alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012126EN.01001102.xml

| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2012 — Cadila Healthcare v OHIM — Novartis (ZYDUS)

(Case T-288/08) (1)

1

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

2012/C 126/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cadila Healthcare Ltd (Ahmedabad, India) (represented by: S. Bailey, F. Potin, and A. Juaristi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2008 (Case R 1092/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis AG and Cadila Healthcare Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application for a ruling that there is no need to adjudicate; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application for a ruling that there is no need to adjudicate;

| 2. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action;

| 3. | Orders Cadila Healthcare Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Cadila Healthcare Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.

1

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

AGE Logic, Inc.
FTP Software, Inc.
Maximum Information, Inc.
NetManage (Barbados) Ltd.
NetManage Benelux bvba (Belgium)
NetManage Japan K.K. (Japan)
NetManage, Ltd. (Haifa, Israel)
NetManage S.A. (France)
NetManage Software GmbH (Germany)
NetManage Italia srl (Italy)
NetManage UK Ltd. (England)
NetSoft
Network International Ltd. (England)
Network Software Associates, Inc.
NY NetManage (Yerushalayim), Ltd. (Jerusalem, Israel)
Relay Technology, Inc.
Simware Inc.
Syzygy Communications, Inc.
U.S. Computer Acquisition Corporation
Wall Data Incorporated
# Jackson - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Cumberland Valley Area Development District Executive Director Whitney Chesnut Email &#x77;&#x63;&#x68;&#x65;&#115;&#116;&#110;ut&#x40;&#x63;&#x76;&#x61;&#x64;&#100;&#46;&#111;rgThe post Cumberland Valley Area Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                 CERTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO ANNUAL REPORT OF
                           LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS, INC.

      The undersigned, being the chief executive officer and chief financial
officer of Landry's Restaurants, Inc. (the "Company"), in compliance with 18
U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, do hereby certify that to each of their respective knowledge with respect
to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2003 (the "Report").

          1. that the Report fully complies with all requirements of section
     13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: March 28, 2003


                             /s/    TILMAN J. FERTITTA
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                             Tilman J. Fertitta
                             Chairman of the Board, President and
                             Chief Executive Officer


                             /s/    PAUL S. WEST
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                             Paul S. West
                             Executive Vice President and Chief
                             Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WEIBO XIE, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-70812 

Agency No. A206-334-905 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2021**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Weibo Xie, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration 

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

DEC 17 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-70812 

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. 

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for 

review.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that Xie failed to establish 

he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 

F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (detention, beating, and interrogation did not 

compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the 

determination that Xie did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. 

See id. at 1022 (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective evidence 

demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). Thus, Xie’s asylum claim 

fails.

In this case, because Xie failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he also 

failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at

1190.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Xie

failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent 

or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 

F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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 IVI Communications, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.



Date: January 11, 2004             /s/ Charles Roodenburg
                                   ----------------------
                                   Charles Roodenburg, Chief Financial Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 31, 2014

No. 04-14-00921-CV

IN RE Judith ZAFFIRINI

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On December 31, 2014, relator Judith Zaffirini filed a petition for writ of mandamus and 

motion for emergency stay and temporary relief pending a ruling on the mandamus petition. The 

court has considered the petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relator is not

entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for 

emergency stay and temporary relief are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The court’s 

opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on December 31, 2014.

____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2008-PB7-000016-L2, styled Estate of Delfina E. Alexander, Deceased; 

and Rocio G. Guerra v. Judith Zaffirini, David H. Arredondo, and Clarissa N. Chapa, Individually, and as 

Independent Co-Executors of the Estate of Delfina E. Alexander, Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the Rocio 

Gonzalez Guerra Exempt Trust, et al., and 2013-PBA-000133-L2, styled Raymond S. DeLeon II, Trustee of the 

Delfina & Josefina Alexander Family Trust v. Judith Zaffirini, David H. Arredondo, and Clarissa N. Chapa, 

Individually and In Their Capacities as Co-Trustees of the Rocio Gonzalez Guerra Exempt Trust, et al.,

consolidated for purposes of trial and pending in County Court at Law No. 2, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable 

Polly Jackson Spencer presiding.

 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 31 day of December, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-1416 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-156-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4509 

To prohibit the use of official funds for airline accommodations for Members 

of Congress which are not coach-class accommodations, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 1, 2017 

Mr. BLUM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of official funds for airline accommodations for Members of Congress which are not coachclass accommodations, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Congressional First 

5 Class Flights Act’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4509 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING USE OF FUNDS FOR OFFICIAL TRAV2 EL EXPENSES OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

3 FOR AIRLINE ACCOMMODATIONS OTHER 

4 THAN COACH-CLASS. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—No funds appropriated or other6 wise made available during a fiscal year for the official 

7 travel expenses of a Member of Congress may be used for 

8 airline accommodations which are not coach-class accom9 modations, unless the use of other than coach-class accom10 modations is necessary to accommodate a medical dis11 ability or other special need. 

12 (b) COACH-CLASS ACCOMMODATIONS DEFINED.—In 

13 this section, the term ‘‘coach-class accommodations’’ 

14 means the basic class of accommodation by airlines that 

15 is normally the lowest fare offered regardless of airline ter16 minology used, and (as referred to by airlines) may include 

17 tourist class or economy class, as well as single class when 

18 the airline offers only one class of accommodations to all 

19 travelers. 

20 SEC. 3. REGULATIONS. 

21 The Committee on House Administration of the 

22 House of Representatives (with respect to Representatives 

23 in, and Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to, the 

24 Congress) and the Committee on Rules and Administra25 tion of the Senate (with respect to Senators) shall each 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4509 IH

1 promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry 

2 out this Act. 

3 SEC. 4. MEMBER OF CONGRESS DEFINED. 

4 In this Act, the term ‘‘Member of Congress’’ means 

5 a Senator or a Representative in, or Delegate or Resident 

6 Commissioner to, the Congress. 

7 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

8 This Act shall apply with respect to fiscal year 2019 

9 and each succeeding fiscal year. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
# C_2009233EN.01001702.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-371/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Public service - Officials - Decision to appoint the appellant’s superior - Internal competition - Staff Committee elections - Decision not to promote the appellant in 2006 - Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

2009/C 233/31

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

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

Appellant:

Other party: Court of Auditors (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and J. Vermer, agents)

Other party:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 26 June 2008 in Case F-5/07 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

---
OMB Control Na. 2060-0336 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL OPERATING PERMIT, 40 CFR PART 71 

APPI.ICATION FORM CTAC - CERTIFICATION OF TRUTH, ACCURACY, AND COMPLETENESS BY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL 

INSTRUCTIONS: One copy of this form must be completed, signed, and sent with each submission of documents (i.e., application fonns, 

including any updates to applications), and for every document required by a part 71 pertnit (e.g., annual compliance 

certl6cation, 6-month monitoring reports, progress reports, and notices required by the tenns of a part 71 permit). 

Responsible Official Identity the responsible oflicial and provide contact information. 

Name: (Last)Cantwell _ _ _ _ _ (Firsq _ Dale (Middlc) E 

TitleVice President - Ogera tion8 _ 

Street or Post Office Box 1675 Broadway __Suite 150 ~

City _Denver State _CO ZIP80202 

Telephone ( 303 ) 534-4600 Ext. Facsimile ( 303 623-3628 

('ertification of'1'ruth, Accuracy and Completeness. "rhe Responsible Official must sign this statement. 

I certify under penalry of law that based on information and lx licf icd afler reasonable inquiry, the 

statemcnts and information contain n the~ume atc and complete. 

Name (signed) P*i~~ 

Name (printed or typed)DaleE_Cantwell _ Date:03/20/07
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5901]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              S E N A T E

Vol. 158

WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2012

No. 117
```
AMENDMENT TO WARRANT AGREEMENT

     AMENDMENT,  dated this ____ day of April,  1999, to Warrant Agreement dated
April 20, 1994 (the  "Warrant  Agreement"),  by and  between  IDM  ENVIRONMENTAL
CORP., a New Jersey corporation (the "Company"),  and CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER
& TRUST COMPANY, as Warrant Agent (the "Warrant Agent").

                              W I T N E S S E T H :

     WHEREAS,  the Company and the Warrant  Agent  previously  entered  into the
Warrant  Agreement  setting out the terms  governing  the Class A Warrants  (the
"Warrants") of the Company;

     WHEREAS,  the Company's board of directors has approved a 1-for-10  reverse
split (the "Reverse Split") of both the common stock (the "Common Stock") of the
Company and the Warrants and an amendment to the Warrant Agreement to extend the
term (the  "Extension")  during which the Warrants may be exercised  until April
20, 2000; and

     WHEREAS,  the Company and the Warrant Agent desire to evidence the terms of
the Warrants as adjusted to reflect the Reverse Split and the Extension.

     NOW, THEREFORE,  in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements
hereinafter set forth, the Company and the Warrant Agent agree as follows:

     1. Amendment of Warrant Expiration Date to Effect Extension. The definition
of  "Warrant  Expiration  Date" as set  forth  in  Section  1(k) of the  Warrant
Agreement is hereby amended to read in full as follows:

          (k)  "Warrant  Expiration  Date" shall mean 5:00 P.M.  (E.S.T.) on the
     earlier of the Redemption Date, as defined in Section 8, or April 20, 2000;
     provided that is such date shall in the State of New Jersey be a holiday or
     a day in which banks are  authorized to close,  then 5:00 P.M.  (E.S.T.) on
     the next following day which in the State of New Jersey is not a holiday or
     a day on which banks are authorized to close.

     2. Delivery of Certificate to Effect  Reverse Split.  Attached  hereto is a
certificate  in the form  required  by  Section  9(e) of the  Warrant  Agreement
reflecting  adjustments to the Exercise Price,  Redemption  Price and Redemption
Trigger Price and other matters resulting from the Reverse Split.

     3.  Other  Provisions  Unchanged.  Except  as  modified  above,  all  other
provisions  of the  Warrant  Agreement  shall be  unchanged  as a result of this
amendment

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties  hereto have caused this  Amendment to be
duly executed as of the date first above written.

IDM ENVIRONMENTAL CORP.                           CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER
                                                             & TRUST COMPANY

By:                                                By:
   --------------------------                         --------------------------
     Joel Freedman, President                      Title:
                                                         -----------------------
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 06 9 8 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 136 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 on Form 10-K of Northern Border Partners,
L.P. (the "Partnership") for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), William R.
Cordes, as Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or section 15(d), as applicable, 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 Partnership.

Dated: March 6, 2006                         /s/ William R. Cordes
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             William R. Cordes
                                             Chief Executive Officer

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and
not for any other purpose.