alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

I N RE: SMI TH I NTERNATI ONAL , I

NC., RELAT OR . § § § § § § No . 0 8- 11 -0 00 07 -C V AN ORI GI

NAL PROCEEDI

NG I N MANDAMUS

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Pending be fore the Court is an unopposed motion to dism iss this orig inal proce eding . Th e mot ion

is g ra nte d, and the pr oc e e din g is d ism iss e d. Our p re vio us or de r s tay ingthe tr ia l is vacated, and the motion for e x tension of time to respond to the mandamus petition i s denied a s moo t. April 13, 2011 DAVI D WEL L I NGTON CHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C . J. , M c C l u r e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.
Geospatial Corporation S-1 


 


Exhibit 4.2


 





not valid unless countersigned
by transfer agent. incorporated under the laws of the state of nevada. 1607 this certified that is record holder of common shares
of geospatial holdings, inc. transferable on the books of the corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender
of this certificate properly endorsed. this certificate is not valid until countersigned by the transfer agent and registered
by the registrar. witness the facsimile seal of the corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.
dated: secretary president inter west transfer co. inc. p.o. box 1713si salt lake city, utah 84117 countersigned & registered
countersigned transfer agent-authorized


 



    	 



    	 



    

 





the following abbreviations,
when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according
to applicable laws or regulations. ten com - as tenants in common tenent - as tenants by the entireties jt ten - as joint tenants
with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common unif gift mln act – custodian (cust) (minor) under uniform gifts
to minors act. (state) additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. hereby sell, assign and transfer
unto for value received,. please insert social security or other identifying number of assignee (please print or typewrite name
and address, including zip code, of assignee) shares of the capital stock represented by the within certificate, and do hereby
irrevocably constitute and appoint. attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named corporation with full
power of substitution in the premises. dated notice: the signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written
upon the face of the certificate in every particular without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever notice signature
guaranteed: signature(s) must be guaranteed by a firm which is a member of a registered national stock exchange, or by a bank
(other than a savings bank). or a trust company. the guaranteeing firm must be a member of the medallion guarantee program transfer
fee will apply for medallion guarantee use only
# C_2021382EN.01003001.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/30

---

Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Ionfarma v EUIPO — LG Electronics (AION)

(Case T-465/21)

(2021/C 382/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ionfarma, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea)

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 word mark AION — Application for registration No 17 892 367

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2021 in Case R 2223/2020–4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | revoke the contested decision and reject the European Union trademark Noo17 892 367 AION for all goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

revoke the contested decision and reject the European Union trademark Noo17 892 367 AION for all goods;

| — | order EUIPO and, in case LG Electronics decides to intervene in the present proceedings, LG Electronics to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, in case LG Electronics decides to intervene in the present proceedings, LG Electronics to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | 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.

---
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
     I, Thomas A. Andruskevich, Chairman of the Board, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of Mayor’s Jewelers, Inc., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to this quarterly report on Form10-Q/A of Mayor’s Jewelers, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this annual report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: January 7, 2005 /s/ Thomas A. Andruskevich Thomas A. AndruskevichChairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Rhea Groves Co. v. The Atlantic National Bank of Jacksonville.

152 So. 711.

Division B.

Decision Filed February 12, 1934.

*Dickinson & Dickinson,*for Appellant;

*Baker & Baker*and *Martin Sack,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
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 JB Oxford  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
J.  Chiodo,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 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 results of operations of the
Company.



/s/  Michael J. Chiodo
Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2004
#### Brian Joseph MCMONAGLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Don L. MEYER, Chief Probation Officer, Sacramento County, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-16822

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 15, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed September 19, 2017

*866Charles Marchand Bonneau, II, Esquire, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant

David Andrew Eldridge, AGCA-Offlce of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: GOULD, TALLMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Brian McMonagle appeals the- district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as petition challenging his California Superior Court conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. McMonagle claims that the state’s introduction of a lab report analyzing his blood alcohol content, without supporting testimony from the analyst who prepared the report, violated his right to confrontation and resulted in prejudice at his trial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we review de novo the district court’s denial of habeas relief. *Yee v. Duncan,*463 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

Despite the acknowledged Confrontation Clause violation,1 McMonagle fails to show that the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury’s verdict that he nonetheless drove under the influence of alcohol. *See Brecht v. Abrahamson,*507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). The evidence presented on this charge by a crime lab supervisor and one of the arresting CHP officers who witnessed McMonagle’s driving was “overwhelming”:

> “[McMonagle] stopped abruptly and irregularly for a red light, drove abnormally slow, turned abruptly, smelled of alcohol, mumbled, admitted consuming alcohol, had red, watery eyes, was slow and unsteady on his feet, and had difficulty walking. In addition, the criminalist, an expert, testified that such symptoms are consistent with intoxication.”

Thus, it was reasonable for the state appellate court to find the confrontation error harmless as to the lesser included charge.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. The Appellate Division of the California Superior Court, citing *Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts,*557 U.S. 305, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009), found that McMonagle was denied confrontation under the Sixth Amendment and reversed his more serious convictions for driving with a blood alcohol level of .08% or more, as well as driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of .15% or more. This was clearly a reasonable application of federal law, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), and .the state’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing.
##### 



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 Mayors Jewelers, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the thirteen and twenty-six weeks ended September
27, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, John Ball, Senior Vice President and 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:



|(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: November 7, 2003                           
|                                                 
|/s/ John D. Ball                                 
|                                                 
|John D. Ball                                     
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

21
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8843 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8843

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to increase the number of acres 
authorized for enrollment in the conservation reserve program, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 3, 2020

 Mr. Peterson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to increase the number of acres 
authorized for enrollment in the conservation reserve program, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZED MAXIMUM ENROLLMENT IN CONSERVATION 
              RESERVE.

    (a) General Enrollment Increase.--Section 1231(d)(1) of the Food 
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(d)(1)(E)) is amended by striking 
subparagraphs (C) through (E) and inserting the following:
                    ``(C) fiscal year 2021, to the maximum extent 
                practicable, not fewer than 28,000,000 acres;
                    ``(D) fiscal year 2022, to the maximum extent 
                practicable, not fewer than 32,000,000 acres;
                    ``(E) fiscal year 2023, to the maximum extent 
                practicable, not fewer than 37,000,000 acres;
                    ``(F) fiscal year 2024, to the maximum extent 
                practicable, not fewer than 43,000,000 acres; and
                    ``(G) fiscal year 2025, to the maximum extent 
                practicable, not fewer than 50,000,000 acres.''.
    (b) Limitation.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall have no 
effect on the number of acres enrolled and maintained in the 
conservation reserve program using the continuous enrollment procedure 
under section 1231(d)(6) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
3831(d)(6)).
    (c) Priority.--In holding a signup for general enrollment contracts 
for 25,000,000 acres of the total acres authorized to be enrolled in 
the conservation reserve program under subparagraphs (C) through (G) of 
section 1231(d)(1) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
3831(d)(1)), the Secretary shall give priority to applications for the 
enrollment of land that would promote soil health and carbon 
sequestration, including applications for the enrollment of land on 
which deep-rooted perennials will be planted.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 10409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5817]



[[Page 10407]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





The President





_______________________________________________________________________



Notice of March 5, 1997--Continuation of Iran Emergency


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 44 / Thursday, March 6, 1997 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 10409]]

                Notice of March 5, 1997

                
Continuation of Iran Emergency

                On March 15, 1995, by Executive Order 12957, I declared 
                a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to 
                the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 
                U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the threat to the 
                national security, foreign policy, and economy of the 
                United States constituted by the actions and policies 
                of the Government of Iran, including its support for 
                international terrorism, efforts to undermine the 
                Middle East peace process, and acquisition of weapons 
                of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. On 
                May 6, 1995, I issued Executive Order 12959 imposing 
                more comprehensive sanctions to further respond to this 
                threat.

                Because the actions and policies of the Government of 
                Iran continue to threaten the national security, 
                foreign policy, and economy of the United States, the 
                national emergency declared on March 15, 1995, must 
                continue in effect beyond March 15, 1997. Therefore, in 
                accordance with section 202(d) of the National 
                Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing 
                the national emergency with respect to Iran. Because 
                the emergency declared by Executive Order 12957 
                constitutes an emergency separate from that declared on 
                November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, this 
                renewal is distinct from the emergency renewal of 
                October 1996. This notice shall be published in the 
                Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    March 5, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97-5817
Filed 3-5-97; 11:46 am]
Billing code 3195-01-P
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 14

- 01007

- CV

ALLAN R. AVERY , Appellant

V.
LPP MORTGAGE, LTD. , Appellee
Appeal from the 127th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2011

- 65958 ).

This case is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on September 30, 2014 . After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the portion of the trial court’s judgment awar ding attorney’s fees to appellee, LPP Mortgage, Ltd. Accordingly, the Court reverses th e portion of the trial court’s judgment awarding attorney’s fees to appellee, LPP Mortgage, Ltd., and remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings on that issue.

The Court further holds that there was no reversible error in the remaining portions of the trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the remaining portions of the trial court’s judgment

.

The Court orders that this decision be certifi ed below for observance.Judgment rendered October 29, 2014

.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Radack.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-557]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER97-654-000]


Newco US, L.P.; Notice of Issuance of Order

January 6, 1997.
    Newco US, L.P. (Newco) submitted for filing a rate schedule under 
which Newco will engage in wholesale electric power and energy 
transactions as a marketer. Newco also requested waiver of various 
Commission regulations. In particular, Newco requested that the 
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Newco.
    On December 30, 1996, pursuant to delegated authority, the 
Director, Division of Applications, Office of Electric Power 
Regulation, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, 
subject to the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Newco should file a motion to intervene 
or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 
and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Newco is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, endorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance of assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Newco's issuances of securities or assumptions of 
liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is January 29, 1997.
    Copies of the full text of the order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20426.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-557 Filed 1-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M