alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021217EN.01005601.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/56

---

Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Laboratories Ern v EUIPO — Beta Sports (META)

(Case T-192/21)

(2021/C 217/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beta Sports LLC (Coconut Creek, Florida, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark META — Application for registration No 17 973 308

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2021 in Case R 1152/2020-2

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the application for European Union trade mark No 17 973 308 META in Class 5; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the application for European Union trade mark No 17 973 308 META in Class 5;

| — | order the defendant, or if applicable, the intervener, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant, or if applicable, the intervener, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
No. 11-8942.

#### Johnson *v.*New York.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Abcor Products,
Inc. (the "Company") certifies that:

1.      The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A (Amendment No. 1) of the
Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

March 30, 2006                            /s/ Jeremy Feakins
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Jeremy Feakins (Chief Executive
                                           Officer and Chief Financial Officer)
# Doc. Info.

# Review Summary

# Focus Items

# Process & Documentation

# Functional

# Usability

# Hardware

# Software

# Security

# Telecom

# QA

# CM
U. S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

VOTING SYSTEM TESTING AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

1335 East West Highway, Suite 4300

Silver Spring, MD 20910

SENT VIA EMAIL

July 16, 2018

Afua Twumasi-Ankrah

Certification Manager

Clear Ballot Group

71 Summer Street, Suite 3

Boston, Massachusetts 02110

Approval of Voting System Testing Application Package

Dear Afua Twumasi-Ankrah,

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) completed the review of the 

application package for the Clear Ballot Group (CBG) ClearVote 1.4.5 voting system. 

The application was accepted and assigned the following unique application number:

CBG1450. 

CBG selected Pro V&V as the lead VSTL for this testing engagement and testing will be 

conducted to the VVSG 1.0. If the system meets the criteria for a grant of certification, 

the system will be assigned the number CBG-CV-1.4.5 as per your request on the 

application form (EAC-002C).

The Certification Program assigned Brian Hancock as Project Manager to oversee this 

testing engagement. The goal of the Project Manager is to facilitate the communication 

between EAC staff (including Technical Reviewers), manufacturer, and VSTL to 

optimize the efficiency of the certification process. The Project Manager will monitor the 

voting system throughout its life cycle in the Certification Program, and ensure the 

process meets the requirements of the Certification Program’s manuals.

The contact information for this Project Manager is:

• Name and Title: Brian Hancock, Director, Testing and Certification

• E-mail: bhancock@eac.gov

• Telephone: (202) 459-7861

The EAC may at any time utilize additional technical reviewers to assist in the review of 

test plans, test cases, and test reports. All communications with the technical reviewers 

shall be facilitated through the Project Manager.
Finally, we strongly encourage you to regularly visit the EAC’s Web site (www.eac.gov) 

for the latest Notices of Interpretation and Clarification, news, program manuals, and 

updates. The exact location of this information is: http://www.eac.gov/programareas/voting-systems. The information contained in the Notices of Interpretation and 

Clarification is critical to understanding testing standards and program requirements. It is 

a manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to all procedural requirements of 

the program. 

If you have any questions or need further information about this matter, please do not 

hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. We thank you in advance for your 

cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Brian Hancock

Director of Voting System Testing and Certification
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**RAYMONT LEE BURGESS,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 73 WAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 13th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
#### IN the INTEREST OF: N.S., a Minor

508 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/21/2017

CP-51-AP-0001113-2016, CP-51-DP-0002470-2014 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed
No. 11-1218.

#### Heck-Dance *v.*Inversiones Isleta Marina, Inc., et al.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2021422EN.01003601.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/36

---

Action brought on 3 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)

(Case T-548/21)

(2021/C 422/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ROCHEM — International registration designating the European Union No 1 151 545

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2021 in Case R 1546/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | stay the proceeding until a final judgement has been taken in the proceeding before the court of Milan against the Italian trade mark 933481 ROCHEM MARINE (fig.); |
| --- | --- |

—

stay the proceeding until a final judgement has been taken in the proceeding before the court of Milan against the Italian trade mark 933481 ROCHEM MARINE (fig.);

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision, ordering that the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO renders a new decision, refusing the declaration of invalidation filed against the international registration No 1 151 545 ROCHEM (word) against the classes 11 and 40; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision, ordering that the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO renders a new decision, refusing the declaration of invalidation filed against the international registration No 1 151 545 ROCHEM (word) against the classes 11 and 40;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should the latter appear before the Court, to bear their own costs and the fees and costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should the latter appear before the Court, to bear their own costs and the fees and costs of the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 18 and 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 18 and 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         196,339                  88,060
<RECEIVABLES>                                  304,588                 265,615
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                           15,048                   6,321
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                              4,301                  10,496
<PP&E>                                           3,285                   3,166
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 523,561                 373,658
<SHORT-TERM>                                     8,528                      84
<PAYABLES>                                     417,185                 341,066
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                             81,956                  12,437
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                 997                      77
<LONG-TERM>                                      9,821                   6,421
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                    2000
<COMMON>                                           129                      88
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,695                  11,485
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   532,568                 373,658
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                2,342                   1,364
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            10,377                   4,404
<COMMISSIONS>                                   11,175                   5,130
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                      177                      70
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,149                   2,716
<COMPENSATION>                                   9,423                   4,487
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,285                   2,105
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,285                   2,105
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,370                   1,264
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11                     .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08                     .07
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         312,560
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,615,170
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,016,691
<INVENTORY>                                  1,675,726
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,097,004
<PP&E>                                         796,463
<DEPRECIATION>                                 915,793
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,168,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,103,973
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     5,871,557
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,394,529)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,168,126
<SALES>                                      5,107,078
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,107,078
<CGS>                                        1,673,599
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,673,599
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,278,913
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                21,965
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,039
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                123,527
<INCOME-TAX>                                    51,881
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             71,646
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    71,646
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
Total Polling Locations:

Election Day:7 2,344 

Early Voting:8 237 

Mail Ballots Transmitted10 Mail Ballots Returned11

1,545,345 1,295,908 (83.9% of 

transmitted) 

Mail Ballots Counted12 Mail Ballots Rejected13

1,286,660 (99.3% of 

returned)

9,248 (0.7% of 

returned) 

Mail Voting Policies 

No excuse is required for mail voting14

Conducts all-mail elections in some jurisdictions15

Any voter can register as permanent absentee16

EAVS Jurisdictions

87 

Total Registered Voters as of 

Nov. 3, 20201

3,731,016 

Registration Forms Received2*

1,566,807 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3*

-- 

2020 EAVS Data Brief: Minnesota

 Voter Registration

5.4%

17.0%

23.9%

26.1%

27.7%

Mail, Email, Fax

Motor Vehicle Dept.

Online

Other

In-Person

Source of Registration Applications4

 Voter Turnout  Election Technology

In-Person 

Election 

Day Voters 

1,380,309

42.0%

Mail Voters 

1,286,660

39.1%

In-Person 

Early Voters 

607,304

18.5%

Other Mode 

15,740

0.5%

Voters Participating By Mode5

87 87

55

2 0 0

Ballot

Marking

Device

Scanner Electronic

Poll

Books

Hand

Count

DRE w/o

VVPAT

DRE with

VVPAT

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9

 Mail Balloting

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov. 

The data shown are certified as final by state election authorities. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available, ” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2018 

general election to close of 

registration for 2020 general 

election. 

1 A1a of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a. InPerson is A4b. Online is A4c. 

Motor Vehicle Dept. is A4d. 

Other is the sum of A4e–A4l. 

Denominator is A3a. 

5 In-Person Election Day Voters 

is F1b. Mail Voters is F1d+F1g. 

In-Person Early Voters is F1f. 

Other Mode is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Denominator is sum of F1b–

F1h. 

6 F1a of EAVS. Denominator 

is citizen voting age 

population (CVAP). 

7 D3a of EAVS.

8 D4a of EAVS. 

9 F3a–d, F5a, F6a, F7a, F8a, 

and F11a of EAVS. 

10 C1a of EAVS. 

11 C1b of EAVS. 

12 C3a of EAVS. 

13 C4a of EAVS. 

14Q17 of Policy Survey. 

15 Q18 and Q18a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

Turnout 

79.1%

6
* Pursuant to 5TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 28, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40127 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE CONTRERAS-JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-CR-587-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Contreras-Jimenez (Contreras) appeals following his guilty-plea conviction on one count of illegally reentering the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Contreras argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by characterizing his state felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance as an “aggravated felony” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Contreras’s argument is unavailing in light of circuit precedent.No. 06-40127 -2- See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997). Contreras argues that this circuit’s precedent is inconsistent with Jerome v. United States , 318 U.S. 101 (1943). Having preceded Hinojosa-Lopez , Jerome is not “an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent.” See United States v. Short , 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999). For the first time on appeal, Contreras challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b) in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Contreras’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Contreras contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Contreras properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
No. 11-9964.

#### Morris *v.*Malfi, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-1260.

#### Wilson *v.*Birnberg et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
chji_ex104.htm


EXHIBIT 10.4


 


Equity Transfer Agreement supplement


 


Transferor: (Party A:) Shaanxi Changjiang Mining & New Energy Co., Ltd


 


Transferee: (Party B) Wang Sheng Li


 


This agreement is a supplement to the issue of transferring the equity of Shaanxi East Mining Co., Ltd by Party A and Party B. That is, it is a supplement to the Equity Transfer Agreement of Shaanxi East Mining Co., Ltd signed on Dec 25th, 2013.


 


After friendly consultations conducted in accordance with the principles of equality and mutual benefit, the parties have reached the following agreements:


 


1. Changing the Article II of the original agreement “Party B agrees that it will pay RMB 2,700,000 equity transfer funds to Party A in the form of monetary funds in 15 days after both parties signed the agreement”, after friendly consultations, agrees that the above RMB 2,700,000 equity transfer funds can be offset in the funds that owned to party B by party A, and Party B will not pay Party A in the form of monetary funds.


 


2. This agreement shall become effective after both parties signed and sealed. The supplemental agreement has the same legal force and effect with the original Equity Transfer Agreement.


 




	Party A: Chen Wei Dong 	Party B: Wang Sheng Li
	 	Dec 30th, 2013.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick NORFUS Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-12019 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(January 26, 2018)

Laura Thomas Rivero, Andrea G. Hoffman, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney Service — Southern District of Florida, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ronald Scott Chapman, Ronald S. Chapman, PA, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Roderick Norfus, Pro Se

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, FAY and HULL, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. *See United States v. Bushert,*997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); *United States v. Bascomb,*451 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 2006) (appeal waiver “cannot be vitiated or altered by comments the court makes during sentencing”); *United States v. Rubbo,*396 F.3d 1330, 1334 (11th Cir. 2005) (“Plea bargains ... are like contracts and should be interpreted in accord with what the parties intended.”).
#### Danny FABRICANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. T. SHARTLE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-16275

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017*

Filed December 20, 2017

Danny Fabricant, Pro Se

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Danny Fabricant appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ha-beas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a section 2241 petition, *see Alaimalo v. United States,*645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

In his section 2241 habeas petition, Fab-ricant challenged the constitutionality, of Ninth Circuit General Order 6.11, which permits a motions panel to reject on behalf of the court a motion for en banc reconsideration of an unpublished order. This claim is not cognizable under section 2241 because it does not concern “the manner, location, or conditions of [his] sentence’s execution.” *Hernandez v. Campbell,*204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court therefore properly dismissed Fabri-cant’s section 2241 petition.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.