alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012080EN.01002301.xml

| 17.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/23

---

Action brought on 17 January 2012 — Bauer v OHIM — BenQ Materials (Daxon)

(Case T-29/12)

2012/C 80/39

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Erika Bauer (Schaufling, Germany) (represented by: A. Merz, 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: BenQ Materials Corp. (Gueishan Taoyuan, Taiwan)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 November 2011 in Case R 2191/2010-2 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 November 2011 in Case R 2191/2010-2 in its entirety;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: BenQ Materials Corp.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Daxon’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 10

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘DALTON’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 18, 25, 35, 41 and 44

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: dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

Pleas in law:

---
Case 6:22-cr-00026-H-BU Document 23 Filed 12/28/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 55
Case 6:22-cr-00026-H-BU Document 23 Filed 12/28/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 56
Exhibit 32.2

US ONCOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC. AND US ONCOLOGY, INC.

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 US Oncology Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael A. Sicuro, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 result of
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

operations of the Company.



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael A. Sicuro                           
|Michael A. Sicuro                               
|Chief Financial Officer of                      
|US Oncology Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, Inc.

May 7, 2010



-62-
Fourth Amendment to the Restated and Amended Zions Bancorporation Pension Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.4 
  
 FOURTH AMENDMENT 
 TO THE

 RESTATED AND AMENDED 
 ZIONS BANCORPORATION PENSION PLAN 
  
 This Fourth
Amendment to the restated and amended Zions Bancorporation Pension Plan (the “Plan”) is made and entered into this 28th day of March, 2005, by Zions Bancorporation, hereinafter referred to as the “Employer.” 
  
 W I T N E S S E T H: 

 
 WHEREAS, the Employer has heretofore entered into the Plan, which Plan has
been restated and amended in its entirety effective January 1, 1997, and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Employer has reserved the right to amend the Plan in whole or in part, and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Employer now desires to amend the Plan for the purpose of maintaining the Plan’s qualification under Internal Revenue Code
§401(a)(31)(B) (providing for automatic rollovers from qualified plans on cash-out distributions over $1,000). 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual covenants herein contained, the Employer adopts the following amendments to the Plan
as follows (amended language is marked in bold italics): 
  
 1. Section 5.8 is amended by adding the following at the end thereof: 
  
 For any distribution subject to this Section 5.8 commencing on or after March 28, 2005, which is greater than $1,000, if the Participant does not elect to have the distribution paid in a direct rollover to an
“eligible retirement plan” (as defined in Section 5.9(b)(2)) specified by the Participant or to receive the distribution directly in a lump sum cash payment, then the Committee shall cause the Plan to pay the distribution in a direct
rollover to an individual retirement plan designated by the Committee. 
  
 2. This Fourth Amendment shall be effective March 28, 2005, and for Plan Years commencing after that date. 
  
 4. In all other respects the Plan is ratified and approved. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer has caused this Fourth Amendment to the Plan to be duly executed as of the date and year first above written. 

 

			
	 “EMPLOYER”
 ZIONS BANCORPORATION

		
	 By:
	 	 /S/ DIANA M.
ANDERSEN        

	 	 	 Diana M. Andersen
 Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 228 (Monday, November 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 70699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30272]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


``Federal Register'' Citation of Previous Announcement: November 
21, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 225, Page 69915)

    Previously Announced Time and Date of Meeting: 2 p.m., November 29, 
2000.
    Changes in Meeting: The closed meeting regarding the Compliance 
Status Report is canceled. The meeting will be rescheduled.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-0709.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sadye E. Dunn, Office of the 
Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504-0800.

    Dated: November 22, 2000.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30272 Filed 11-22-00; 1:22 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2144

CHARLIE RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RAY MABUS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:13-cv-01207-AW)

Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 23, 2014

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charlie Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra R. DeShieldsMinnis, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charlie Richardson appeals the district court’s order 

granting Ray Mabus’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, 

for summary judgment, on Richardson’s discrimination and 

retaliation claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 

(West 2003 & Supp. 2012), and the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 

(West 2008 & Supp. 2013). We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s order. Richardson v. Mabus, No. 8:13-cv-01207-AW (D. 

Md. Aug. 16, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,055
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  119,045
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               121,100
<PP&E>                                       7,115,383
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,844,794
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,330,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,053
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,330,142
<SALES>                                        506,555
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               510,488
<CGS>                                          136,302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  386,895
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                123,593
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            123,593
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   123,593
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas M. Torpey, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s contentions that he was denied a fair and impartial Grand Jury by adverse publicity and that he was denied his right to an individual verdict are unpreserved, and we decline to reach them in the interest of *917justice. Defendant’s challenges for cause to certain prospective jurors were properly denied because there was no showing of a risk that the predispositions of those jurors would prevent them from rendering an impartial verdict based on the evidence adduced at trial and the law as charged by the court *(see, People v Laezza,*143 AD2d 289; *People v Taylor,*97 AD2d 983, 984).

Defendant’s remaining contentions on appeal were previously raised and determined to be without merit in his codefendant’s appeal *(People v Taylor,*155 AD2d 980, *lv denied*75 NY2d 818, *cert denied*— US —, 110 L Ed 2d 641). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Kennedy, J.—murder, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
#### CRUTCHER v. STATE.

No. 21445.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 12, 1941.

J. W. McCullough, of McKinney, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was ^convicted in the district court of Collin County on a charge of driving while intoxicated, and his punishment assessed at five days in jail and a fine of $50.

*798The proceedings appear regular and the facts are sufficient to warrant the conviction. No statement of facts or bills of exception are presented and there is nothing for this court to review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2015, by andamong J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland LoanServices, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, WilmingtonTrust, National Association, as Trustee, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, asSenior Trust Advisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates Series 2015-C29 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial MortgageServices do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per theAgreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersignedhas executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Slip Op. 15-11

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

Plaintiff, :

v. :

MILLENIUM LUMBER DISTRIBUTION CO. :

LTD. and XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY, :

Defendants. : ________________________________________________________________________________

Court No. 06-00129

XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, :

Cross-Claimant, :

v. :

MILLENIUM LUMBER DISTRIBUTION CO. :

LTD.,

 :

Cross-Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF CROSS-CLAIM

Upon consideration of Cross-Claimant XL Specialty Insurance Company’s Notice of Intent

to Abandon Further Proceedings on Cross-Claim, it is hereby

ORDERED that XL Specialty Insurance Company’s Cross-Claim in this action is dismissed.

______________________________

Delissa A. Ridgway, Judge

Dated:

 New York, New York

February 2, 2015

/s/ Delissa A. Ridgway
<PAGE>

                 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF 2005 EXTENDED MATURITY DATE

Virbac Corporation, PM Resources, Inc., St. Jon Laboratories, Inc., Francodex
Laboratories, Inc., Delmarva Laboratories, Inc. and Virbac AH, Inc. are the
Borrowers under the Secured Subordinated Promissory Note dated as of April 9,
2004 and the Secured Subordinated Promissory Note dated April 29, 2004 and the
Secured Subordinated Promissory Note dated May 27, 2004, all in favor of Virbac
S.A. (the "Notes"). Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined
shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Notes.

Under Section 2(b) of the Notes, the Maturity Date may only be extended for
three periods of three months. The third and final Extended Maturity Date of the
Notes is April 9, 2005. Therefore, Virbac S.A., in accordance with Section 4(c)
of the Notes, agrees to modify Section 2(b) of the Notes so that the Notes may
be automatically extended for up to five periods of three months, thus extending
the Notes' final Extended Maturity Date to October 9, 2005. Additionally, under
Section 2(b) of the Notes, as modified herein, Virbac S.A. hereby agrees to
extend the Extended Maturity Date under the Notes to July 9, 2005. Under Section
2(b) of the Notes, as modified herein, on July 9, 2005 the Extended Maturity
Date of the Notes may be extended for one period of 3 months, to October 9,
2005.

Agreed to and acknowledged by:

VIRBAC S.A.

/s/ Eric Maree                                  February 8, 2005
--------------------------                      ----------------
Name: Eric Maree                                      Date
Title: President of the Management Board
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 231 4

In re: RICHARD B. MARTIN, JR. , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Extraordinary Writ.

Submitted : January 19, 2021 Decided: January 26, 2021

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Richard B. Martin, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Richard B. Martin, Jr. , petitions for a n extraordinary writ , see 28 U.S.C. § 1651; Fed. R. App. P. 21, seeking an order declaring him an officer of the federal judiciary and providing him protection, on threat of criminal prosecution, from impediments to h is pro se civil litigation. We conclude that Martin is not entitled t o an extraordinary writ for the

relief he seeks

. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, authorizes the federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respectiv e jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” “The authority to issue a writ under the All Writs Act is not a font of jurisdiction.” United States v. Denedo , 556 U.S. 904, 914 (2009). Rather, this court’s authority to issue extraor dinary writs under the All Writs Act “is only incidental to and in aid of [its] appellate jurisdiction, which Congress has given it over district courts, and administrative boards and agencies.” Gurley v. Superior Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty. , 411 F.2d 586, 5 87 (4th Cir. 1969) (per curiam) (citations omitted); see Parr v. United States , 351 U.S. 513, 520 (1956). The relief sought by Martin is not available by way of an extraordinary writ

. Accordingly, we deny the petition for extraordinary writ. We deny Martin’s motion to strike and deny as moot his motion to expedite decision. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisiona l process.

PETITION DENIED
# Official Journal C 94A/28 A

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 94A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5028 April 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 94A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5028 April 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Corrigenda |
| 2007/C 094A/01 | Corrigendum to Notice of open competition: research manager — forecasting expert — Reference EF/TA/07/02 (OJ C 68 A, 24.3.2007) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

Corrigenda

2007/C 094A/01

Corrigendum to Notice of open competition: research manager — forecasting expert — Reference EF/TA/07/02 (OJ C 68 A, 24.3.2007)

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

Corrigenda

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 94/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 94/1

---

Corrigendum to Notice of open competition: research manager — forecasting expert — Reference EF/TA/07/02

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 68 A of 24 March 2007
  )

(2007/C 94 A/01)

On page 4, section V. APPLICATIONS:

for:

‘...20 April 2007...’,

read:

‘...1 June 2007...’.

---
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jenny C. Fisher, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 11, 1989, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

There is no evidence in the record to support claimant’s contention that she was fired from her job as a group day-care facility assistant. In fact, the employer testified that claimant would have still worked for her had claimant not decided to leave her employment to start her own day-care business. Therefore, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s determination that claimant voluntarily left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons and without good cause is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld *(see, Matter of Fontana [Levine],*53 AD2d 742; *Matter of Sillan [French Tel. Cable Co.—Levine]),*53 AD2d 719).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ruth Ann Pawela, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), rendered September 13, 1989, convicting her of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues *577which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          36,589
<SECURITIES>                                    25,196
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,014
<PP&E>                                          25,313
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,579
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,229
<BONDS>                                          8,482
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,851
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,579
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,765
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,929
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 555
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,652)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,652)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,652)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.39)


</TABLE>