alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2023

- 1236

_____________________________
J AYCOB T HOMAS V OILES , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County

. James M

. Colaw , Judge

.

August 13, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
O STERHAUS , C.J., and M.K. T HOMAS and L ONG , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Justin F. Karpf
, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian Elmo Markham, III
, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 20

- 00159

- CV

IN RE ROSENBLATT LAW FIRM PC , Brettonwoods Properties LLC, and James D. Rosenblatt, Relators

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 6, 2020

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On March 12, 2020, r elators filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relators also filed a

motion for stay of the underlying proceedings pending final resolution of the petition for writ of

mandamus, which this court granted on March 31, 2020. The real parties in interest filed a

response. After considering the petition , the response, and the record, this court concludes relator s

are not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a). The stay imposed on March 31 , 2020 is lifted.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019CI15282, styled Michael H. Schlatter and Jacquelyn R. Schl atter, Individually and As Trustees of The Schlatter Family Trust v. Rosenblatt Law Firm PC, Brettonwoods Properties LLC,

and James D. Rosenblatt , pending in the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa presidin g.
Exhibit 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. McMennamin, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/    MICHAEL J. MCMENNAMINMichael J. McMennamin (chief executive officer)May 14, 2004
# Wilkes - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Wilkes Recovery Revolution: Supporting Fresh Starts in North Carolina Since 2016,&#160;Wilkes Recovery Revolution, Inc.&#160;(WRR)&#160;has&#160;worked&#160;to make recovery a reality in North Carolina. WRR was founded by Devin Lyall,&#160;&#160;whose own experience in long-term recovery helps inform the nonprofit’s&#160;services, peer-driven structure&#160;and leadership&#160;– including&#160;a board of directors made up of over 50% individuals in recovery.&#160;WRR’s partnership with ARC began in 2019, when Lyall&#160;began her service as a&#160;member of [&#8230;]The post Wilkes Recovery Revolution: Supporting Fresh Starts in North Carolina appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- High Country Council of Governments Executive Director Julie Wiggins Email  &#106;&#x77;i&#103;&#x67;&#105;&#x6e;s&#64;&#x68;c&#x63;&#x6f;&#103;&#x2e;o&#114;&#x67;The post High Country Council of Governments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
**Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 – Mundipharma v OHIM – ALK-Abelló (AVANZALENE)**

**(Case T-477/08)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings − Application for the Community word mark AVANZALENE – Earlier Community word mark AVANZ – Likelihood of confusion − 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)

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 22-23, 43-45)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 1694/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between ALK-Abelló A/S and Mundipharma AG. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Mundipharma AG |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark AVANZALENE for goods in Class 5 – application No 4632501 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | ALK-Abelló A/S |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Community word mark AVANZ for goods in Class 5 (registration No 3331444) |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Mundipharma AG to pay the costs, except those incurred by ALK‐Abelló A/S; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | 3.Orders ALK-Abelló to bear its own costs. |
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:**

__2012

________ - NM -

___ 0 74

______ - AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant ? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1997 AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1997
FOUND ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,619
<SECURITIES>                                     5,444
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,606
<ALLOWANCES>                                       438
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,645
<PP&E>                                           8,697
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,376
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,342
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,304
<OTHER-SE>                                    (45,861)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,443
<SALES>                                         11,398
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,398
<CGS>                                            2,587
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,417
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (258)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  57
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,818)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        90
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,908)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,908)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 29, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 22, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, USPS Ground Advantage®, and Parcel Select Contract 3 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-139, CP2024-145.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-28734 Filed 12-28-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Sylvia Sharp, Respondent, v Cesar A. Perales et al., Appellants.

— In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring the defendants’ practice of failing to supplement shelter allowances is invalid, and for injunctive relief, the defendants separately appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Orgera, J.), entered November 16, 1988, as denied their motions pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for certification of the complaint as a class action, and certain preliminary injunctive relief.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the second decretal paragraph which granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for certification of the complaint as a class action, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

As conceded by the appellant Perales, the complaint which, *inter alia,*challenged the adequacy of the shelter allowance schedule, pursuant to 18 NYCRR 352.3 (a) and 352.7 (g), states a cause of action *(see, Jiggetts v Grinker,*75 NY2d 411).

However, we agree with the appellants that under the circumstances herein, certification of the complaint as a class action is unnecessary *(see, Matter of Jones v Berman,*37 NY2d 42, 57; *Jiggetts v Grinker,*148 AD2d 1, 21, *revd on other grounds*75 NY2d 411, 414, n 2, *supra; cf., Allen v Blum,*58 NY2d 954, 956; *Tindell v Koch,*164 AD2d 689).

*801The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bobby Wright, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered June 30, 1989, under S.C.I. No. N11880/88 and from a judgment of the same court (Rotker, J.), rendered August 7, 1989, under Indictment No. N10510/89.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                      SUBSIDIARIES OF ALLIED HOLDINGS, INC.


The subsidiaries of Allied Holdings, Inc. and the place of incorporation or
organization are as follows:

<TABLE>
<S>                                                              <C>
Allied Automotive Group, Inc.                                    Georgia
Axis Group, Inc.                                                 Georgia
Allied Systems, Ltd., LP                                         Georgia
Allied Systems (Canada) Company                                  Nova Scotia
Kar-Tainer International, LLC                                    Delaware
GACS Incorporated                                                Georgia
Allied Freight Broker, LLC                                       Delaware
QAT, Inc.                                                        Florida
Terminal Services, LLC                                           Delaware
F.J. Boutell Driveaway, LLC                                      Delaware
RMX, LLC                                                         Delaware
Transport Support, LLC                                           Delaware
Commercial Carriers, Inc.                                        Michigan
Haul Insurance Limited                                           Cayman Islands
AH Industries, Inc.                                              Alberta
Kar-Tainer International Limited                                 Bermuda
Axis Netherlands, LLC                                            Georgia
Axis Areta, LLC                                                  Georgia
Arrendadora de Equipo para el                                    Mexico
  Transporte de Automoviles, s. de R.L.
  de C.V.
Axis Logistica, S. de R.L. de C.V.                               Mexico
Logistic Technology, LLC - Georgia                               Georgia
Logistic Systems, LLC                                            Georgia
Kar-Tainer International (Pty) Ltd.                              South Africa
Axis Canada Company                                              Nova Scotia
CT Services, Inc.                                                Michigan
Cordin Transport, LLC                                            Delaware
</TABLE>
# Monongalia - Appalachian Regional Commission

- On the Road to Recovery with Reintegrate Appalachia Individuals overcoming substance use disorder (SUD) often face a series of overwhelming obstacles when reentering their communities. Workplace stigmas around addiction, a lack of transportation to services and unsupportive living situations can all stand in the way of successful long-term recovery. To help individuals navigate these types of barriers, Reintegrate Appalachia &#8211; a unique job [&#8230;]The post On the Road to Recovery with Reintegrate Appalachia appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Region 6–Planning and Development Council Executive Director Sheena Hunt Email regi&#111;&#110;&#118;&#105;&#64;&#x72;&#x65;&#x67;&#x69;&#x6f;&#x6e;&#x76;i&#46;co&#109;The post Region 6–Planning and Development Council appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         934,462
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  536,343
<ALLOWANCES>                                   157,893
<INVENTORY>                                    915,512
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,679,938
<PP&E>                                       9,840,163
<DEPRECIATION>                                 152,851
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,908,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,162,971
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  7,830,202
<COMMON>                                    10,130,440
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,908,361
<SALES>                                      4,110,443
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,110,443
<CGS>                                        5,143,819
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,357,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (203,987)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             468,483
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,416,990)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,511,632)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (4,905,358)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,416,990)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Edwin Murray, Appellant.

Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Appellate Part, First Department,

November 20, 1959.

*Frank J. Ricca*for appellant.

*Frank 8. Hogan, District Attorney,*for respondent.

Benjamin GIassman, P. J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of a violation of section 30 of article 3 of the Traffic Regulations of the City of New York (failure to obey a signal light).

*982The police officer testified that on April 17,1959 at about 3:00 a.m. the defendant operated an automobile northerly on Park Avenue, New York City. As he approached 116th Street, with the green light in his favor, he made a left turn westerly into 116th Street, passing the red light, which then faced east and west. It appeared that when the defendant reached the southbound lane on Park Avenue, there was no traffic moving southerly on that avenue.

Section 30 of article 3 of the Traffic Regulations provides that “ Vehicular traffic facing such signals (green) may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at such place prohibits such turn. But vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right of way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time such signal is exhibited.”

There was no evidence that there was any sign there prohibiting the left turn or that there were any other vehicles or pedestrians at the intersection in question at the time the defendant turned west into 116th Street.,

Accordingly, the judgment should be reversed, the complaint dismissed and the fine ordered remitted.

Loscalzo and Sabafite, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.
# C_2008301EN.01005501.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/55

---

Action brought on 25 September 2008 — Trubion Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Merck (TRUBION)

(Case T-412/08)

(2008/C 301/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Trubion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Seattle, United States) (represented by: C. Hertz-Eichenrode, 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: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 July 2008 in case R 1605/2007-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 July 2008 in case R 1605/2007-2; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TRUBION’ for goods and services in classes 5 and 42

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 72 884 of the word mark ‘BION’ registered for various goods; Community trade mark registration No 3 282 936 of the figurative mark ‘TriBion Harmonis’ registered for various goods

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for the goods in class 5 and rejected it for the remaining services in class 42

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal (i) failed to asses the similarity of the trade marks by taking into account the overall impression of the earlier trade mark, and (ii) failed to take into account the interdependence of the relevant factors, in particular the low similarity of the goods when assessing the likelihood of confusion.

Pleas in law:

---
### Faison , George From : Sent: To : Subject: 

### Hunt , Tim <Tim_Hunt @afandpa

.org> Wednesday, June 03 , 2015 1 1 :46 AM Faison , George Message George thanks for the message. When wi ll NHSM go to O M B do you think? Tim Hunt Sent from my iPhone