alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021278EN.01005201.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/52

---

Action brought on 10 May 2021 — Zdút v EUIPO — Nehera and Others (nehera)

(Case T-250/21)

(2021/C 278/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ladislav Zdút (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: Y. Echevarría García, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Isabel Nehera (Sutton, Ontario, Canada), Jean-Henri Nehera (Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada), Natasha Sehnal (Montferrier-sur-Lez, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word figurative nehera mark in black — European Union trade mark No 11 794 112

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 March 2021 in Case R 1216/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

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.

---
Exhibit 31.2 Certification of CFO Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act
 Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 I, S. Douglas Post, certify that:
 I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of BF Enterprises, Inc.;Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andDisclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and
1The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andAny fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.**BF ENTERPRISES, INC.**Date:  August 13, 2004
By:
/s/ S. Douglas PostVice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1997
<CASH>                                              17
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      173
<ALLOWANCES>                                         8
<INVENTORY>                                        138
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     6
<PP&E>                                             334
<DEPRECIATION>                                     199
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              135
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                         261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       522
<SALES>                                            158
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   158
<CGS>                                               98
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     15
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 10
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        10
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                ALPHA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., AND SUBSIDIARIES

                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
          FOR THE QUARTERS ENDED JANUARY 29, 1995 AND JANUARY 28, 1996

                                  (Unaudited)
                     (In Thousands, Except per Share Date)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
 
                                          January 29,  January 28,
                                             1995         1996
                                          -----------  -----------
<S>                                       <C>          <C>
Shares:
     Weighted average common shares          6,099        6,077
      outstanding
 
     Net common shares issuable on
      exercise of stock options                491          649
                                            ------       ------ 
 
Weighted average common and common
 equivalent shares outstanding               6,590        6,726
                                            ======       ====== 
 
Income before minority interest             $   95       $   74
Minority interest                                6           59
                                            ------       ------ 
Net income                                  $  101       $  133
                                            ======       ====== 
                                     
Net income per common and common     
 equivalent share:                   
   Income before minority interest          $ 0.02       $ 0.01
   Minority interest                            --         0.01
                                            ------       ------ 
   Net income                               $ 0.02       $ 0.02
                                            ======       ====== 
</TABLE>
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:
November 7, 2008

| |  |                                                                                     
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/PAUL S. VIVIANO Paul 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:
November 7, 2008

| |  |                                                                                          
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/HOWARD K. AIHARA Howard K. Aihara Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-30767 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JEFFERY DEGREE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CR-351-4-J

- - - - - - - - - - April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert F. Fleming, Jr., court-appointed counsel for Jeffery Degree, has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Degree has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
#### COM. v. WASHINGTON, M.

3822 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/11/2017

CP-15-CR-0003003-2005 (Chester)

Affirmed
Submitted September 2;

portion of judgments requiring defendant to pay-attorney fees reversed, otherwise affirmed November 9, 2016

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*JASON PERRY HAGSTROM, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Washington County Circuit Court

C140273CR, D141775M; A159555 (Control), A159556

383 P3d 986

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erin J. Snyder Severe, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Susan G. Howe, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Lagesen, Judge.

*189PER CURIAM

In this consolidated criminal appeal, defendant challenges the trial court’s imposition of $629 in court-appointed attorney fees in case number C140273CR and $416 in court-appointed attorney fees in case number D141775M. He asserts that the court committed plain error because the record was silent as to whether he “is or may be able to pay” the costs of his defense. *See*ORS 151.505(3) (“The court may not require a person to pay costs under this section unless the person is or may be able to pay the costs.”); ORS 161.665(4) (“The court may not sentence a defendant to pay costs under this section unless the defendant is or may be able to pay them.”); *see also*ORAP 5.45(1) (authorizing review of “an error of law apparent on the record”). The state concedes that the trial court committed plain error by imposing attorney fees when the record was silent as to defendant’s ability to pay them.

We accept the state’s concession that the trial court plainly erred in imposing attorney fees of $629 and $416 on this record. *See State v. Coverstone,*260 Or App 714, 716, 320 P3d 670 (2014) (holding that a trial court commits plain error by imposing court-appointed attorney fees where the record is silent as to the defendant’s ability to pay the fees ordered). Further, we conclude that, for reasons similar to those expressed in *State v. Ramirez-Hernandez,*264 Or App 346, 349, 332 P3d 338 (2014) (exercising discretion to correct erroneous imposition of $400 in court-appointed attorney fees because the amount was “substantial” in light of defendant’s circumstances), it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Portion of judgments requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.
No. 11-10118.

#### Spires *v.*Harbaugh et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32


CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Fastenal Company.


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





Date: October 23, 2017/s/ Daniel L. Florness/s/ Holden LewisDaniel L. FlornessHolden LewisPresident and Chief Executive OfficerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer)(Principal Financial Officer)
No. 11-10173.

#### Chaffins *v.*Southwest Virginia Regional Jail-Abingdon.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT
32.2




Certification
Pursuant to


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


as
Adopted Pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Telestone Technologies Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Hong Li,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.




Dated: August
13, 2009




By:
                /s/
      Hong LiName:
                Hong
      LiTitle:
                Chief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial
                  Officer)
No. 11-10395.

#### Hodge *v.*Tennessee.

Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Steve Cordale LOTT, Appellant.

No. ED 104931

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: December 19, 2017

FOR APPELLANT: Ellen H. Flottman, Public Defender’s Office, 1000 West Ni-fong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203.

FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Haw-ley, Attorney General, Nathan J. Aquino, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steve Cordale Lott .appeals the judgment, entered after a bench trial, convicting him of second-degree murder, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm. We find no error has occurred.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. *802The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).
#### Joe Griffith v. State.

153 So. 903.

Division B.

Opinion Filed April 2, 1934.

*W. W.*Flournoy, for Petitioner;

No appearance for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

— This case comes before us on return to writ of certiorari addressed to the Circuit Court of Walton County, Florida, to the review judgment of the Circuit Court affirming the judgment of the County Judge’s Court denying and dismissing a petition for writ of *coram nobis*filed by the petitioner after having been convicted and sentenced in the County Judge’s Court subsequent to a plea of guilty on charge of having had unlawfully in his possession certain alcoholic liquor.

The record fails to show that the Circuit Judge departed from the essential requirements of the law in rendering the judgment complained of'.

The writ of certiorari should be quashed.

It is so ordered.

Wi-iitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8525 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 

under the Medicaid program of non-invasive prenatal genetic screening. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 2, 2020 

Ms. SPEIER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide 

for coverage under the Medicaid program of non-invasive 

prenatal genetic screening. 

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 ‘‘Expanded Genetic 

5 Screening Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF NON-INVASIVE PRENATAL 

7 GENETIC SCREENING. 

8 Section 1905(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(3)) is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8525 IH

1 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking at the end 

2 ‘‘and’’; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘and’’ 

4 after the semicolon; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub6 paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(C) non-invasive prenatal genetic screen8 ing for pregnant women of all age groups (pro9 vided in a facility, a home, or other setting);’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 29, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00615

- CV

Gabriel RODRIGUEZ Sr., Gabriel Rodriguez Jr., Paul Celestine,

Appellants

v.

HILLCORP ENERGY COMPANY

,

Appellees

From the 229th Judicial District Court

, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 22

- 282

Honorable Baldemar Garza , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Just ice (not participating)

Patricia O . Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elen a D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I . Valenzuela, Justice

The en banc court has considered Appell ant’s motion for en banc reconsideration. The

motion is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49. 7

.

It is so ORDERED December 29 , 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

571 

CA 14-01424 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

DONALD SCHULTZ AND KATHERINE SCHULTZ, 

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, 

V ORDER

EXCELSIOR ORTHOPAEDICS, LLP, ET AL., 

DEFENDANTS, 

MICHAEL A. PARENTIS, M.D., AND KEITH C. 

STUBE, M.D., P.C., DOING BUSINESS AS KNEE 

CENTER OF WESTERN NEW YORK, 

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

CONNORS & VILARDO, LLP, BUFFALO (LAWRENCE J. VILARDO OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. 

DWYER, BLACK & LYLE, LLP, OLEAN (JEFFREY A. BLACK OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John M.

Curran, J.), entered July 18, 2014. The order, among other things,

denied the motion of defendants Michael A. Parentis, M.D., and Keith

C. Stube, M.D., P.C., doing business as Knee Center of Western New

York, to set aside a jury verdict. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Smith v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens,

155 AD2d 435; see also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). 

Entered: June 19, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# Athletics

- FACT SHEET: U.S. Department of Education's Proposed Change to its Title IX Regulations on Students' Eligibility for Athletic Teams Since Title IX was signed into law more than 50 years ago, it has enabled tremendous strides in educational opportunity free from sex discrimination, including in athletics, for millions of students across the country.
- U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights Announces Resolution of Title IX Athletics Investigation of Salem-Keizer School District No. 24J in Oregon The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced today the resolution of a complaint alleging inequitable athletics access for girls with respect to locker rooms, practice, and competitive facilities; equipment and supplies; and the opportunity to receive coaching at a high school in Salem-Keizer School District No. 24J in Oregon.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                       Consent of Independent Accountants

     We hereby consent to the use in this Amendment No. 5 to Registration
Statement on Form S-4 of our report dated November 20, 2002 relating to the
financial statements of Hanover Equipment Trust 2001A, which appears in such
Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in such Registration Statement.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Houston, Texas
February 7, 2003
APPENDIX E - HAVCP Poll Worker Grant Program 

Appeals Procedure 

Final funding decisions are made by the Election Assistance Commissioners. After notification of award 

or denial, applicants have 10 business days to request to review the application’s scores and appeal the 

decision based on one of the following criteria: 

- Incorrect information was provided by the EAC. 

- Historically underrepresented groups will be denied services without HAVCP funding 

- Scores are not representative of work done by the program 

Appeals must be addressed to the commissioners and received in writing by the deadline outlined in the 

notice of funding decision. Appeals must include a written justification for the appeal based on one or 

more of the above criteria. Appeals not based on the above criteria will not be considered. 

The commission will make a final decision about all appeals within 60 days of receipt.