alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
,.-:.-

.-’ 1

-

**OFFICE OF**  **THE A-ITORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **I OROVLR** 

**SLLLSRS ATIORNKY** 

**OcNrnAL**

### moDomduionohall~torP 

## tos ,t bo l a t o r a o r a a t

o t e t t b t m ttk

o u 6 r r t a *tj oatlea ot arti, tk at tl o l.a t o l a



## et 080 r eu a r tl m 

## ot t he

l ltl u o u

e t t b Bt8 u

l a t b o p m a o tl m

a t p a8l s o UtetJ a u 6 l a u 08m a r l m a o .~.

'. . .

. -. 92. Thl&Duranr,whaBfmum *¶ 4 0 4 , l m t a u

l o a 0 r a-

0p u ti r r (Lla t G CL

. eoamlm~ tb..tlv1tlE5' U N 4 a p t 68

t u l ndtwt8a4tnrtlsgottha o tt h a l o w eatoraemoot r g8 a o l u o tt he Ik k, t h 4 oeMt10. l

Ed the mmloip8~ltlw. It umu ooopustorlthootmt 

### radvAnlo&8lpls8erutbep 1tl.r liaavltb 

### stab, 

## aab la 0 1L naio 

## rtrtlmm, h 8ua

tE 

### r matar. 3. a+. ~4, m -8~ 8bii 

## pr~tdr m m rq-84 oxohM@ ot lafbm aaleaMta# thBooRtlrdbu OtdJBUOadth. triol.aterrutbr law ktuoautheh at 

### ynrsia ot this ado, lta ooantlu on4 mnloi~lltla8 0~14 otbm 

### ,84tao •n4tboMtsoMl&4woma.ntb~. . -.._..I



### maomb10,Ismm fm7lma - pqioS

fho rbon opinion of 

## tblr dop-taont lo rapport.6 w 

### the6oolrloar

l t 

### Uu tlu r4 ram Oaurt 

### ot SCur is tbo 

### 0000 of (, 

### .8orr4 voe RoustaRa oaal l@o&a r Doak, 

### RS60. u. loalrrd lu tha 

### oua 

### ot Yu7lll ta. 8pu& 04 Tm 191,

~lfWOf@ ioiOnAO.0~~00,r@a(knd bytbl8 Oo~~rt,- aent l 

### ud thr mdborit 

### lp

l m 

### 01toI

tbuola, it 

### la oarl

plnloa

that tho brgartmat ot 

### Nbllo Safety la l utharlu4 to l



### aoara the slot a tl a n d

l 

### ad uaot 

### 0 rrdio

broadarrtiry

rktlos 

### oa aasa out 0 tba gamrrl rpproprlatlonr for ml4 (kpartmot, a* 

### l&108%4 w 1-a SS ot San8u billSlT,

### rot tba two-prr ~ulod 

### l adly Au@& 

### s1, 1941. l trlru tin. 

### #a@ thararoro, 

### IaBWr pur wlutloa 

### la ttm



### Tbo Iupulatiea,

“that t& ptopart lnataU4tloa

of a rr& io la to k uuaaby %wdorstiog voat~tho dopartmatrbould dulm ta that 

### tho ha4 willrtirort.kok to tha I@ l 

### oerltrao0url quutlaa 

### rad it 

### is 8uggut.4 that 

### tba&lktlon 

### rl*oprorM0 thot tha uputaut 

### rbllhwo the 

### tl&t to remvo cay rnd allbufldi.s.& tlxtun8 a a d l q u l p aaa t

plua4 uponuld land wbn, lt rbm4oaaar ~)*.a tbo 

### Redlo

% tho 4oprtmbt ii,aad ordoartisg 

### S$o~loa ott l t Ml 4 l a d.



### It lanot tho lataatloa or tblr 4opuideaat

to par8 8pon tb, tiuo of the kot 

### et 1aJM i8 go*Bt&n rrd the proJ?orrd 

### due # l uto#ame P

e MY tromtbol)fot A?lia(too, hBB, b do Dopartmat 01 

### .pobllo Stiot7, lbo *8lUlt~ et tb tltlm ziLEr@ l a

**& dead,**  **# .o&vyon~o**  **008 bo**  

### but ~taralaod **w tn**  l **t tk**  **rbrtnot** 

### ot **&la h**  

### ~uld'lrrad ut4b7 aa larprotlw 

### ot tk progoro4 bed., or 

### l oavayunao,

to thor wSth & 

### 0077OtthO l



### h UtWl

tthOtiit L Of &lb#OlI l0 s t he 

### rcrrolatlou l 

### 0 d 0 m rr l t 

### ma 

### l

itt oia*at te “id 4.04, OT eonv.yM.a*
# C_2021079EN.01003502.xml

| 8.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/35

---

Action brought on 19 January 2021 — About You v EUIPO — Safe-1 Immobilieninvest (Y/O/U)

(Case T-23/21)

(2021/C 79/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: About You GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Safe-1 Immobilieninvest GmbH (Mauer, Austria)

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 Y/O/U — European Union trade mark No 10 226 884

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 November 2020 in Case R 527/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | hold an oral hearing; |
| --- | --- |

—

hold an oral hearing;

| — | annul the contested decision with the consequence that EUIPO shall revoke the EUTM entirely; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision with the consequence that EUIPO shall revoke the EUTM entirely;

| — | order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, to bear its/their own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceeding before the General Court and in the appellate proceeding before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, to bear its/their own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceeding before the General Court and in the appellate proceeding before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the procedural requirements of evidence in terms of legal certainty and the principle of legitimate expectations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the procedural requirements of evidence in terms of legal certainty and the principle of legitimate expectations;

| — | Infringement of Article 58 in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Articles 10, 19 and 27 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58 in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Articles 10, 19 and 27 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.

---
# C_2023329EN.01001802.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/18

---

Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 16 June 2023 — European Economic and Social Committee v Paula Correia

(Case C-423/22 P) (1)

(2023/C 329/24)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.

---
#### LAPENZ, P. v. BRINK, J.

245 WDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/29/2017

2012-11716

(Erie)

Affirmed
Exhibit 23





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-155607) and on Forms S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-48130, 033-54158, 333-58676, 333-115713,
333-159513, 333-174145, 333-208188, 333-188594 and 333-211238) of Quaker Chemical Corporation of our report dated February 28,
2019 except with respect to our opinion on internal control over financial reporting insofar as it relates to the effects of the
matter discussed in the penultimate paragraph of Management's Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting,
as to which the date is July 24, 2019, relating to the financial statements, which appear in this Form 10-K/A.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Philadelphia, PA	
July 24, 2019
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 16.1



                     [Letterhead of Deloitte & Touche LLP]



June 25, 1997

Securities and Exchange Commission
Mail Stop 9-5
450 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549


Dear Sirs/Madams:


We have read and agree with the comments in Item 4 of Form 8-K of Bellwether
Exploration Company dated June 18, 1997.


Yours truly,

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Deloitte & Touche LLP
U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Disposition of Equipment Purchased with HAVA Funds

The purpose of this guidance is to support states and local jurisdictions in managing the disposal of 

HAVA-funded Special Purpose equipment for voting, voter registration or other special purposes and 

General Purpose equipment (i.e. vans, forklifts, copy machines, etc.) at either the end of the equipment’s 

useful life or the end of the HAVA award period. Equipment can be disposed of either collectively as a 

system or individually as components, as follows1: 

1. States and local jurisdictions can continue to use equipment purchased with HAVA funds for its 

original purpose for as long as needed, even if the EAC award used to purchase the equipment has 

been closed. Equipment may also be used for other federally-supported activities currently or 

previously funded by a Federal agency. Additionally, equipment can be traded-in for replacement 

equipment for same purposes. 

2. Without prior approval from the EAC, equipment purchased with HAVA funds with a current per 

unit fair market value of less than $5,000, may be traded-in, sold or scrapped on an as needed 

basis with no further obligation to the EAC beyond recording disposition in the appropriate 

equipment inventory log (see point 5 below for record retention requirements). 

3. Items of equipment with a current per unit fair market value in excess of $5,000 may be sold with 

the funds credited to the state/local HAVA election accounts in an amount calculated by 

multiplying the current market value or proceeds from sale by the HAVA (Federal and Matching 

Funds) share in the cost of the equipment. 

4. In cases where the titleholder fails to take appropriate disposition actions, the EAC retains the 

right to direct States to take excess and disposition actions. 

5. The final record retention period for equipment replacement or disposition begins on the date the 

State submits its last Federal Financial Report (FFR) to the EAC and continues for 3 years. For 

equipment replacement or disposal after the end of award period, the three year record retention 

period begins from the time the equipment is traded-in or disposed of and continues for three 

additional years. 

Special Note for Safe Dispensation

States and local jurisdictions should take care to follow state equipment disposal policies and any 

additional guidelines for disposition of sensitive equipment such as cleansing of electronic devices, etc. 

Additional resources and practices outlining disposition of sensitive equipment will be provided by the 

EAC on an ongoing basis. 

 1 See Common Rule requirements for disposition of equipment purchased with Federal funds (41 CFR 105-71.132)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6010]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communications 
Disorders; Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of the NIDCD/NASA/VA Hearing Aid Improvement 
Conference: Facilitating Partnerships for Technology Transfer, to be 
held 8:30 am to 5 pm, May 1-2, 1997, in Masur Auditorium, National 
Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD 20892.
    To register for the meeting ($30 registration fee), please contact 
Daniel Winfield, Research Triangle Institute, P.O. Box 12194, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194, by phone at 919-541-6431, by fax at 919-
541-6221, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e2958b8c848b878e86a290968bcc8d9085"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="592e30373f303c353d192b2d3077362b3e">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as 
sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should 
contact Mr. Winfield in advance of the meeting.

    Dated: March 5, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-6010 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 11-10513.

#### Powell *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 Certification of
Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer
of VCA Antech, Inc.
   (i)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
  /s/ Robert L. AntinRobert L. AntinChief Executive Officer/s/ Tomas W. FullerTomas W. FullerChief Financial Officer 33
(logo) ncb

National Cooperative Bank

 

2011 Crystal Drive

Suite, 800

Arlington, VA 22202

 

February 29, 2016

 

 

Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. as Depositor

Attn: AJ Sfarra

375 Park Avenue, 2nd Floor

J0127-023

New York, NY 10152

 

RE: Annual Statement as to Compliance WFCM 2015 C26

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

In accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement entered into in connection with the issuance of the Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C26, as an authorized officer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., formerly NCB, FSB (the “NCB Master Servicer”), I hereby certify pursuant to Section 11.12 thereof that:

 

a. A review of the activities of the NCB Master Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

b. To the best of my knowledge, based on these reviews, the NCB Master Servicer has fulfilled all obligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

Please note that the annual financial statement will be sent under separate cover on or before March 31, 2016.

 

 

Best regards,

 

/s/Karyn Mann

Karyn Mann

Senior Vice President, Investor Compliance

National Cooperative Bank, N.A.
Opinion issued June 23 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 1 5 - 00 149 - CR NO. 01 - 15 - 00150 - CR NO. 01 - 15 - 00151 - CR

——————————— JAMES E. GUZMAN , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No s . 1974171, 1974172, and 2 001637

MEMORANDUM OPINION2

Pursuant to his agreements with the State, a ppellant, James E. Guzman , pleaded guilty to three separate misdemeanor offenses of assault , 1 two of which

were enhanced by a prior conviction of the felony offense of assault on a family member . The trial court accepted the plea agreement s , assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement for 120 days for each offense, with the sentences to run concurrently , and certified that th ese are plea

- bargained case s and appellant has no right of appeal. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal in eac h case. The State has filed a motion to dismiss each appeal for want of jurisdiction

. We grant the State’s motion s and dismiss the appeal s . In a plea

- bargained case, a defendant may appeal only those matters that were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial or after obtaining the trial court’s permission to appeal. T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . a rt 44.02 ( Vernon 2006); T EX . R. A PP . P . 25.2(a)(2)

. An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record. T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d). Here, in each cause, the trial court’s certification is included in the record and state s that t h e case is a plea

- bargained case and appellant has no right of appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2). The record in each case supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App.

1 See T EX . P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 22.01(a)(1) (Vernon 2011).3

2005). Because appellant has n o right of appeal, we must dismiss th ese appeal s . See Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea

bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2) , must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”) ; see also Cooper v. State , 45 S.W.3d 77, 77

– 82 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (holding voluntariness of guilty plea may not be contested on direct appeal following plea

- bargain agreement )

. Accordingly, we dismiss each appeal for want of jurisdiction and dismiss all other pending motion s as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justice Jennings, Bland and Brown. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2( b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         265,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  449,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               830,000
<PP&E>                                         388,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,551,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,281,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,534,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (8,116,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,551,000
<SALES>                                        870,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               870,000
<CGS>                                          449,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  449,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               812,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (504,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (504,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (504,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-64,748-08

EX P ARTE DONALD WAYNE COOK S, App licant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. W04-00121-N( D) IN THE 195 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM DALLAS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of deadly conduct and sentenc ed to imprisonment for forty y ear s . The Fifth Court of Appea ls aff irmed Applicant’s conviction. Cooks v. State , No. 05-04-00620- CR (Tex
. App.—Dallas 2005)(not desig nated for publication). After a revie w of the rec ord and the trial court’s finding s, we find that Applicant’s claim in g round one is without merit. There fore , we deny relief
. Applicant’s claims in g rounds two and three
are dismiss ed as subse quent. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O . Art. 11.07 §4(a)-( c).Filed: May 18, 2016 Do not publish
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8863 

To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national monuments 

in Utah except by express authorization of Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 3, 2020 

Mr. STEWART introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national 

monuments in Utah except by express authorization of 

Congress. 

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 ‘‘Utah Land Sovereignty 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ESTAB7 LISHMENT OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN 

8 UTAH. 

9 The proviso of the last sentence of the first section 

10 of the Act of September 14, 1950 (64 Stat. 849, chapter 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8863 IH

1 950; 16 U.S.C. 431a), is amended by inserting ‘‘or Utah’’ 

2 after ‘‘Wyoming’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
tnib_ex1019.htm


Exhibit 10.19


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 




  





6











  






 


 




  





7











  






 


 


8