further said:

> “Criminal Court of Appeals will not permit an accused to appeal his judgment of conviction and speculate upon his chances of securing a reversal and then, after the judgment of conviction is affirmed, come into court in a habeas corpus proceedings and raise the same or other grounds which might entitle the petitioner to a new trial or his release from custody; unless the question raised is such as to show that judgment is wholly void.”

Also see Ex parte Herren, 74 Okl.Cr. 154, 124 P.2d 276, 277. In the Herren case the Court said in substance to permit relief by habeas corpus after an appeal has been affirmed “would not be conducive to the efficient administration of our criminal laws. If this were not so, then a criminal case would never end, but after trial and conviction the court would be called upon to again try the issues by habeas corpus.”

For the above and foregoing reasons and authorities cited herein, the writ is denied.
# C_2009044EN.01005901.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/59

---

Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Villa Almè v OHIM — Bodegas Marqués de Murrieta (i GAI)

(Case T-546/08)

(2009/C 44/101)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Villa Almè Azienda vitivinicola di Vizzotto Giuseppe (Mansuè, Italy) (represented by: G. Massa, lawyer, P. Massa, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas Marqués de Murrieta, SA (Logroño, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Decision of 24/09/08 of the First Board of Appeal (R 1695/2007-1) and order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of 24/09/08 of the First Board of Appeal (R 1695/2007-1) and order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘i GAY’ (registration application No 4.458.295) for goods in Class 33 (wines).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bodegas Marqués de Murrieta S.A.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Spanish word mark (No 2.315.558) ‘YGAI’ and Community figurative mark (No 1.707.729) and Community word mark (No 1.699.412) ‘MARQUES DE MURRIETA YGAY’, for goods in Class 33 (wines).

Mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2014194EN.01003701.xml

| 24.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/37

---

Order of the General Court of 9 April 2014 — Al-Aqsa v Council

(Case T-276/08) (1)

1

2014/C 194/48

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 236, 13.9.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5869-H5870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  RELEASE OF PASTOR YOUCEF NADARKHANI

  (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani has been released 
from prison in Iran. After 3 years of suffering in prison, with the 
death penalty hanging over his head on false charges, Pastor Youcef is 
now home with his family. This weekend he was suddenly brought before a 
court, convicted on a more minor sentence, and granted time served.

[[Page H5870]]

  While we applaud his release, we cannot forget how Pastor Youcef was 
abused and falsely accused over the past 3 years. He was subject to 
intense interrogation. His wife was arrested, taken away from their two 
young sons for a period of time. His lawyer was arrested on trumped-up 
charges.
  Earlier this year the House drew attention to this persecution when 
it overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for the immediate release 
of Pastor Youcef. We made it clear that the world was watching and 
would not tolerate the execution of an innocent man.
  The Government of Iran continues to abuse religious minorities within 
its borders: Jews, Sunni Muslims, Baha'is, as well as Christians. 
Pastor Youcef's release is a victory for human rights, but we cannot 
forget about the other victims of this corrupt regime.

                          ____________________
```