alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Office of the Federal Co-Chair - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Federal Co-Chair Gayle Conelly Manchin Gayle Conelly Manchin is ARC's Federal Co-Chair. The post Federal Co-Chair Gayle Conelly Manchin appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Guy Land Congressional Liaison Specialist.The post Guy Land appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Missy Phalen The post Missy Phalen appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Jill Wilmoth Special Assistant.The post Jill Wilmoth appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Sarah Baron Budget Analyst.The post Sarah Baron appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Sydney Parker The post Sydney Parker appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# C_2012243EN.01001302.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2012 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-86/08) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruit and vegetables - Rural development - Non-compliance with payment deadlines - Compliance with a judgment of the Court - Authority of res judicata - Time-limit of 24 months - Principle of proportionality)

2012/C 243/23

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented: initially by V. Kontolaimos, S. Charitaki and M. Tassopoulou and subsequently by M. Tassopoulou and I. Chalkias and K. Tsagkaropoulos, acting as Agents)

Applicant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agent, and P. Katsimani, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/68/EC of 20 December 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2008 L 18, p. 12) in so far as it relates to certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.

1

---
# C_2009297EN.01002101.xml

| 5.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/21

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 October 2009 — BCS v OHIM — Deere (Combination of the colours green and yellow)

(Case T-137/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours green and yellow - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Relative ground for refusal - Earlier unregistered national mark consisting of a combination of the colours green and yellow - Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

2009/C 297/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BCS SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi, V. Jandoli and F. Santonocito, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Deere & Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: J. Gray, Solicitor, and A. Tornato, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2008 (Case R 222/2007-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between BCS SpA and Deere & Company.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BCS SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BCS SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Gregory S. Daily, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of iPayment, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: November 12, 2007 By: /s/ Gregory S. Daily         Gregory S. Daily    Chief Executive Officer  
26
================================================================================

                                  Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Pacific Spirit,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ended  September  30,  2004 as filed  with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



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.



Date:  November 4, 2004

                                                /s/ Peter Sotola
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Peter Sotola
                                                Secretary, Treasurer & C.F.O.
                                               (Principal Financial Officer and
                                                Principal Accounting Officer)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51692

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO MENDOZA, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:03-CR-1959-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Mendoza, Jr. has appealed the district court’s order revoking his

supervised release imposed as part of his sentence for his 2004 conviction of

possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Mendoza contends that the

evidence showing that he violated a condition of his supervised release by

committing a new law violation was insufficient. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-51692

2

In United States v. Mendoza, 522 F.3d 482, 488-90 (5th Cir.), petition for

cert. filed (July 21, 2008) (No. 08-5446), we held that the evidence of Mendoza’s

guilt of the new law violation was sufficient. As Mendoza concedes, our holding

in that case provides a sufficient basis for affirming the district court’s order in

the instant appeal. 

In Mendoza, the Government bore the burden in that proceeding of

proving Mendoza’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. at 488. In this

revocation proceeding, the Government bore the burden of proving the new law

violation by a preponderance of the evidence only. See United States v. Hinson,

429 F.3d 114, 117-18 (5th Cir. 2005). Even if Mendoza prevails in his petition

for a writ of certiorari, Mendoza cannot show, in light of the evidence

summarized in our prior opinion, that the district court abused its discretion in

determining that the Government had shown by a preponderance of the evidence

that Mendoza had violated a condition of his supervised release by committing

a new law violation. See Mendoza, 522 F.3d at 486-88; see also United States v.

McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court’s order is

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
        32.1




CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18
        U.S.C.
        SECTION 1350


AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
        THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
        Glenn
        Welstad, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Command Center, Inc. (the
        "Company") do hereby 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:





This
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
        March 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
        "report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
        of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
        information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  May
        14,
        2007





/s/
        Glenn
        Welstad





Glenn
        Welstad


President
        and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2010080EN.01002402.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 2010 — Deutsche BKK v OHIM (Deutsche BKK)

(Case T-289/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Deutsche BKK - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character and no distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Article 73 and Article 74(1), first sentence, of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 and Article 76(1), first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009))

2010/C 80/42

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche BKK (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla and S. Risthaus, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2008 (Case R 318/2008-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark ‘Deutsche BKK’ as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Deutsche Betriebskrankenkasse (Deutsche BKK) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Deutsche Betriebskrankenkasse (Deutsche BKK) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.

1

---
#### Charles Alpaugh, administrator &c. of Elizabeth C. Wilson v. Richard H. Wilson et al.

The rule of the common law that husband and wife are to be regarded as one person has not been abrogated in New Jersey, and the statute of limitations will not run against the claims of the wife for money belonging to her received by the husband during his lifetime. Such debts, in their relation to the passage of time, must be regulated altogether on an equitable basis.

On final hearing on pleadings and proofs.

*Mr. Richard S. Kuhl,*for the complainant.

*Mr. Charles S. Skilhnan,*for the defendants.

*425Bird, Y. C.

Mrs. Wilson brought this suit against the executors of the last will and testament of her late husband, to recover the amount claimed to be due upon a promissory note given' by him to her on the 2d day of April, 1883. Mrs. Wilson died pending the suit and the present complainant was substituted in her stead.

The principal defence in this suit-is the statute of limitations. The parties to the transaction being husband and wife, it must be determined whether or not the statute applies. I think that it is not seriously disputed but that under the common law the wife could not maintain an action against her husband for the reason that in legal contemplation they were one. Nor has it been successfully maintained that this unity has been severed by implication under any acts of the legislature respecting married women. Such acts being in derogation of the common law, all ■courts have persisted in a strict construction of them. The true view has been clearly expressed by Chief-Justice Beasley, in *Gray*v. *Gray, 12 Stew. Eq. 511, 512.*This view was considered controlling in *Yeomans*v. *Petty, 13 Stew. Eq. 495.*See, also, *Barnett*v. *Harsbarger’s Admr., 5 N. E. Rep. 718; Dice*v. Ervin, *110 Ind. 561; Second National Bank*v. *Merrill et al., 81 Wis. 151.*

The court has, therefore, to dispose of such questions as justicie mid equity may require according to the general rules which have long been established for its guidance. Doubtless many ■cases may be presented which would be attended with such-cir■cumstances of laches, unfairness or uncertainty as would justify 'the court in rejecting them.

That the testator received the $800 has been established beyond question by the production of a note for that amount with his signature. Nothing lias been shown to raise the slightest presumption that the note was ever surrendered, or that any portion of it has been paid.

I think that the complainant is entitled to the amount of principal mentioned in the note, with interest, and to be paid by the executors out of the estate in ihe ordinary course of administration, together with costs.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5730]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 RECESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the 
Chair declares the House in recess until approximately 4 p.m. today.
  Accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m.), the House stood in 
recess.

                          ____________________
```
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2009 – REWE‐Zentral v OHIM – Aldi Einkauf (Clina)**

**(Case T-150/08)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark Clina – Earlier Community word mark CLINAIR – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – 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 33, 68-69)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2008 (Case R 1484/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG and REWE-Zentral AG. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | REWE-Zentral AG |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark Clina for goods in Classes 3 and 21 – Application No 3921079 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG. |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Word mark CLINAIR for goods in Classes 3 and 5 (Community trade mark No 1769850) |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition rejected |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision and rejection of the trade mark application |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders REWE-Zentral AG to pay the costs. |
Exhibit 31.1

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

I, Steve S.
Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify that:

1.    
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of SIN Holdings, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue  statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make  the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements  were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this quarterly  report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information  included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the  financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as  of, and for, the periods
presented in this quarterly report;

4.     I
am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and  procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the  registrant and have:

a)     designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material  information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the  period in which this report is being
prepared;

b)     evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and  presented in this
report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the  disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this  report based on such evaluation; and

c)     disclosed
in this report any change in the registrants internal control  over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent  fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to  materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial  reporting.

5.     I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over  financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the board of  directors:

a)     all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or  operation of internal
control over financial reporting that are reasonably  likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process,  summarize and report financial
information; and

b)     any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other  employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control  over financial reporting.

| | /s/
Steve S. SinohuiSteve S. Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial
Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 8,
2006
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                SUBSIDIARIES OF GRAND HAVANA ENTERPRISES, INC.

     Each of the following is a 100% owned subsidiary of Grand Havana
Enterprises, Inc.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
               Name                           Jurisdiction of Incorporation
               ----                           -----------------------------
<S>                                           <C>
Love's Enterprises, Inc.                              California
Grand Havana Room-- Delaware, Inc.                    Delaware
Grand Havana Room-- New York, Inc.                    New York
Grand Havana Room-- Washington, Corp.                 District of Columbia
On Canon, Inc.                                        California
Hopping Jalapeno, Inc.                                California
Grand Havana Room-- California, Inc.
 (formerly, Havana, Inc.)                             California
Grand Havana House of Cigars
 (formerly, Club Havana, Inc.)                        Delaware
</TABLE>

                                      34