alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021481EN.01003201.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/32

---

Action brought on 16 September 2021 — Serrano Velázquez v Parliament

(Case T-589/21)

(2021/C 481/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: María Teresa Serrano Velázquez (Seville, Spain) (represented by: F. Vázquez Sánchez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament given in respect of Petition 0242/21 by María Teresa Serrano Velázquez, and investigate the matters raised therein. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament given in respect of Petition 0242/21 by María Teresa Serrano Velázquez, and investigate the matters raised therein.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the decision is not correctly reasoned in accordance with the provisions of Article 296 TFEU.

---
#### Ben-Jay Investment Co., a Florida Corporation; Sarah Deeths, Margaret Marinus, Anna M. Goedeke, joined by her husband, Lawrence F. Goedeke, Adolph Rosenak, and Bertha Rosenak, joined by her husband, Adolph Rosenak, Bernard Szoid, Lilli Corporation, A Florida Corporation, Edith Robertson, and Clarence G. Stephens and Ollie Stephens, his wife, and any and all other persons claiming any right, title or interest in and to the property in question, v. Marie De C. Stillman, as Trustee for Ronald Y. Stillman, Marie De Stillman and Ronald Y. Stillman.

154 So. 829.

Opinion Filed April 7, 1934.

*R. L. Selden*and *Joseph Ginsberg,*for Appellants;

*Gardiner & Gardiner,*for Appellees.

Terrell, J.

— This cause grew out of a controversy between the parties hereto, as to the ownership of part of the overplus of Government Lot 2, Section 36, Township 14, *704South, Range 32 East. Appellees, as complainants, brought their bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Volusia County, to quiet title to the lands in question. The bill alleges that they have been in possession of said lands for more than seven years' last past, and recites their chain of title which is shown to have been deraigned from the Federal' Government. A motion to dismiss on the part of appellants as defendants was overruled, and the instant appeal is from that decree.

It is first contended that there is no equity in the bill, that a suit to quiet title cannot be .maintained in equity hut must be prosecuted at common law. A complete answer to this contention contrary to appellants’ view, is found in Chapter 11383, Acts of 1925, and in McDaniel v. McElvy, 91 Fla. 770, 108 So. 820, construing said Act.

The claim of ownership adverse to that of complainant consisted in platting and selling according to said plat, the lands brought in question. It is contended that such exercise of ownership does not constitute a cloud upon the title against which equity will relieve.

There is no general rule prescribing the particular acts of ownership which constitute adverse possession, but in the light of the purpose for which it is done, it certainly could not be questioned that- platting and laying off into town lots for the purpose of sale, is one of them.

The judgment below must be and is hereby affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
**
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**Subsidiaries of Rand Capital Corporation**

 

**Subsidiary**
  
**Jurisdiction Of Corporation**

Rand BMP Swanson Hold Co., LLC
  
New York

Rand Capital Sub LLC
  
New York

Rand Carolina Skiff Holdings Corp.
  
New York

Rand DSD Holdings Corp.
  
New York

Rand Filterworks Holdings Corp.
  
New York

Rand FSS Holdings Corp.
  
New York

Rand ITA Holdings Corp.
  
New York

Rand Somerset Holdings Corp.
  
New York
**
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,
2012 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Yu Xiaoli, 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 14, 2012



|By:    | /s/ Yu Xiaoli                
|------ | -----------------------------
|Name:  | Yu Xiaoli                    
|Title: | Chief Financial Officer      
|       | (Principal Financial Officer)
# C_2022073EN.01006501.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/65

---

Action brought on 23 December 2021 — just-organic.com v EUIPO (JUST ORGANIC)

(Case T-802/21)

(2022/C 73/81)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: just-organic.com GmbH (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Menebröcker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘JUST ORGANIC’ — Application for registration No 18 317 774

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2021 in Case R 1010/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as the EU trade mark application No 18 317 774 was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as the EU trade mark application No 18 317 774 was rejected;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas 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;

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

—

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

---
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09
- 20
- 00217
- CV

__________________ IN RE ETHAN TODD STEWART

__________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 19
- 06
- 08032

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Ethan Todd Stewart seeks to compel the trial court to rule on his challenge to the constitutionality of Chapter 841of the Texas Health and Safety Code. 1 Generally, trial court s ha ve a ministerial duty to cons ider
and rule on matters before them within a reasonable time. 2 But here, Stewart never served the petition he filed on the defendant, so the trial court had no duty to consider
his claims challeng ing the validity of the statute he wanted the court to ove rturn

.

1 See generally Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.001

- .153 (West & Supp. 2019). 2 See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall , 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus conditionally granted to compel trial court to conduct a hearing).2 The documents Stewart filed with the petition for mandamus fail to show that
he either requested or obtained service on the State of Texas, the defendant that he
sued

. 3 Without service of process , the trial court had no ministerial duty to conside r the claims Stewart is complaining about o n appeal, the alleged unconstitutionality of the statute that govern s sexually violent predators

. 4 For that reason, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to conduct a hearing on Stewart’s claims

. Because Stewart’s petition for mandamus lacks merit, it is denied.
PETITION DENIED

. PER CURIAM

Submitted on October 7, 2020 Opinion Delivered October 8, 2020 Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

3 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 99, 106. 4 See In re Wigley , No. 14

- 19

- 00749

- CV, 2019 WL 5078650, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Oct

. 10, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) ( Denying mandamus relief where the relator f ailed to show that he strictly complied with the rules governing citation

. ).
OAR Box 1112 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

12)ll-B-2i 

Docket Number: 

A-83-22 

Printed 4/16/2008 9:12:06 AM Sheet 12 of 97 

P.1 
P.2 

A- <?3" 2.1. 

ARCONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY ^^ ^ 

9700 SOUTIH CASS AVENUE, ARQONNE, IHiNois 60459 TdEpkM 512/972-8430 

April 4, 1985 

Dr. Michael Rutter 

Department of Psychology 

Institute of Psychiatry 

DeCrespigny Park 

London, SE5 8AF 

England 

Dear Dr. Rutter: 

I tried to call you a few days ago and learned that you were on 

holiday. I hope that you had a good time. 

I had called to see if you had received my letter dated March 19, 1985 

and to ask if you would be willing to participate in the lead study. Because 

of the long lead time needed to plan foreign travel on U.S. government 

business, I have had to proceed with arrangements assuming that you will be 

willing to participate and that the April 30 and May 2 dates will fit into 

your schedule. Because we also plan to meet with Dr. Yule on May 1 and 3, it 

may be possible to work out alternate dates with you if you wish to 

participate but cannot accommodate our proposed dates. Our constraints are 

the following: we arrive in London on Monday morning (April 29) and leave for 

Germany on Sunday (May 5). Within these constraints, we are willing to make 

every possible effort to meet with you. 

Enclosed is a copy of our IQ protocol that will be the basis of our 

interview with you. It would be good if you could review it prior to our 

first meeting, if you are able to participate. 

Tom Wallsten and I are very much looking forward to meeting with you. 

We sincerely hope that our plans and assumptions work out. 

Sincerely, 

Ronald G. WWitfield 

Energy and Environmental Systems Division 

RGW:bf 

Enclosure 

U.S. DEPARTMENT of ENERQV T k U\ivERSiTy of ClnicAqo
# C_2022037EN.01004601.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/46

---

Action brought on 17 November 2021 — Aprile and Commerciale Italiana v EUIPO — DC Comics partnership (Device of a stylized depiction of a black bat inside a white oval frame)

(Case T-735/21)

(2022/C 37/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Luigi Aprile (San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy), Commerciale Italiana Srl (Nola, Italy) (represented by: C. Saettel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DC Comics partnership (Burbank, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Device of a stylised depiction of a black bat inside a white oval frame) — European Union trade mark No 38 158

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2021 in Case R 1447/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | find the application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

find the application admissible;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs in accordance with Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs in accordance with Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
March 27, 2014


 





 


American Eagle Energy Corporation 


2549 West Main Street, Suite 202 


Littleton, CO 80120 


Attn: Steve Dille


  


 


		RE:	Amendment and Addendum to Letter Agreement dated March 26, 2014 (“Letter Agreement”)
by and between USG Properties Bakken I, LLC (“USG”) and American Eagle Energy Corporation (“AEE”) for Purchase
of Certain USG’s Leasehold in Divide County, North Dakota.



 


Dear Mr. Dille,


 


Pursuant to agreement
of USG and AEE, the parties agree to the following changes and additions as material terms to the Letter Agreement:


 


		1.	In the second paragraph, Buyer and Seller agree to delete any reference to a price of $1,400 per
net mineral acre and replace it with a price of $1,500 per net mineral acre.



  


		2.	In the second paragraph, Buyer and Seller agree to delete the purchase price of $7,026,600.00 and
replace it with a purchase price of $7,528,500.00.



 


		3.	“Buyer and Seller agree that Seller shall have until April 27, 2014 (“Due Diligence
Period”) to conduct its own due diligence to ensure it is conveying the specified 5,019 net mineral acres to Buyer. In the
event Seller discovers during this time frame that it is conveying any additional or lesser amount of acreage than the specified
5,019 net mineral acres, Buyer agrees to adjust the purchase price of $7,528,500.00 due to Seller in accordance with the $1,500
net mineral price set forth herein. Further, Buyer agrees not to record any conveyance instrument until after the Due Diligence
Period has expired.”



 


In the event this amendment
and addendum comports with our understanding, please email an executed copy to Molly Boyd at Molly.Boyd@nexteraenergy.com. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.


 


	 	Sincerely,
	 	 
	 	/s/ Molly Boyd
	 	Molly Boyd
	 	Vice President


 


 



    	 



    	 



    




  


Agreed and accepted this 27th day of March,
2014.


 


 


 


American Eagle Energy Corporation


 


 


 


	     /s/ Steven R. Dille	 
	 	 
	By: Steven R. Dille	 
	 	 
	Title:  Land Manager
Exhibit 10.1




  


Susquehanna







Susquehanna Bank


Robert P. Whelen, Jr., Senior Vice President


307 International Circle, 6th floor


Hunt Valley, MD 21030-1376


Tel (410) 316-0214


Fax (410) 316-0016












July 29, 2013







Mr. Jeffery G. Hough


SVP, Chief Financial Officer


GSE Systems


1332 Londontown Blvd.


Sykesville, MD 21784







Dear Jeff:







The purpose of this letter is to confirm that the Bank has agreed to the following:








	
·

	
The Bank has agreed to extend the Revolving Credit Expiration Date until June 30, 2014, as defined in the Master Loan and Security Agreement dated November 22, 2011 in Section 1.1(a), by and among GSE Systems, Inc., GSE Power Systems, Inc., GSE EnVision, Inc. and Susquehanna Bank.  All other terms and conditions shall remain the same.












Please call me with any questions.







Respectfully,







/s/ Robert P Whelen, Jr.


Robert P Whelen, Jr.


Senior Vice President
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 853 

To expand retroactive eligibility of the Army Combat Action Badge to include 

members of the Army who participated in combat during which they 

personally engaged, or were personally engaged by, the enemy at any 

time on or after December 7, 1941. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2019 

Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia (for himself and Mr. LATTA) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To expand retroactive eligibility of the Army Combat Action 

Badge to include members of the Army who participated 

in combat during which they personally engaged, or were 

personally engaged by, the enemy at any time on or 

after December 7, 1941. 

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 ‘‘Army Combat Action 

5 Badge Eligibility Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 853 IH

1 SEC. 2. RETROACTIVE AWARD OF ARMY COMBAT ACTION 

2 BADGE. 

3 (a) AUTHORITY TO AWARD.—The Secretary of the 

4 Army may award the Army Combat Action Badge to a 

5 person who, as determined by the Secretary— 

6 (1) participated as a member of the Army at 

7 any time during the eligibility period in combat dur8 ing which the person personally engaged, or was per9 sonally engaged by, the enemy; and 

10 (2) has not been previously recognized in an ap11 propriate manner for the member’s participation in 

12 such combat. 

13 (b) PROCUREMENT OF BADGE.—The Secretary of 

14 the Army may make arrangements with suppliers of the 

15 Army Combat Action Badge so that persons eligible to re16 ceive the Army Combat Action Badge pursuant to sub17 section (a) may procure the badge directly from suppliers, 

18 thereby eliminating, or at least substantially reducing, ad19 ministrative costs for the Army to carry out this section. 

20 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

21 (1) ARMY COMBAT ACTION BADGE.—The term 

22 ‘‘Army Combat Action Badge’’ means the military 

23 decoration established by order of the Secretary of 

24 the Army through Headquarters, Department of the 

25 Army Letter 600–05–1, dated June 3, 2005. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 853 IH

1 (2) ELIGIBILITY PERIOD.—The term ‘‘eligibility 

2 period’’ means the period beginning on December 7, 

3 1941, and ending on September 18, 2001 (the date 

4 of the otherwise applicable limitation on the retro5 active award of the Army Combat Action Badge). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# C_2023045EN.01000702.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 2 November 2022 — B2 Energy s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-676/22)

(2023/C 45/13)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B2 Energy s.r.o.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Question referred

Must Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 9 December 2021 in Case C-154/20, Kemwater ProChemie, EU:C:2021:989, such that a claim for exemption from value added tax (VAT) upon the supply of goods to another EU Member State must be denied, without the tax authorities needing to prove that the supplier of the goods was involved in VAT fraud, if the supplier has failed to prove supply of goods to a specific recipient indicated in the tax documents and having the status of a taxable person in the other Member State, even though, with a view to the facts of the case and the information provided by the taxable person, there is data available to verify that the actual recipient in the other EU Member State did indeed have that status?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
#### R. D. Daffin v. Board of Public Instruction, Jackson County.

155 So. 119.

Opinion Filed May 19, 1934.

*John H. Carter*and *John H. Carter, Jr.,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Carter & Pierce,*for Defendant in Error.

Buford, J.

— This is a companion case to that of First National Bank of Marianna, plaintiff in error, v. Board of Public Instruction of Jackson County, State of Florida, defendant in error.

*876In this case it is stipulated in this Court between counsel for the respective parties that this case involves the same questions of law which are involved in the case of First National Bank of Marianna v. Board of Public Instruction for the County of Jackson, and it is further stipulated that the decision of the Supreme Court in the last named case shall govern the decision in this case.

The Court finding that the record supports the stipulation, the judgment to which the writ of error in this case is addressed is reversed and the cause remanded for the entry of a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in error in accordance with the views expressed in the opinion filed in the case of First National Bank of Marianna, a corporation, plaintiff in error, v. Board of Public Instruction for the County of Jackson, State of Florida, a corporation, defendant in error, on April 20, 1934.

It is so ordered.

Reversed with directions.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield and Terrell, J. J., concur.