alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021471EN.01005601.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/56

---

Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Puma v EUIPO — SMB Swisspour (PUMA)

(Case T-622/21)

(2021/C 471/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SMB Swisspour GmbH (Wildau, Germany)

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 EU word mark PUMA — Application for registration No 15 740 079

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2021 in Case R 2493/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and refuse the application for the contested mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and refuse the application for the contested mark;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Motion Granted and Order filed June 7, 201 2

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 1 2
- 0 0142
- C V

____________ IN RE CYPRESS TEXAS LLOYDS , Relator

O RIGINAL P ROCEEDING

W RIT OF M ANDAMUS 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10
- DCV
- 177586



### A B A T E M E N T O R D E R

R elator, Cypress Texas Llo y d s, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov t Code Ann. ' 22.221. Relator asked this Court to order The Honorable Bra dy G. Elliott, Judge of the 268th District Court, Fort Bend County, Texas, to set aside h is order dated January 20, 2012, entered in trial court cause number 10

- DCV

- 177586 , styled Kenneth Hamilton and Brenda Hamilton v. Cypress Texas Lloyds, Crawford & Com pany, Burt Breedlove, and James McMennamy

. The Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel has transferred the underlying case and appointed the Honorable Mike Miller, Judge of the 11th District Court, Harris County,2 Texas, as the pretrial judge. Relator has filed a motion to abate pending reconsideration of the order at issue in this proceeding by Judge Miller.
The motion is GRANTED. See, e.g. , In re Mylan, Inc. , No. 09

- 09

- 00186

- CV, 2009 WL 2750095, at *1

- 2 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont Aug. 31, 2009, orig. proc eeding) (per curiam). We therefore abate this mandamus proceeding for the Honorable Mike Miller to reconsider the decision regarding relator ' s request for relief. T his mandamus proceeding is abated for a period of thirty days from the date of this order, at which time the Honorable Mike Miller, presiding Judge of the 11th District Court, Harris County, Texas, shall advise th e Court of the action taken on r elator ' s request. The Court will then consider a motion to reinstate or dismiss this proceeding, as a ppropriate. It is so ORDERED

. PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Christopher

. Do Not Publish.
# C_2022002EN.01004801.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/48

---

Action brought on 2 November 2021 — Voco v EUIPO (Shape of packaging)

(Case T-700/21)

(2022/C 2/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Voco GmbH (Cuxhaven, Germany) (represented by: C. Spintig and S. Pietzcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark (Shape of packaging) — Application for registration No 17 959 421

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 August 2021 in Case R 117/2021-4

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 of the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal including, in particular, the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal including, in particular, the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Applied Imaging Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Terence Griffin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(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 results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 8, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ TERENCE GRIFFIN    
|                     |  |     |  | Terence Griffin        
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer



This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8813 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8813

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of 
 Veterans Affairs to provide to a member of the uniformed services who 
  is denied a traumatic injury protection claim under Servicemembers' 
    Group Life Insurance certain information related to that denial.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 24, 2020

Mr. Kildee (for himself and Mr. Bergman) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of 
 Veterans Affairs to provide to a member of the uniformed services who 
  is denied a traumatic injury protection claim under Servicemembers' 
    Group Life Insurance certain information related to that denial.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Transparency for Wounded Warriors 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DENIAL OF CLAIMS FOR TRAUMATIC INJURY PROTECTION UNDER 
              SERVICEMEMBERS' GROUP LIFE INSURANCE.

    Section 1980A of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(l)(1) If a claim for benefits under this section is denied, the 
Secretary concerned shall provide to the member at the same time as the 
member is informed of such denial a description of the following:
            ``(A) Each reason for that denial, including a description 
        of all the information upon which the denial is based and a 
        description of the applicable laws, regulations, or policies, 
        with appropriate citations, and an explanation of how such 
        laws, regulations, or policies affected the denial.
            ``(B) Each finding that is favorable to the member.
    ``(2) Any finding favorable to the member as described in paragraph 
(1)(B) shall be binding on all subsequent reviews or appeals of the 
denial of the claim, unless clear and convincing evidence is shown to 
the contrary to rebut such favorable finding.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### CUSTOMERS BANK v. ANYTHING FOR SALE

399 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/25/2017

2014-03535-JD (Chester)

Quashed
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Urbina FUENTES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40424 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Carlos Urbina Fuentes, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Urbina Fuentes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Urbina Fuentes has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further'responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# C_2021431EN.01005101.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/51

---

Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-545/21)

(2021/C 431/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design No 1 431 829-0004

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2021 in Case R 1011/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | alter the contested decision to:






  — | allow the applicant’s appeal, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision to:

—

allow the applicant’s appeal,

| — | dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicant’s application ICD 10 306 to declare the contested design invalid, |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicant’s application ICD 10 306 to declare the contested design invalid,

| — | order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division;

| — | order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s fees and costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s fees and costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155);

| — | Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172);

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Misinterpretation of patent application EP 3 005 948 A2 and the applicant’s multiple design application No. 1 431 829-0001-0010. |
| --- | --- |

—

Misinterpretation of patent application EP 3 005 948 A2 and the applicant’s multiple design application No. 1 431 829-0001-0010.

---
# C_2021422EN.01003501.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/35

---

Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)

(Case T-547/21)

(2021/C 422/46)

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: European Union word mark R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services — European Union trade mark No 12 313 797

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2021 in Case R 1545/2019-1

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 European Union trade mark registration No 12 313 797 R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services (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 European Union trade mark registration No 12 313 797 R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services (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.

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our reports dated June 25, 1996 (included in Imperial Holly
Corporation's Current Report on Form 8-K filed July 5, 1996) into the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 of Imperial Holly Corporation filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about November 18, 1996 (the
Registration Statement), and to the references to our Firm in the fifth
paragraph of Part II, Item 3 of the Registration Statement and under the heading
"Experts" in the Reoffer Prospectus attached as Exhibit 99 to the Registration
Statement.


/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

San Francisco, California
November 18, 1996
|  (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1585 Broadway

New York, New York 10036

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2015-C21 COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2015-C21

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted in Schedule A.  

 

 

February 18, 2016

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

Brian Smith

Vice President 

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

 

 

To: Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.

 

 

Material Instances of Non-Compliance

 

Schedule A

 

List of Exemptions for Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2015-C21 COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2015-C21

 

On March 17, 2015, Wells Fargo made a distribution (the "March Distribution") to holders of the certificates of the Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2015-C21, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C21. The March Distribution contained a payment error that resulted in an overpayment to a certain class and a correlating underpayment to a certain class totaling approximately $128,400. The payment error resulted from an administrative error during the deal setup.  The impact of this payment error was limited to the March Distribution.

 

On March 30, 2015, the March Distribution was revised to correct the payment error. To prevent further similar payment errors, Wells Fargo revised its deal setup for the Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2015-C21, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C21.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8685 

To protect minors from premature waiver of their constitutional rights during 

a custodial interrogation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 27, 2020 

Mr. CA ́RDENAS (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To protect minors from premature waiver of their constitutional rights during a custodial interrogation, 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 ‘‘Protecting Miranda 

5 Rights for Kids Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF MIRANDA RIGHTS BY A MINOR. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 223 of title 18, United 

8 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 3051 

9 the following: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8685 IH

1 ‘‘§ 3501A. Custodial interrogation of a minor 

2 ‘‘(a) WAIVER.—A minor who is subject to a custodial 

3 interrogation may only waive the privilege against self-in4 crimination or the right to assistance of legal counsel if— 

5 ‘‘(1) the minor consults with legal counsel in 

6 person before such waiver; and 

7 ‘‘(2) the minor has contact with a parent or 

8 legal guardian in person, by telephone, or by video 

9 conference to receive consultation before such waiv10 er. 

11 ‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply 

12 if— 

13 ‘‘(1) custodial interrogation of a minor is nec14 essary to gather information to protect life or prop15 erty from an imminent threat; and 

16 ‘‘(2) the questions that were asked during the 

17 custodial interrogation were reasonably necessary to 

18 obtain such information. 

19 ‘‘(c) ASSIGNED COUNSEL.— 

20 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A minor who is subject to 

21 a custodial interrogation shall have the right to have 

22 the legal counsel assigned to the minor’s case phys23 ically present during such interrogation. 

24 ‘‘(2) VIOLATION.—In the case of custodial in25 terrogation of a minor, it shall be a violation of this 

26 subsection for the minor to be represented by any 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8685 IH

1 substitute counsel temporarily assigned to represent 

2 the minor. 

3 ‘‘(d) INADMISSIBLE.—In any criminal prosecution 

4 brought by the United States or by the District of Colum5 bia, any statement given by a minor during a custodial 

6 interrogation that does not comply with this section, and 

7 any evidence derived from that statement, shall be inad8 missible. 

9 ‘‘(e) MINOR DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

10 ‘minor’ means an individual who has not attained 18 years 

11 of age.’’. 

12 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

13 for chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, is amend14 ed by inserting after the item relating to section 3501 the 

15 following item: 

‘‘3501A. Custodial interrogation of a minor.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
No. 11-9840.

#### Wells *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 11-10482.

#### Fallin *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.