alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Daniel G. SZMANIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E-LOAN, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-36055

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 23, 2018

Daniel G. Szmania, Pro Se

John S. Devlin, III, Esquire, Abraham K. Lorber, Attorney, Lane Powell PC, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees Bear Stearns Arm Trust, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., John G. Stumpf

Scott Douglas Crawford, Zieve, Brodnax *&*Steele, LLP, Portland, OR, for Benjamin D. Petiprin

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Daniel G. Szmania appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his *648diversity action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Knievel v. ESPN,*393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Szmania’s claim that defendants lacked authority to foreclose as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because this claim was raised or could have been raised in a previous action between the parties or their privies that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. *See Holcombe v. Hosmer,*477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts apply state law regarding the res judicata effect of state court judgments); *Williams v. Leone & Keeble, Inc.,*171 Wash.2d 726, 254 P.3d 818, 821 (2011) (en banc) (setting forth elements of the doctrine of res judicata under Washington law); *Southcenter Joint Venture v. Nat’l Democratic Policy Comm.,*113 Wash.2d 413, 780 P.2d 1282, 1285 (1989) (en banc) (“[A] successor in interest to a party to an action that determines interests in property is subject to the preclusive effects of that action.” (citations omitted)).

We reject as without merit Szmania’s contention that defendants were time-barred from collecting on the note. *See Edmundson v. Bank of Am.,*194 Wash.App. 920, 378 P.3d 272, 277-78 (2016) (statute of limitations period on a claim to enforce an installment note accrues for each installment from the time it becomes due).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying Szmania’s motion for reconsideration because Szmania failed to file an amended or separate notice of appeal; *See Whitaker v. Garcetti,*486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the. opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid-*648ecí by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 99.1

        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code

     I, Thomas M. O'Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of Public Service Enterprise
Group Incorporated, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Annual
Report of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2002 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated.

                                         /s/ Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                         Public Service Enterprise Group
                                           Incorporated
                                         Executive Vice President and Chief
                                         Financial Officer
                                         February 25, 2003
# C_2022340EN.01005502.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/55

---

Action brought on 21 July 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Biolark (BIOLARK)

(Case T-459/22)

(2022/C 340/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (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: Biolark, Inc. (San Diego, California, United States)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark BIOLARK — International registration designating the European Union No 1 453 505

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2022 in Case R 1234/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | revoke the contested decision and reject the European designation of the International trademark No 1 453 505 for all goods and services; |
| --- | --- |

—

revoke the contested decision and reject the European designation of the International trademark No 1 453 505 for all goods and services;

| — | impose the costs to the defendant and, in case BIOLARK INC. decides to intervene in the present proceedings, to BIOLARK INC. |
| --- | --- |

—

impose the costs to the defendant and, in case BIOLARK INC. decides to intervene in the present proceedings, to BIOLARK INC.

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 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Bitstream Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (the Report), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his or her knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act); and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                                                          |  |                  
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------
|SIGNATURE           |  | TITLE                                                                    |  | DATE             
|                    |  |                                                                         
|/s/ Anna M. Chagnon |  | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)      |  | November 16, 2009
|Anna M. Chagnon     |  |                                                                         
|                    |  |                                                                         
|/s/ James P. Dore   |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |  | November 16, 2009
|James P. Dore       |  |                                                                         

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall not be deemed incorporated by reference in
any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form with the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
#### Mark MARKUSSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bernard Edward WARNER, Secretary of DOC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35167

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2018 *

Filed March 1, 2018

Mark Markussen, Pro Se

Candie M. Dibble, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Corrections Division, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Mark Mar-kussen appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations related to the handling of his legal mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v.*
      *721
      *Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Markussen’s due process claim because Markussen failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was provided with the process he was due. *See Procunier v. Martinez,*416 U.S. 396, 417-19, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974) (explaining minimal procedural safeguards prisons must comply with in handling of legal mail), *overruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott,*490 U.S. 401, 418-19, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Markussen’s access-to-courts claim because Markussen failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants caused an actual injury to a nonfrivolous claim. *See Lewis v. Casey,*518 U.S. 343, 356, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (setting forth elements of an access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Markussen’s retaliation claim because Markussen failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any defendant took adverse action against him because of his protected conduct. *See Rhodes v. Robinson,*408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Markussen’s requests, set forth in Docket'Entry No. 16, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

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 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 12825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6772]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-132-003]


Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

March 12, 1997.
    Take notice that on March 6, 1997, Southern Natural Gas Company 
(Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective 
April 7, 1997:

Second Revised Sheet No.140a
Third Revised Sheet No. 141

    Southern states that its filing is in compliance with the 
Commission's February 19, 1997 Order on Rehearing and Clarification 
directing Southern to file revised tariff sheets consistent with its 
order and to file any objections to posting daily net system 
imbalances.
    Southern states that copies of the filing will be served upon all 
parties designated on the official service list compiled by the 
Secretary in these proceedings.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (18 CFR Section 385.211). All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6772 Filed 3-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8894 

To repeal the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to require 

that drugs be dispensed only upon prescription, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2020 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To repeal the authority of the Food and Drug Administration 

to require that drugs be dispensed only upon prescription, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Prescription Freedom 

5 Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF FDA AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE PRE7 SCRIPTIONS. 

8 (a) REPEAL.—Effective as of the date that is 6 

9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, subsection 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8894 IH

1 (b) of section 503 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos2 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 353) is repealed. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Beginning on the effective date 

4 described in subsection (a), any reference in a Federal 

5 statute, regulation, or guidance— 

6 (1) to prescribing, a prescription, a prescription 

7 drug, or a drug subject to section 503(b) of the Fed8 eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is deemed to be 

9 a reference to prescribing, a prescription, or a pre10 scription drug, respectively, under applicable State 

11 law; and 

12 (2) to any requirement or provision of section 

13 503(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

14 is deemed to be a reference to the corresponding re15 quirement or provision, if any, in applicable State 

16 law, as determined by the Federal official or officials 

17 responsible for administering the respective Federal 

18 statute, regulation, or guidance. 

19 (c) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

20 and (b), the Secretary of Health and Human Services may 

21 continue to exercise the authority vested by subsection (b) 

22 of section 503 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

23 Act (21 U.S.C. 353), as in effect on the day before the 

24 effective date described in subsection (a), with respect to 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8894 IH

1 any drug that is intended for use in terminating a preg2 nancy. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Han
Daqing, Chief Executive 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: November
12, 2009




By:
              /s/ Han DaqingName:
              Han
      DaqingTitle:
              Chief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive
                Officer)
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Galaxy  Nutritional  Foods, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  June 30,  2003 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Christopher J. New, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  ss.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.

                                        /s/ Christopher J. New
                                        ----------------------------------
                                        Christopher J. New
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        August 14, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 9422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5102]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. MT97-4-000]


Williams Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

February 25, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 20, 1997, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(WNG) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet to be effective March 
22, 1997:

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 221

    WNG states that this filing is being made to update WNG's tariff in 
compliance with 18 CFR Part 250.16(b)(1), which requires an interstate 
natural gas pipeline to report any changes which occur to the list of 
operating personnel and facilities shared by the interstate natural gas 
pipeline and its marketing or brokering affiliates.
    WNG states that a copy of its filing was served on all 
jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5102 Filed 2-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2022109EN.01002702.xml

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/27

---

Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Hasco TM v EUIPO — Esi (NATURCAPS)

(Case T-12/22)

(2022/C 109/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hasco TM sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Wrocław, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Esi Srl (Albisola Superiore, Italy)

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 word mark NATURCAPS — European Union trade mark No 16 289 795

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2021 in Case R 617/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | accept the application and declare it well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

accept the application and declare it well founded;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of articles 64(2), 47(2), and 33(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with article 2(1) of Nice Agreement concerning the international classification of goods and services for the purposes of the registration of Marks, article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001, article 2(a) of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 and article 24 of Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (2003); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of articles 64(2), 47(2), and 33(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with article 2(1) of Nice Agreement concerning the international classification of goods and services for the purposes of the registration of Marks, article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001, article 2(a) of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 and article 24 of Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (2003);

| — | Infringement of article 60(1) in conjunction with article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of article 60(1) in conjunction with article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---