alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022064EN.01002902.xml

| 7.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/29

---

Action brought on 8 December 2021 — C&C IP UK v EUIPO — Tipico Group (t)

(Case T-762/21)

(2022/C 64/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: C&C IP UK Ltd (Bristol, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tipico Group ltd. (St. Julian’s, Malta)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark t — Application for registration No 17 915 463

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2021 in Case R 2326/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | dismiss the appeal brought by the Tipico Group Ltd. against the decision of the EUIPO’s Opposition Division of 19 October 2020 in Case B 3 080 138; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the appeal brought by the Tipico Group Ltd. against the decision of the EUIPO’s Opposition Division of 19 October 2020 in Case B 3 080 138;

| — | order EUIPO, and Tipico Group Ltd. if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO, and Tipico Group Ltd. if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5766]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Privacy Act of 1974: Deletion of Systems of Records Notices

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice to delete Privacy Act systems of records.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is deleting the following 
systems from its inventory of Privacy Act systems of records notices.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal M. Bush, Privacy Coordinator, 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 
(202) 366-9713.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 
the Department of Transportation conducted a review of several of its 
Privacy Act systems of records and determined the following records are 
covered by DOT/ALL 8, Employee Transportation Facilitation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              System No.                           System name          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOT/OST 024...........................  Parking Permit Application Files
                                         and Vanpool Application Files. 
DOT/OST 025...........................  Parking Permit Management       
                                         System.                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: February 25, 1997.
Crystal M. Bush,
Privacy Act Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 97-5766 Filed 3-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
EXHIBIT 11.1
<TABLE>

                STEVENS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
              COMPUTATIONS OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
                                (Unaudited)
                (Amounts in thousands, except per share data)



                                       Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended
                                            March 31,           June 30,
                                          2001      2000     2001      2000
                                          -----    ------    -----    ------
 <S>                                     <C>      <C>       <C>      <C>
 Basic and diluted:

 Weighted average shares outstanding
   - basic                                9,502     9,502    9,502     9,502
 Assumed exercise of Series A and B
   stock options (Treasury stock method)      -         -        -         -
 Assumed exercise of $1.1 million of
  10% convertible subordinated notes
  at $0.50 per share - anti-dilutive          -         -        -         -
                                          -----    ------    -----    ------
 Total common share equivalents
   - diluted                              9,502     9,502    9,502     9,502
                                          =====    ======    =====    ======
  Net income (loss)                      $ (310)  $(1,513)  $ (970)  $(3,654)
                                          =====    ======    =====    ======
 Earnings (loss) per share
   - basic (Note 8)                      $(0.03)  $ (0.16)  $(0.10)  $ (0.38)
                                          =====    ======    =====    ======
 Earnings (loss) per share
   - diluted (Note 8):                   $(0.03)  $ (0.16)  $(0.10)  $ (0.38)
                                          =====    ======    =====    ======


           See notes to consolidated condensed financial statements.

</TABLE>
#### COM. v. GOLDMAN, M.

3822 EDA 2015

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/18/2017

Reargument Denied 11/22/2017

CP-09-CR-0007567-2015

(Bucks)

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund III, Ltd. at September 30, 1996, and its statement of
income for the nine months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to the Form 10-Q of CNL Income Fund III, Ltd. for the nine months
ended September 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         179,938
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  476,903
<ALLOWANCES>                                   406,810
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      20,644,209
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,657,750
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,570,098
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,577,509
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,570,098
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,719,033
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  509,816
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,794
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,202,865
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,202,865
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,202,865
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund III, Ltd. has an
unclassified balance sheet; therefore, no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ignacio RODRIGUEZ-CEPEDA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-41243 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 13, 2018

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

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM: *

Ignacio Rodriguez-Cepeda appealed his sentence for illegal reentry after deporta*443tion. He contended that the district court erred in increasing his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based on his Texas convictions of burglary of a habitation under Texas Penal Code § 30.02. We granted the government’s unopposed motion for summary affirmance, agreeing that Rodriguez-Cepeda’s arguments were foreclosed by *United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017).

In *United States v. Herrold,*883 F.3d 517 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc), this court overruled *Uribe.*This panel requested letter briefs for the parties to state what action should be taken in light of *Herrold.*Both sides agree that the sentence cannot stand. The government carefully maintains its disagreement with *Herrold*for purposes of pre-serving the issue for further appellate review.

The petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The opinion, *United States v. Rodriguez-Cepeda,*691 F. App’x 181 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam), is WITHDRAWN, and the judgment of sentence is VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing. The mandate shall issue immediately.

*

 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.
No. 11-1273.

#### Wieckiewicz *v.*Educational Credit Management Corp.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Harrison Benjamin KINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NOB HILL GRILL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15255

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 6, 2018 * San Francisco, California

Filed February 9, 2018

Thomas E. Frankovich, Attorney, The Frankovich Group, Chico, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Ryan Patrick, Attorney, Andrew Wiegel, Attorney, Wiegel Law Group, PLC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and D.W. NELSON and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Harrison Kinney appeals the district court’s grant against him of judgment on the pleadings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Plaintiffs claim for prospective injunc-tive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, *et. seq.,*became moot when the restaurant closed.

Given the absence of any available relief under federal law, the district court did not abuse its. discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); *City of Colton v. American Promotional Events, Inc.-West,*614 F.3d 998, 1008 (9th Cir. 2010).

Given our resolution of this appeal, we need not decide any other question presented by this case.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5594]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Two Consent Decrees Pursuant to the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
of 1980 as Amended

    In accordance with Department of Justice policy and 42 U.S.C. 
9622(i), notice is hereby given that a proposed partial consent decree 
in United States v. International Paper Company, et al., Civil No. 94-
4681 (BDP); Warwick Administrative Group, et al. v. Avon Products, 
Inc., et al., Civil No. 92-9469 (BDP) (Consolidated Cases), was lodged 
on February 14, 1997, with the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of New York. The decree resolves claims of the United 
States against Revere Smelting and Refining Corporation and Lightron 
Corporation in the above-referenced action under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA'') 
for contamination at the Warwick Superfund Site in the Town of Warwick, 
Orange County, New York (the ``Site''). In the proposed partial consent 
decree, Revere Smelting and Refining Corporation agrees to pay the 
United States $1,070, and Lightron Corporation agrees to pay the United 
States $5,704 in settlement of the United States' claims for response 
costs incurred and to be incurred by the Environmental Protection 
Agency at the Site.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to 
United States v. International Paper Company, et al., DOJ Ref. Number 
90-11-3-812.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney, 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007; the 
Region II Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 
New York, NY 10278; and the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 
4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the proposed 
consent decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the Consent 
Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005. In 
requesting a copy, please refer to the referenced case and enclose a 
check in the amount of $6.00 for the partial consent decree (25 cents 
per page reproduction costs) payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-5594 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0213

__________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF: L. S.

__________________________________________________________________ ORDER

__________________________________________________________________ Upon consideration of Appellant’s m oti on for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant has until September 3, 2024, to prepare, file, and serve Appel la nt’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 5 2024

07/05/2024 Case Number: DA 23-0213
#### Martin MAGANA-PARDO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-71151

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted * January 16, 2018

Filed January 22, 2018

James Todd Bennett, Pro Se

Imran Raza Zaidi, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Martin Magana-Pardo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings. *Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch,**307828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Magana-Pardo failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a protected ground. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Magana-Pardo failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. *See Zheng v. Holder,*644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (fear of torture speculative).

We reject Magana Pardo’s contention that the IJ failed to consider evidence.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 9800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5224]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Geological Survey


Technology Transfer Act of 1986

AGENCY: United States Geological Survey, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed cooperative research and development 
agreement (CRADA) negotiations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is contemplating 
entering into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) 
with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to generate reliable, 
accurate, and accessible quality information on major U.S. coal beds 
that will be mined during the next 20-30 years.

INQUIRIES: If any other parties are interested in similar activities 
with the USGS, please contact Dr. Robert B. Finkelman of the U.S. 
Geological Survey, Energy Resource Surveys Program, Mail Stop 956, 
Reston, Virginia 20192; telephone (703) 648-6412; fax (703) 648-6419; 
e-mail <<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fa88989cba8f899d89d49d958c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f4869692b481879387da939b82">[email protected]</span></a>>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is to meet the USGS requirement 
stipulated in the Survey Manual.

    Dated: February 21, 1997.
P. Patrick Leahy,
Chief, Geologic Division.
[FR Doc. 97-5224 Filed 3-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-31-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/d07b1474/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Rand Capital
SBIC, L.P. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:

     The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003
(the Form10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company

Dated: March 26, 2004

                                                    /s/ Allen F. Grum
                                             Allen F. Grum, President of Rand
                                                   Capital Corporation
                                          (equivalent of chief executive officer
                                                            of
                                                 Rand Capital SBIC, L.P.)

Dated: March 26, 2004

                                                 /s/ Daniel P. Penberthy
                                          Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer of Rand
                                                   Capital Corporation
                                          (equivalent of chief financial officer
                                                            of
                                                 Rand Capital SBIC, L.P.)

                                        40
#### COM. v. GOODMAN, J.

1833 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/13/2017

CP-61-CR-0000213-2015 (Venango)

Affirmed
# C_2023083EN.01000801.xml

| 6.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/8

---

Appeal brought on 26 February 2022 by Georgios Theodorakis and Maria Theodoraki against the order of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 December 2021 in Case T-495/14, Theodorakis and Theodoraki v Council

(Case C-137/22 P)

(2023/C 83/09)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellants: Georgios Theodorakis and Maria Theodoraki (represented by: Vasileios-Spyridon Christianos, Alexandros Politis and Maria-Christina Vlachou, dikigoroi)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

By order of 17 January 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded.

---