alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 97 

AN ACT 

To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 

1956 to authorize rewards for thwarting wildlife trafficking linked to transnational organized crime, 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, 
2 

•HR 97 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rescuing Animals 

3 With Rewards Act of 2019’’ or the ‘‘RAWR Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

5 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

6 (1) Wildlife trafficking is a major transnational 

7 crime that is estimated to generate over $10 billion 

8 a year in illegal profits and which is increasingly 

9 perpetrated by organized, sophisticated criminal en10 terprises, including known terrorist organizations. 

11 (2) Wildlife trafficking not only threatens en12 dangered species worldwide, but also jeopardizes 

13 local security, spreads disease, undermines rule of 

14 law, fuels corruption, and damages economic devel15 opment. 

16 (3) Combating wildlife trafficking requires a co17 ordinated and sustained approach at the global, re18 gional, national, and local levels. 

19 (4) Congress stated in the Eliminate, Neu20 tralize, and Disrupt Wildlife Trafficking Act of 2016 

21 that it is the policy of the United States to take im22 mediate actions to stop the illegal global trade in 

23 wildlife and wildlife products and associated transna24 tional organized crime. 

25 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con26 gress that the Department of State’s rewards program is 
3 

•HR 97 EH

1 a powerful tool in combating sophisticated international 

2 crime and that the Department of State and Federal law 

3 enforcement should work in concert to offer rewards that 

4 target wildlife traffickers. 

5 SEC. 3. REWARDS FOR JUSTICE. 

6 Subparagraph (B) of section 36(k)(5) of the State 

7 Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 

8 2708(k)(5)) is amended by inserting ‘‘wildlife trafficking 

9 (as defined by section 2(12) of the Eliminate, Neutralize, 

10 and Disrupt Wildlife Trafficking Act of 2016 (16 U.S.C. 

11 7601(12); Public Law 114–231)) and’’ after ‘‘includes’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 15, 2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 97 

AN ACT 

To amend the State Department Basic Authorities 

nized crime, and for other purposes. wildlife trafficking linked to transnational orgaAct of 1956 to authorize rewards for thwarting
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6145

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JUAN BAUTISTA ALOMIA-TORRES, a/k/a Juan Baustista-Alomia, 

a/k/a Luis Antonio Torres, a/k/a Edward Martinez, a/k/a Luis 

Alfredo Martinez, a/k/a John the Jamaican, a/k/a John, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:97-cr-00040-FDW-2; 3:01-CV-301-V-SW) 

Submitted: July 24, 2009 Decided: August 19, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Juan Bautista Alomia-Torres, Appellant Pro Se. Michael E. 

Savage, Jennifer A. Youngs, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Juan Bautista Alomia-Torres seeks to appeal the 

district court’s April 20, 2006, order construing his Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion and dismissing it without prejudice. AlomiaTorres previously sought to appeal this order, but we dismissed 

his appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

See United States v. Alomia-Torres, 286 F. App’x 11 (4th Cir. 

2008) (No. 07-7771). In November 2008, the district court 

granted Alomia-Torres’s October 2007 motion for an extension of 

time to file a notice of appeal from the April 2006 order, 

extending the appeal period until January 23, 2009. AlomiaTorres then filed another notice of appeal. 

 Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the 

district court erred in granting Alomia-Torres’ motion. AlomiaTorres stated in his motion that he received the district 

court’s order on October 5, 2007. He did not file a motion for 

extension or reopening of the appeal period until October 22, 

2007.∗

 Rule 4(a)(6)(B) requires that a motion to reopen the 

appeal period be filed “within 180 days after the judgment or 

 ∗

 We assume that the date appearing on the certificate of 

service attached to the motion is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 497 U.S. 266, 

276 (1988). 

2 
3 

order is entered or within 7 days after the moving party 

receives notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of 

the entry, whichever is earlier.” Here, Alomia-Torres failed to 

file his motion either within seven days of receiving notice of 

the entry of the district court’s order or within 180 days after 

the order was entered. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
# C_2022368EN.01002801.xml

| 26.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/28

---

Action brought on 7 August 2022 — Multiópticas v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Representation of two black geometrical shapes)

(Case T-487/22)

(2022/C 368/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Multiópticas, S. Coop. (Colmenar Viejo, Spain) (represented by: M. López Camba and A. Lyubomirova Geleva, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nike Innovate CV (Beaverton, Oregon, 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: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of two black geometrical shapes) — Application for registration No 18 154 653

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2022 in Case R 1762/2021-4

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 incurred by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant;

| — | order Nike Innovate CV to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Nike Innovate CV to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

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

—

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

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   4-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      31,424,064
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  259,889
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    232,773
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,305,515
<PP&E>                                       8,371,589
<DEPRECIATION>                                 605,110
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              55,375,061
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,924,410
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,216,849
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,028,422
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                55,375,061
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,980
<CGS>                                            4,052
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  319,702
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,398,824
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,744
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,604,455)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,604,455)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### IN the INTEREST OF: J.S., a Minor

1996 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/26/2017

CP-39-JV-0000216-2016 (Lehigh)

Remanded Jurisdiction Retained
# C_2022408EN.01004001.xml

| 24.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/40

---

Action brought on 5 September 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — BRM Extremities (BIOPLAN)

(Case T-543/22)

(2022/C 408/53)

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: BRM Extremities Srl (Milan, Italy)

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 BIOPLAN — Application for registration No 18 095 065

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2022 in Case R 2147/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and to BRM Extremities Srl, in case BRM Extremities Srl decides to intervene in the present proceedings, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and to BRM Extremities Srl, in case BRM Extremities Srl decides to intervene in the present proceedings, 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.

---
No. 11-10606.

#### Simms *v.*Virginia.

Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
# S70-/5 ELECTRONIC RECORD
COA# 05-13-01437-CR OFFENSE: 30.02F1 Stephen Glen Limbaughv. The 

## STYLE: State of Texas COUNTY: Dallas COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: Criminal District Court No. 2 DATE: 06/12/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: F-12-21347-1



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS 

### Stephen Glen Limbaugh v. STYLE: ofTexas The State Petition 

# %no-/£ APP£LLWT*jS FORDISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

### CCA Disposition: DATE: 

## Rcrt/S*P JUDGE: 

## DATE: /vMjLOtT 

# JUDGE: Km /^t^l SIGNED: PC: PUBLISH: DNP:
MOTION FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: 

### ELECTRONIC RECORD
EXHIBIT 99.1




      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.ss.1350


I, Bruce M. Goldberg, President and Chief Executive Officer of All American
Semiconductor, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge:

         (1)      that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of All American
                  Semiconductor, Inc. for the quarterly period ended on
                  September 30, 2002 filed with the Securities and Exchange
                  Commission on the date hereof at File No. 0-16207 (the
                  "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
                  of 1934; and

         (2)      that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
                  in all material respects, the financial condition and results
                  of operations of All American Semiconductor, Inc.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.




Dated: November 13, 2002                    /s/ Bruce M. Goldberg
                                       -------------------------------
                                            Bruce M. Goldberg
PAGE <1>

                                  Exhibit 32.1

                               Pyramid Oil Company

                  Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                        As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                         Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Pyramid Oil Company (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John H. Alexander, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


     Dated: March 30, 2010

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






















PAGE <1>

                                   Exhibit 32.2

                                Pyramid Oil Company

                  Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                        As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                         Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Pyramid Oil Company (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Lee G. Christianson,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



     Date: March 30, 2010

                                                LEE G. CHRISTIANSON
                                                -------------------
                                                Lee G. Christianson
                                              Chief Financial Officer
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 on Form 10-Q (“Form 10-Q”) of Galaxy
Nutritional Foods, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Michael E. Broll, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The
Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.











/s/ Michael E.
Broll


Michael
E. Broll


Chief
Executive Officer


February
11, 2009
EX-10.9





 Certain identified information has been excluded from this exhibit because it is both
not material and is the type that the registrant treats as private or confidential. Information that was omitted has been noted in this document with a placeholder identified by the mark “[***]”. 

Exhibit 10.9 
 AMENDMENT
#2 to the AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 COLLABORATION AND LICENSE AGREEMENT 

This Amendment #2 to the Amended and Restated Collaboration and License Agreement (“Amendment”), effective July 18, 2016 (the
“Amendment #2 Effective Date”), is by and between Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., with headquarters at 7100 NW 62nd Avenue, PO Box 1014,
Johnston, Iowa 50131-1014, USA (“Pioneer”), and Caribou Biosciences, Inc., located at 2929 7th St., Suite 105, Berkeley, California 94710 (“Caribou Bio”) (Caribou Bio and
Pioneer, each individually a “Party”, and together the “Parties”). 
 WHEREAS, the Parties have signed an Amended and
Restated Collaboration and License Agreement dated July 13, 2015 (which as of July 13, 2015, [***] as amended by Amendment #1 to the Amended and Restated Collaboration and License Agreement, dated January 21, 2016. As used in this
Amendment, “Agreement” refers to the Amended and Restated Collaboration and License Agreement, as amended; and 
 WHEREAS, the
Parties desire to further amend the Agreement to clarify certain effects of termination of the Agreement; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual agreements contained in this Amendment, and for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 

 

	1.	 All capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.



  

	2.	 Section 9.3 of the Agreement is hereby amended to include the following Subsection 9.3(c) as of the
Amendment #2 Effective Date: 


  

	“c.	 [***] 


  

	3.	 Section 12.3 of the Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following: “Assigns and
Successors. 


 [***] 
  

	4.	 All other terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. 



 

	5.	 This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, including facsimile or scanned PDF documents.
Each such counterpart, facsimile or scanned PDF document shall be deemed and original instrument, and all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same executed Agreement. 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment #2 to the Amended and Restated Collaboration and License Agreement to be executed
by their respective authorized representatives. 
  

									
	Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.	 		 	Caribou Biosciences, Inc.
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Mathias L. Müller
	 		 	By:	  	 /s/ Rachel E. Haurwitz

	Name: Mathias L. Müller	 		 	Name: Rachel E. Haurwitz
	Title: Director, Business Development	 		 	Title: President and CEO
			
	Date: July 25, 2016	 		 	Date: July 27, 2016
# C_2023252EN.01004602.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cherusci v EUIPO — LexDellmeier (RIALTO)

(Case T-239/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark RIALTO - No genuine use of the trade mark - No proper reasons for non-use - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 252/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Cherusci Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Reinhard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: LexDellmeier Intellectual Property Law Firm (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Bogatz, Y. Stone and C. Dory, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 February 2022 (Case R 695/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cherusci Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cherusci Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERI, M. Michael Owens, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of United States Lime & Minerals, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.          Dated: March 13, 2006 /s/ M. Michael Owens         M. Michael Owens    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer