alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022073EN.01006101.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/61

---

Action brought on 22 December 2021 — Wenz Kunststoff v EUIPO — Mouldpro (MOULDPRO)

(Case T-794/21)

(2022/C 73/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Wenz Kunststoff GmbH & Co. KG (Lüdenscheid, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mouldpro ApS (Ballerup, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark MOULDPRO — EU trade mark No 10 022 317

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2021 in Case R 646/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the application of Mouldpro ApS of 30 January 2018 for cancellation of EU trade mark No 10 022 317; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the application of Mouldpro ApS of 30 January 2018 for cancellation of EU trade mark No 10 022 317;

in the alternative:

| — | reject the application for cancellation in so far as it covers anything other than hose couplings of plastic (included in Class 17); |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the application for cancellation in so far as it covers anything other than hose couplings of plastic (included in Class 17);

in the alternative:

| — | refer the case back to EUIPO for a further hearing and decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to EUIPO for a further hearing and decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             252
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   252
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,895
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       481,078
<OTHER-SE>                                   (485,721)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       252
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      923
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (923)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (923)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
Sl()-l()()82r)-()()8 

TOWN OF HIUrON HEAD ISLAND 

One Town Ceniei- Court, llilton Head Island, S.C. 29928 

(843) 34J-4600 Fax (843) 842-7728 

www.hilionheadislandsc.oov 

M;(jiir 

K<nn«(h S. Hcil/kc 

rnuiK'it Mcmbrrs 

WiHic (Ulin Feritusnn 

HJHbmP.IIarkim 

Drew A. l^tiKhliu 

John .Siifut 

(ftffocr W. Uiltlantk. Jr. 

August 16,2010 

The Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

400 7* Street. SW Room 10200 

Washington. DC 20590 

-o 

a 

t\:> 

^o 

UJ 

m-Of- n 

C O 

Stcpbcii (•'. Klli'ii 

Subj: Small Community Air Service Development Grant Application 

Docket OST-2010-0124, for Savannah/Milton Head International Airport 

(SAV) 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

I am pleased to support Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport in iis effort to 

acquire the Department of Transportation's Small Community Air Service 

Development Program Grant. I have long supported the Airport's objective of 

attracting affordable air service to our community. The presence of a low-fare 

carrier at Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport would play a major role in 

satisfying the needs of our community and benefit both Georgia and South 

Carolina. 

I hope that the highest consideration will be given to the Airport's application for 

this grant in an effort to improve our local air service for the benefit of business 

and leisure travelers alike, It is crucial that all communities have access to a 

national air transportation system with competitive options without compromise by 

higher average airfares when compared to other communities. 

Sincerely. 

TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND, 

SOU'ra CAROLINA 

niomas D. Peeples ^ 

Mayor
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT #23

                          Consent of Ernst & Young LLP









<PAGE>   2
                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-26041) pertaining to the PVC Container Corporation 1996
Incentive Stock Option Plan and in the related Prospectus of our report dated
August 8, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of PVC Container Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended June 30, 1997.


                                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


MetroPark, New Jersey
September 25, 1997
DDO January Fiscal Year 2020 Operational Update (10 January 2020)

January 2020 Recovery/Investigative Missions:

Indo-Pacific Directorate

There is a 6-person organic disinterment/recovery team in the Philippines.

There will be three organic missions: 65 personnel to Laos – 3 recovery teams and 1 

investigative team; 20 personnel to Cambodia – 1 recovery team; and 17 personnel to Myanmar 

– 1 recovery team. 

Disinterments:

Manila American Cemetery Memorial in the Philippines: Disinterment of 14 Unknowns.

National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific: Korean War Disinterment Plan: Disinterment of 16 

Unknowns from Phase 2.

NOTE: Phase 2 is scheduled to be completed in February 2020. For more information on the 

Plan, please visit https://www.dpaa.mil/Resources/Fact-Sheets/ArticleView/Article/1973863/korean-war-disinterment-plan-phases/

Partners:

There is a 3-person History Flight partner recovery mission in Kiribati (Tarawa).

Euro-Mediterranean Directorate

There is 1 organic mission: 2 personnel to Great Britain – research investigative team.
PAGE <1>

                                  Exhibit 32.1

                               Pyramid Oil Company

                  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 Annual Report of Pyramid Oil Company (the Company) on
form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John H. Alexander, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
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.



     Dated: March 24, 2006

                                               JOHN H. ALEXANDER
                                               -----------------
                                               John H. Alexander
                                            Chief Executive Officer





















PAGE <1>

                                   Exhibit 32.2

                                Pyramid Oil Company

                  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 Annual Report of Pyramid Oil Company (the Company) on
form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Lee G. Christianson,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to 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: March 24, 2006

                                                LEE G. CHRISTIANSON
                                                -------------------
                                                Lee G. Christianson
                                              Chief Financial Officer
March 12 , 2015

Mr. Mike Levin

Mike Levin Photography and Video

2941 Susquehanna Road

Roslyn

, PA 19001

Dear Mr. Levin :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can

n o t Process Your Request

We entered your January 28, 2015

, exemption request on behalf of Mike Levin Photography

and Video into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0191 ) , but we are unable to process your

request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of

the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of

the relief you seek.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

W hat You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petit ion for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Nia Daniels

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7551

MARVIN NATHANIEL RANDOLPH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-398-R) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 12, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin Nathaniel Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Marvin Nathaniel Randolph seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Randolph v. Angelone , No.CA-98-398-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 14, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### NUMBER 13

- 1 9

- 00 533

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ ALLEN MICHAEL CANALES, A ppellant ,

v.
ERIKA LEE RODRIGUEZ, A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________ On a ppeal from the 28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

.

____________________________________________________________ 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes

On December 6, 2019

, the Clerk of the Court notified appellan t via certified letter

that his notice of appeal was defective. O n January 2, 2020

, th e letter was returned

“unclaimed, unable to forward

. ” O n January 3, 2020, the Clerk of the Court sent a letter
via regular mail requesting the defect be corrected

. To date, no response nor

communication has been received from appellant

.2 Rule 42.3 permits an appellate court, on its own initiative after giving ten days'
notice to all parties, to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or for failure to comply

with a requirement of the appellate rules. T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 42.3(b), (c). Rule 2 authorizes

an appel late court to suspend a rule's operation in a particular case to expedite a decision.

Id. R. 2. Given the length of inactivity in this appeal and this C ourt's inability to give
effective notice to appellant, we suspend Rule 42.3's requirement of ten days' notice to

all parties and dismiss the appeal on our own motion. See id. R. 42.3( a ), (c).

Appellant has failed to correct or reasonably explain his failure to correct the notice

of appeal

. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

.
GREGORY T. PERKES Justice

D elivered and filed the 20th day of February, 2020.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40611 Summary Calendar

__________________
JOSE INEZ GAMEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-93-CV-182

- - - - - - - - - - March 1, 1996 Before WIENER, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Josè Inez Gamez appeals from the district court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He argues that: 1) he was denied due process and his right against self-incrimination when he was required to don a ski mask, resembling the one worn during the commission of the crime, for an in-court identification; 2) he was denied his Sixth Amendmentright to confrontation when the trial court limited his crossexamination of Roberto Lopez, the accomplice and co-defendant,No. 95-40611 -2- and Reynaldo Ramirez, the individual shot in the robbery; 3) he was denied due process when the trial court instructed the jury that he could be convicted on a less culpable state of mind; 4) the trial was rendered fundamentally unfair and he was denied his right to confrontation when the trial judge allowed testimony of a law enforcement officer regarding an anonymous telephone call that led to his arrest; and 5) he was denied due process when the prosecutor made a statement that he had been incarcerated pending trial. We have reviewed the arguments and the record and find no reversible error. Gamez was not denied due process when he was required to don a ski mask for an in-court identification. Gamez was not denied his right to confrontation when the trial court limited cross-examination of Roberto Lopez and Reynaldo Ramirez. The admission of Officer Rivera's testimony did not render the trial fundamentally unfair, nor did it deny Gamez the right to confrontation. Accordingly, we affirm these issues essentially for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Gamez was not denied his right against self-incrimination when he was required to don the ski-mask. See Schmerber v. California , 384 U.S. 757, 761 (1966); United States v. Roberts , 481 F.2d 892, 894 (5th Cir. 1973). He was not denied due process when the trial court instructed the jury on requisite state of mind. See Henderson v. Kibbe , 431 U.S. 145, 154 (1977); Ex parte Bartmess , 739 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). He was not denied due process when the prosecutor, in the presence of the jury, stated that heNo. 95-40611 -3- had been incarcerated pending trial. See Darden v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986).
AFFIRMED.
# C_2021329EN.01003802.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/38

---

Action brought on 25 June 2021 — Jose A. Alfonso Arpon v EUIPO — Puma (PLUMAflex by Roal)

(Case T-357/21)

(2021/C 329/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jose A. Alfonso Arpon SL (Arnedo, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark PLUMAflex by Roal — Application for registration No 17 880 571

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2021 in Case R 2991/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---
From: Peter Westlin/RTP/USEPA/US 

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Paul Ottenstein <POttenstein@airtest.net>, Robin 

Segall/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Gary McAlister/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Parker.Barrett@epa.gov, Ron Myers/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jason 

Dewees/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, William Grimley/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, 

agnew.rachel@epa.gov, driscoll.tom@epa.gov, Jeff 

Ryan/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 08/03/2010 07:37 AM 

Subject: Re: Secondary Aluminum Chip Dryers and Delaq Furnaces ICR

Rochelle: 

Yes, the laboratory may combine the three Method 0010 fractions extracted as per 

Method 3542 and analyze them as one using Method 8270C or D. You should issue this 

response to all of the sources and testing companies. 

Peter Westlin

Measurement Policy Group

OAQPS, SPPD

919-541-1058

From: Paul Ottenstein <POttenstein@airtest.net> 

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 08/02/2010 03:43 PM 

Subject: Secondary Aluminum Chip Dryers and Delaq Furnaces ICR

Rochelle: 

On the 0010 analytical for Delaq furnaces, what (if any) compositing is allowed? I know 

that 8270 likes three separate fractions, but we have combined fractions in other 

programs to lower detection limits (which will likely be important here), and save on 

analytical costs. The lab (we have generally used TestAmerica) has not had any 

problems combining analytical fractions prior to analysis. 

Thanks, 

Paul Ottenstein 

Technical Director 

Air Pollution Testing
No. 11-1034.

#### Gabayzadeh *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.