alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stephen T. ENSIGN; Laura A. Ensign, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. BANK, as Trustee, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-35198

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 22, 2018

Stephen T. Ensign, Pro Se

Laura A. Ensign, Pro Se

Jesse A.P. Baker, Pite Duncan, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

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 **

Chapter 7 debtors Stephen T. Ensign and Laura A. Ensign appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order striking their amended complaint and dismissing their adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standards of review applied by the district court. *In re Thorpe Insulation Co.,*677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not err by striking the Ensigns’ amended complaint and dismissing the adversary proceeding sua sponte because the amended complaint failed to cure the deficiencies in the complaint previously dismissed by the court. *See*11 U.S.C. § 105(a) (authorizing bankruptcy courts to take sua sponte action or make any determination “necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders”).

Contrary to the Ensigns’ contentions, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enter a final order. *See Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.),*702 F.3d 553, 568-69 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7008 and explaining that a litigant’s actions may suffice to establish consent; “Congress intended to allow parties to consent by their actions to the authority of bankruptcy courts to enter dispositive orders on any bankruptcy-related claim.”).

We reject as unsupported by the record the Ensigns’ contention that the bankrupt*574cy court gave them vague instructions as to amending their complaint.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle,*7 F.8d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).

The Ensigns’ requests for judicial notice, set forth in their opening and reply briefs, and U.S. Bank’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 18), are denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 12-34.

#### Haggard *v.*City of Jackson, Mississippi.

Ct. App. Miss. Certiorari denied.
# C_2022128EN.01002701.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/27

---

Action brought on 26 January 2022 — DDR Kultur v EUIPO — Groupe Canal+ (THE PLANET)

(Case T-47/22)

(2022/C 128/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DDR Kultur UG (haftungsbeschränkt) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Yeboah, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupe Canal+ (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France)

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 THE PLANET — Application for registration No 18 096 394

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2021 in Case R 2385/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO 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 32.a



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



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of DataJungle Software Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Form 10-KSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-KSB.







|Dated: March 31, 2005 |  | /s/Edward MundenEdward Munden
President & Chief Executive Officer
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------











The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-KSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
EX-10.26





 Exhibit 10.26 

[Caribou Biosciences, Inc. Letterhead] 

Confidential 
 February 19, 2021 

Rachel Haurwitz 
 2512 Sherborne Drive 

Belmont, CA 94002 
 Dear Rachel: 

Effective January 1, 2021, your base salary will be $495,000 with a target bonus of 45%. You will receive a retroactive payment for January 1 to
February 15, 2021 in your next paycheck (February 26, 2021). 
 I am pleased to announce that the Caribou Board of Directors has approved a bonus
based on the Company’s achievements in 2020. You will receive a one-time payment of $202,500.00, less applicable withholding taxes, on February 26, 2021. 

In spite of the many challenges that 2020 thrust upon the Company, our communities, and our families, the herd impressively managed to accomplish many of the
Company’s 2020 corporate goals: 
  

	 	•	 	 filing the IND for CB-010 and initiating the ANTLER Phase 1 trial,



  

	 	•	 	 nominating a third pipeline program, 



 

	 	•	 	 establishing a robust and reproducible process for iNK differentiation, 



 

	 	•	 	 ~50% insertion in primary T cells with a long non-viral DNA template
using Cas12a chRDNAs, and 


  

	 	•	 	 implementing Type I editing in iPSC lines. 



Other goals that we did not complete by the end of 2020 are well underway or already completed including manufacturing GLP material for CB-011, closing a strategic partnership, and closing the Series C. The other members of the Board and I are grateful to you for your hard work and your support of these multiple key efforts. Caribou has the exciting
and challenging opportunity to transform our cutting-edge technologies into therapies with best-in-class potential. Only through the continued collective efforts of the
herd will we achieve our ambitious 2021 goals. 
 Please let Cindy know if you want to contribute to your 401(k) account from this bonus payment. Nothing in
this letter shall be construed as a guarantee of employment, your employment remains at-will, and the Company reserves the right to change your title, reporting structure, and/or compensation at any time. As a
reminder, this letter contains Caribou Confidential Information. 
 Best regards, 
  


	
	 /s/ Barbara G. McClung

	
	Barbara G. McClung
	Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary
U.S. Department of Tran sportation Federal Aviation Administration 

## JAN 1

**~** 

## 2016

Mr. Loyd R. Hamilton ODA-7 50 1 54-SW Adm inistrator L-3 Communications In tegrated Systems , L.P. 7601 Maehr Road P.O. Box 154580 Waco, Texas 7 6715

- 4580

Dea r 

### Mr. Hamilton: Transport A i rplane D irectorate 1601 lind Avenue , S

.W. Renton , Washington 98057-3356

We h ave received yo ur petition for exemption fro m Title 14 , Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 25.813(e) , to permit the install at ion of interior doors between passenger compartments on executive interiors of Boeing Mode l 747

- 8 airplanes. This request , which you submitted to the FAA Northwest Mountain Reg iona l H eadquarters in R enton, Washington , i s located in docke t no. FAA

-20 16-0 328

. T he FAA has reviewed yo ur petition to amend exemp tion no. 10 686 to include curved door s in curved (versus flat , straight) wal l s. We have determined that your petitio n must be considered as a new , separate, and unique exemption due to the proposed new passengercabin partition design described in yo ur petition. The design and conditions included in the ex isting exemption are well-established and widely understood. The FAA requests that you submit a new petition to the docket numb er above, additionall y address ing t he following: 1. Pl ease provide more detail on the design and operation of the independent means to couple (mechanicall y fasten) the wall pane l s to the door.
a. Is this a s ingle point of coup! in g fo r eac h section of the door? b. Does this coup lin g means require a tool to operate ?
c. What is the method ofretainin g the coupling means in place when it i s e n gage d ? 2. Do the door section s also include th e two latching mechani s m as defined in exemption n o. 10686 condition 8 ? 3. Will the fra n g ibili ty of these doors meet the criteria included in exemption 10686? If yo u have questions , p lease contact Jayson C laar at 425

- 227

- 2194 , or at jayson.claar @ faa. g ov. Sincerely,



# ?uts:::::- **A~-** Manager. Airframe a nd Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115 T r ansport Standards Staff
Exhibit 31-2



Certification

I, Joseph J. Syta, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K of Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2006;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant'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 over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|Date:  February 28, 2007 | /s/Joseph J. Syta       Joseph J. Syta
       Vice President - Controller and Treasurer
|------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 11-10901.

#### Lashinsky *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-1393.

#### Presbytery of South Louisiana *v.*Carrollton Presbyterian Church of New Orleans.

Ct. App. La., *8191st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-87.

#### Terranova, as Administrator of the Estate of Terranova, et al. *v.*Torres et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11893-11894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6472]


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

AGENCY FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Tuesday, March 18, 1997 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.


[[Page 11894]]


STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g, Sec. 438(b), and Title 
26, U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.
* * * * *

Thursday, March 20, 1997 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. (ninth floor).

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes.
Independent and Coordinated Expenditures by Party Committees--Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (11 C.F.R. Sec. 100.7, Sec. 100.23, Sec. 104.4, 
Sec. 109.1, Sec. 110.1, Sec. 110.2, Sec. 110.7, and Sec. 110.11).
Administrative Matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 219-4155.
Marjorie W. Emmons,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-6472 Filed 3-11-97; 10:47 am]
BILLING CODE: 6715-01-M
#### RAWLINGS, B. v. WETZEL, J., et al.

562 MD 2016

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/20/2017

Original Jurisdiction

Dismissed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998             DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998             SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                           4,296                   4,913
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,795                  43,178
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,222                   3,971
<INVENTORY>                                     34,968                  53,734
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,046                 100,638
<PP&E>                                          67,994                  88,244
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,671                  59,588
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 183,067                 230,153
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,333                 111,081
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                     60,000                       0
<COMMON>                                           471                     470
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,404                 109,989
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   183,067                 230,153
<SALES>                                        114,913                 159,919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,913                 159,919
<CGS>                                          102,095                 135,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  102,095                 135,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                57,990                  61,020
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,868                   2,920
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (48,040)                (39,801)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       160                     752
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (48,200)                (40,553)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (48,200)                (40,553)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.02)                   (.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.02)                   (.86)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-30185

Summary Calendar

FARD ABDUR RAHMAN DICKERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JOHN BEL EDWARDS; JEFFREY M. LANDRY; W. S. MCCAIN; DOUGLAS 

ANDERSON; ANGEL WILSON; UNKNOWN PRISON OFFICIALS; 

CONCORDIA PARISH CORRECTIONAL CENTER; RAYMOND LABORDE 

CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:17-CV-1282

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fard Abdur Rahman Dickerson, Louisiana prisoner # 602702,

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the dismissal of his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 

1915A(b)(1). We decline to decide the appropriate standard of review because 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 2, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-30185 Document: 00514709527 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2018
No. 18-30185

2

de novo review and review for an abuse of discretion yield the same result in 

this case. See Morris v. McAllester, 702 F.3d 187, 189 (5th Cir. 2012); Geiger 

v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005).

To the extent that Dickerson’s pleadings in the district court raised any 

claims other than challenges to the legality of his Louisiana conviction and 

sentence for attempted simple burglary, Dickerson has abandoned them on 

appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that 

even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them); Brinkmann v. 

Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (reasoning 

that litigant’s failure to identify any error in district court’s analysis is the 

same as if he had not appealed). Likewise, although Dickerson presses claims 

that his Louisiana conviction and sentence are illegal, he does not address the 

district court’s determination that such claims are barred under Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); he has, therefore, also abandoned any 

challenge to the district court’s basis for dismissal. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225; 

Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.

Accordingly, we DISMISS as frivolous Dickerson’s appeal. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. The motions to clarify relief, to compel, and for the appointment of 

counsel are DENIED. The district court’s dismissal of Dickerson’s complaint 

and our dismissal of his appeal both count as strikes under Section 1915(g). 

See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763-64 (2015); Adepegba v. 

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Dickerson is WARNED that 

if he accumulates a third strike, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or 

appeal while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in 

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

 Case: 18-30185 Document: 00514709527 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2018
# C_2022359EN.01009601.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/96 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/96

---

Action brought on 8 August 2022 — Kaufdas.online v EUIPO — Kaufland (KAUFDAS ONLINE)

(Case T-488/22)

(2022/C 359/117)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Kaufdas.online sp. z o.o. (Gubin, Poland) (represented by: P. Kurcman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kaufland Dienstleistung GmbH & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark KAUFDAS ONLINE — Application No 18 113 140

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2022 in Case R 1972/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 28 September 2021 in the opposition proceedings No B 3 106 146 in relation to all of the goods and services in respect of which the opposition was upheld; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 28 September 2021 in the opposition proceedings No B 3 106 146 in relation to all of the goods and services in respect of which the opposition was upheld;

| — | refer the case back to EUIPO so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and register EU trade mark No 18 113 140 for all of the goods and services concerned, without prejudice to those that are uncontested; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to EUIPO so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and register EU trade mark No 18 113 140 for all of the goods and services concerned, without prejudice to those that are uncontested;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.

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.

---