alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021263EN.01003601.xml

| 5.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/36

---

Action brought on 20 May 2021 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Wisniewski (Representation of a chequerboard pattern)

(Case T-275/21)

(2021/C 263/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, N. Parrotta and P.-Y. Gautier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Norbert Wisniewski (Warsaw, Poland)

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 figurative mark representing a chequerboard pattern — International registration designating the European Union No 986 207

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2021 in Case R 1307/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | alter the contested decision, by holding that the applicant has established acquired distinctiveness through use; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision, by holding that the applicant has established acquired distinctiveness through use;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings;

| — | order Mr. Norbert Wisniewski to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Mr. Norbert Wisniewski to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
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 Telestone Technologies Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the three month period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), John Mangel, III, Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President and Director (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Telestone Technologies Corporation, and will be retained by Telestone Technologies Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.







/s/   John Mangel, III

John Mangel, III, Chief Financial Officer,

Executive Vice President and Director

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



Date:  August 31, 2004
# C_2021382EN.01003102.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/31

---

Action brought on 4 August 2021 — DBM Videovertrieb v EUIPO — Nube (Lío)

(Case T-467/21)

(2021/C 382/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DBM Videovertrieb GmbH (Wesel, Germany) (represented by: J. Fusbahn and D. Dawirs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nube, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Lío in golden yellow and black colour — European Union trade mark No 17 225 939

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2021 in Case R 1220/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and, consequently, the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 April 2020 (Invalidity No. 000025781 C); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, consequently, the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 April 2020 (Invalidity No. 000025781 C);

| — | reject the application for a declaration of invalidity and keep the contested trademark registration No. 17 225 939 registered; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the application for a declaration of invalidity and keep the contested trademark registration No. 17 225 939 registered;

| — | decide that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the EUIPO and Nube, SL. |
| --- | --- |

—

decide that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the EUIPO and Nube, SL.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 869 

To modernize the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2019 

Ms. DEAN (for herself, Mr. LANGEVIN, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. COHEN, Ms. 

NORTON, Ms. SCANLON, Mr. TRONE, Ms. HOULAHAN, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. RASKIN, Mr. SWALWELL of California, Mrs. MCBATH, 

Mr. SOTO, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, and Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To modernize the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988. 

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 ‘‘Undetectable Firearms 

5 Modernization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODERNIZATION OF THE PROHIBITION ON 

7 UNDETECTABLE FIREARMS. 

8 Section 922(p) of title 18, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (1)— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 869 IH

1 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking 

2 ‘‘grips, stocks, and magazines’’ and inserting 

3 ‘‘all parts other than major components’’; and 

4 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking 

5 ‘‘when subjected to inspection by the types of x6 ray machines commonly used at airports, does 

7 not generate’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘if 

8 subjected to inspection by the types of detection 

9 devices commonly used at airports for security 

10 screening, would not generate’’; 

11 (2) in paragraph (2)— 

12 (A) by striking subparagraph (B) and in13 serting the following: 

14 ‘‘(B) the term ‘major component’, with respect 

15 to a firearm— 

16 ‘‘(i) means the slide or cylinder, or the 

17 frame or receiver of the firearm; and 

18 ‘‘(ii) in the case of a rifle or shotgun, in19 cludes the barrel of the firearm; and’’; and 

20 (B) by striking subparagraph (C) and the 

21 proviso that follows and inserting the following: 

22 ‘‘(C) the term ‘Security Exemplar’ means an 

23 object, to be fabricated at the direction of the Attor24 ney General, that is— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 869 IH

1 ‘‘(i) constructed of 3.7 ounces of material 

2 type 17–4 PH stainless steel in a shape resem3 bling a handgun; and 

4 ‘‘(ii) suitable for testing and calibrating 

5 metal detectors.’’; 

6 (3) in paragraph (3)— 

7 (A) in the first sentence, by inserting 

8 after ‘‘of a firearm’’ the following: ‘‘, in9 cluding a prototype,’’; and 

10 (B) by striking the second sentence; 

11 and 

12 (4) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘shall not 

13 apply to any firearm which’’ and all that follows and 

14 inserting the following: ‘‘shall not apply to— 

15 ‘‘(A) any firearm received by, in the possession 

16 of, or under the control of the United States; or 

17 ‘‘(B) the manufacture, importation, possession, 

18 transfer, receipt, shipment, or delivery of a firearm 

19 by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer pur20 suant to an existing contract with the United 

21 States.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# C_2021422EN.01003701.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/37

---

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

(Case T-549/21)

(2021/C 422/48)

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 figurative mark ROCHEM — International registration designating the European Union No 1 151 485

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2021 in Case R 1547/2019-1

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 1 151 485 ROCHEM (fig.) 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 1 151 485 ROCHEM (fig.) 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.

---
No. 11-1187.

#### Bosamia et al. *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-2-2005

Clarke v. Secretary Veterans

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 04-4432

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Clarke v. Secretary Veterans" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 276.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/276
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-4432

 

LILIETH A. CLARKE

Appellant

v.

*JAMES R. NICHOLSON, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; 

UNITED STATES VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

Appellee

*Substituted Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(c)

 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. No: 01-cv-01111)

District Judge: The Honorable Gary L. Lancaster

 

Submitted pursuant to LAR 34.1(a)

on September 26, 2005

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES, 

and GARTH, Circuit Judges

 
2

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS ORDERED that the caption in the not precedential opinion and judgment in

the above case, filed October 10, 2005, be amended as follows:

James R. Richardson should be changed to James R. Nicholson.

By the Court,

/s/ Julio M. Fuentes

Circuit Judge

DATED: November 2, 2005
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8815 

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to establish certain requirements with respect to a delivered ballot in an election for Federal 

office, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 24, 2020 

Mr. LAMALFA (for himself, Mr. BUDD, and Mr. GIBBS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to establish 

certain requirements with respect to a delivered ballot 

in an election for Federal office, 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 ‘‘Election Certainty 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO A DELIVERED 

7 BALLOT. 

8 (a) REQUIREMENTS.—Title III of the Help America 

9 Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21081 et seq.) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8815 IH

1 (1) by redesignating sections 304 and 305 as 

2 sections 305 and 306, respectively; and 

3 (2) by inserting after section 303 the following 

4 new section: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 304. REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO A DELIV6 ERED BALLOT. 

7 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A ballot submitted by mail or 

8 otherwise delivered in an election for Federal office shall 

9 not be counted unless such ballot— 

10 ‘‘(1) includes the signature of the voter; and 

11 ‘‘(2) is received by the appropriate election offi12 cial by the date of the election. 

13 ‘‘(b) BALLOTS DELIVERED BY A THIRD PARTY.—A 

14 ballot delivered to the appropriate election official in an 

15 election for Federal office by an individual who is not the 

16 voter shall not be counted unless the ballot includes the 

17 signature of the individual who delivers such ballot and 

18 such individual is one of the following family members of 

19 the voter: 

20 ‘‘(1) A parent. 

21 ‘‘(2) A spouse. 

22 ‘‘(3) A child. 

23 ‘‘(4) A grandparent. 

24 ‘‘(5) A great-grandparent. 

25 ‘‘(6) A grandchild. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8815 IH

1 ‘‘(7) A great-grandchild. 

2 ‘‘(c) EXCEPTION.—This section shall not apply with 

3 respect to an absent uniformed services voter (as such 

4 term is defined in section 107 of the Uniformed and Over5 seas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (52 U.S.C. 20310).’’. 

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT RELATING TO EN7 FORCEMENT.—Section 401 of the Help America Vote Act 

8 of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21111) is amended by striking ‘‘and 

9 303’’ and inserting ‘‘303, and 304’’. 

10 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

11 of such Act is amended— 

12 (1) by redesignating the items relating to sec13 tions 304 and 305 as relating to sections 305 and 

14 306, respectively; and 

15 (2) by inserting after the item relating to sec16 tion 303 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 304. Requirements with respect to a delivered ballot.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Comments on EPA's PGP Working Draft 011310

Don Carlson

to:

Jack Faulk

01/22/2010 05:37 PM

Show Details

Jack:

A ttached are comments of the draft PGP. I sent them as both a pdf and MS Word attachment. If you have problems opening the atta ched pdf or MS Word files, gi ve me a call. I will put a har d copy in the mail to you on Monday.

Donald R. Carlson, PE Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of Water - Industrial Programs Section 1000 SW Jackson, Suite 420 Topeka, Kansas 66612-1367 (785) 296-5547 (785) 296-0086 Fax Page 1 of 1

5/11/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web3478.htm
Exhibit 32

Certification of Chief Executive Officer  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Alliance
Imaging, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:



|Dated: May 9, 2008 |  | /s/ PAUL S. VIVIANOPaul S. Viviano
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



Certification of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Alliance
Imaging, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:



|Dated: May 9, 2008 |  | /s/ HOWARD K. AIHARAHoward K. Aihara
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20D0351. YVONNE WARD v. U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.

U. S. Bank National Association filed a dispossessory proceeding against

Yvonne Ward in magistrate court. Following an adverse ruling, Ward appealed to the

superior court, which affirmed the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of U. S.

Bank National Association. Ward filed an application for discretionary appeal from

the superior court’s order, which we denied. See Case No. A19D0009 (denied Aug.

16, 2018). 

Back in the superior court, Ward filed a series of post-judgment motions,

including a motion for new trial. On January 16, 2020, the superior court entered an

order denying these motions. On March 24, 2020, Ward filed an application for

discretionary appeal. We lack jurisdiction because the application was not timely

filed.

An application for discretionary review generally must be filed within 30 days

of entry of the order sought to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The underlying

subject matter of an appeal, however, controls over the relief sought in determining

the proper appellate procedure. Radio Sandy Springs v. Allen Road Joint Venture, 311

Ga. App. 334, 335 (715 SE2d 752) (2011). Under OCGA § 44-7-56, appeals in

dispossessory actions must be filed within seven days of the date the order was

entered. See Ray M. Wright, Inc. v. Jones, 239 Ga. App. 521, 522-523 (521 SE2d

456) (1999). Ward’s application seeking to appeal the superior court’s order in this

dispossessory action is untimely, as it was filed 68 days after entry of the order.

April 22, 2020
Accordingly, this untimely application for discretionary review is hereby

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/22/2020
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-10-00149- CV

Luvi a P utzeys, Appellant

v. Am eric an Exp ress Bank, FSB, Appellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 3 O F B ELL COUNTY NO. 065 483, H ONO RAB LE GERALD M. B ROW N, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant L uvia P utzey s filed her notice of appea l on March 8 , 2010. Appellant’s b ri ef wa s due in this Court on J uly 30, 2010. On Aug ust 31, 2010, the Clerk of this Court s en t a notice to appellant that her brief wa s o v er d u e an d t hat her appea l would be dis missed for want of prosec ution if she did not respond to this Court by September 10, 2010. To date, appellant has not responde d to this Court’s notice. Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appea l for want of prosec ution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c)
.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Oc tober 15, 2010
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8630 

To amend the National Forest Organization Camp Fee Improvement Act 

of 2003 to modify the calculation of land use fees in counties with 

less than two percent farm land, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 20, 2020 

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

on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the National Forest Organization Camp Fee Improvement Act of 2003 to modify the calculation of land 

use fees in counties with less than two percent farm 

land, 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 ‘‘Organizational Fee 

5 Fairness Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8630 IH

1 SEC. 2. FEES FOR OCCUPANCY AND USE OF NATIONAL FOR2 EST SYSTEM AND FACILITIES BY ORGANIZA3 TIONAL CAMPS. 

4 Section 503(a) of The National Forest Organiza5 tional Camp Fee Improvement Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 

6 6232(a)) is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding 

8 subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘The’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘Except as provided in paragraph (5), the’’; and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(5) RULE FOR COVERED COUNTIES.— 

12 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—With respect to an or13 ganizational camp in a covered county, para14 graph (1)(B) shall be applied by substituting 

15 ‘State’ for ‘county’. 

16 ‘‘(B) COVERED COUNTY DEFINED.—In this 

17 paragraph, the term ‘covered county’ means a 

18 county in which less than 2 percent of land is 

19 used for farming as reported in the most recent 

20 Census of Agriculture conducted by the Na21 tional Agricultural Statistics Service.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS