alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




Axion
      Power International, Inc.


3601
      Clover Lane


NewCastle,
      PA 16105




We
      consent to the inclusion of the financial statements of Axion Power
      International, Inc. and our report dated April 3, 2008,except for the
      restatement in notes 8 and 10 to the consolidated financial statements, as
      to
      which the date is May 12, 2008 with respect to the consolidated financial
      statements and schedules of Axion Power International, Inc included in its
      Amended Annual Report (Form 10KSB/A) for the years ended December 31, 2007
      and
      2006, and for the period for the date of inception (September 18, 2003) through
      December 31, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.









Rochester,
      New York


May
      12, 2008
No. 10-6439.

#### David J. Washington, Petitioner v. Larry W. Propes.

562 U.S. 1032, 131 S. Ct. 574,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8800,

178 L. Ed. 2d 419,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 293.
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 Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2010 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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, as amended; 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 15, 2010/s/ Michael R. Feinsod
Michael R. Feinsod
Chief Executive Officer
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30468

 

JOEY FOX; YOLAND FOX,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

versus

BP AMERICA, INCORPORATED; BP EXPLORATION & OIL INC

Defendants-Appellees

****************************************************************

No. 97-30589

JOEY FOX; YOLAND FOX

Plaintiffs-Appellants

versus

DUAL DRILLING COMPANY, ET AL

Defendants

PORTER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,

doing business as International

Paint Protective Coatings;

COURTAULDS COATINGS INCORPORATED

Defendants-Appellees

 

Appeals from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(94-CV-1485) 

 

November 3, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See Local Rule 47.6.
# C_2016090EN.01001401.xml

| 7.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Gugler France v OHIM — Gugler (GUGLER)

(Case T-674/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark GUGLER - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Ground raised by the Court of its own motion))

(2016/C 090/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gugler France (Besançon, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alexander Gugler (Maxdorf, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 October 2013 (Case R 356/2012-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Gugler France and Mr Alexander Gugler.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 October 2013 (Case R 356/2012-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 October 2013 (Case R 356/2012-4);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Gugler France in the course of the proceedings before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Gugler France in the course of the proceedings before the Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

1

---
# C_2018152EN.01003402.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/34

---

Order of the General Court of 21 February 2018 — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack v EUIPO — Cryo-Save (CryoDafe)

(Case T-482/13) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2018/C 152/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG (Billerbeck, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Cryo-Save AG (Freienbach, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2013 (Case R 1759/2012 4), relating to opposition proceedings between Cryo-Save AG and MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action;

| 2. | MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG and Cryo-Save AG are ordered to jointly and severally to bear the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

2.

MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG and Cryo-Save AG are ordered to jointly and severally to bear the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 3. | MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG et Cryo-Save AG are ordered to bear their own costs in accordance with the terms of their agreement. |
| --- | --- |

3.

MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG et Cryo-Save AG are ordered to bear their own costs in accordance with the terms of their agreement.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17580]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-626-000]


Viking Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

June 26, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 19, 1998, as supplemented on June 24, 
1998, Viking Gas Transmission Company (Applicant), 825 Rice Street, 
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55117, filed in Docket No. CP98-626-000 a request 
pursuant to Section 157.205, 157.212 and 157.216 of the Commission's 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and 157.211) for 
approval to replace facilities at an existing delivery point, located 
in Polk County, Wisconsin, to accommodate natural gas deliveries to 
Wisconsin Gas Company (Wisconsin Gas), under Applicant's blanket 
certificate issued in Docket Nos. CP82-414-000 and CP88-679-000, 
pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), all as more 
fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and 
open to public inspection.
    Applicant states that Wisconsin Gas has requested meter capacity up 
to 3,500 Mcf of natural gas per day at the dresser delivery point in 
Polk County, Wisconsin; therefore, Applicant proposes to add a three-
inch positive displacement meter, data acquisition equipment, and 
associated piping to this delivery point. Applicant asserts that 
Wisconsin Gas has agreed to reimburse Applicant for these additional 
facilities. Applicant further asserts that it has sufficient capacity 
in its system to accomplish delivery of gas to the proposed delivery 
point without detriment or disadvantage to Applicant's other customers.
    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 45 days of the 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.214), a motion to intervene and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the 
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activities shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, 
the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17580 Filed 7-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Skip directly to site content Skip directly to search


Español  Other Languages


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People
 Search

		Submit


Project Connect








Case Study – Detroit						Print
																Related Pages
					The Michigan Public Health Institute (MPHI) collaborated with staff at three schools to implement Project Connect in an area of Detroit, Michigan with high youth rates of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and pregnancy.
Case Study - Detroit Download the Detroit Project Connect Case Study
							
					
							Last Reviewed:  April 1, 2020						Source: 	Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
					Facebook
        Twitter
        LinkedIn
        Syndicate homeProject Connect
Implementation Guideplus icon
Overview, Challenge, and Core Components
The Road Map – Key Action Steps
Sustainability, Lessons Learned, and Conclusion
Case Studiesminus icon
Detroit
Los Angeles
Tools


About CDC
					Contact Us
					800-232-4636
 Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Youtube Pinterest Snapchat
 CONTACT CDC
				Contact Us
							Call 800-232-4636
							Email Us
			ABOUT CDC
				About CDC
							Jobs
							Funding
			POLICIES
				Accessibility
							External Links
							Privacy
							Policies
							No Fear Act
							FOIA
							OIG
							Nondiscrimination
							Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			CONNECT WITH US
				Facebook
								Twitter
								Instagram
								LinkedIn
							Youtube
								Pinterest
								Snapchat
								Email
			LANGUAGES
				Español
							繁體中文
							Tiếng Việt
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский
							العربية
							Kreyòl Ayisyen
							Français
							Polski
							Português
							Italiano
							Deutsch
							日本語
							فارسی
							English


U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
			Accessibility
			External Links
			Privacy
			Policies
			No Fear Act
			FOIA
			Nondiscrimination
			OIG
			Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			USA.gov


Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy Close
 Links with this icon  indicate that you are leaving the CDC website. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
				Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
				You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
				CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website. Website Disclaimers
 Cancel Continue
No. 10-7344.

#### Noah Childs Gordon, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1096, 131 S. Ct. 808,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9460.

178 L. Ed. 2d 540,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 679.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), the undersigned, Corey M. Horowitz, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify to his knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 of the Company (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: August 16, 2010





/s/ Corey M. Horowitz

Corey M. Horowitz

Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
The Hon. Richard S. Arnold st epped down as Chief Judge of the United States 1 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circ uit at the close of business on April 17, 1998. He has been succeeded by the Hon. Pasco M. Bowman II. The Hon. Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the S outhern District 2 of Iowa, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-3755EM

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * On Appeal from the * United States District Court v. * for the Eastern District * of Missouri. * Douglas W. Russell, * [Not To Be Published.] * Appellant, *

___________ Submitted: April 17, 1998 Filed: April 27, 1998

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOL D, Chief Judge, LOKEN, Circuit Judge, and PRATT, 1 2 District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM.The Hon. George F. Gunn, Jr., United States District Judge for the Easter n 3 District of Missouri. -2- In this a ppeal, the defendant, Douglas W. Russell, challenges the sentenc e imposed upo n him by the District Court for one count of possession o f 3 methamphetamine with inte nt to distribute. Defendant complains that the government broke it s plea agreement with him when it failed to file a motion for downwar d departu re under § 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. We disagree. Defendan t hi mself committed material breaches of the plea agreement. In these circumstances , the government was not obliged to file a downward-departure motion.
Affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JOHNNY JUNIOR GRAHAM,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D21-770

September 17, 2021

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Sarasota County; Donna M. Padar, Judge.

Johnny Junior Graham, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, BLACK, and STARGEL, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3725-3726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1699]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-1181-000]


Consumers Energy Company; Notice of Filing

January 20, 1998.
    Take notice that on December 23, 1997, Consumers Energy Company 
(Consumers), tendered for filing service agreements for unbundled 
wholesale power service pursuant to the Consumers' Power Sales Tariff 
filed on December 31, 1996 and accepted for filing on September 12, 
1997 in Docket No. ER97-964-000 with the following customers:

1. Commonwealth Edison Company
2. Electric Clearing House, Inc.
3. Williams Energy Services Company

    Copies of the filed agreements were served upon the Michigan Public 
Service Commission and the respective customers.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing 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). All such motions 
or

[[Page 3726]]

protests should be filed on or before February 2, 1998. 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. 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.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1699 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 09-11193.

#### Ulisses Montes-Gutierrez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 866, 131 S. Ct. 156,

178 L. Ed. 2d 94,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6764.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 368 Fed. Appx. 808.
# Letter from the Director: DLA Disposition Services 50th Anniversary

/ Published Jan. 3, 2022
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Team,It is hard to believe that I have been at the helm of the Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services for the better half of a decade and as we approach September 12, we embark on the 50-year anniversary of the creation of the Defense Property Disposal Service.After several reorganizations and name-changes, DPDS would eventually transform into DLA Disposition Services. As we celebrate our organization’s historic anniversary this year, we are reflecting on our many triumphs and accomplishments.DLA Disposition Services has had a storied history in the 50 years since its creation. The major subordinate command has provided direct support to every military action since the Vietnam War.Expeditionary civilians from Disposition Services often dwarfed the number of other DLA employees supporting the warfighter. In 2010 for example, more than half of all DLA’s overseas expeditionary deployments were sourced by Disposition Services civilian personnel and military reservists mobilizing to support our military.In addition to supporting military actions, Disposition Services has provided immense resources to humanitarian assistance efforts worldwide. These ongoing efforts have provided access to shelter, power generation, and even complete hospital units to communities in need.Take a moment and visit our anniversary page that will help guide you through our organization’s many accomplishments and will serve to illuminate the important roles that Disposition Services has provided to our nation. We are immensely proud of all that we all have accomplished throughout the generations of individuals who have served Disposition Services.Please take a moment to appreciate all that we have accomplished and celebrate our achievements with us as we excitedly anticipate another 50 years serving our great nation.MICHAEL O. CANNON, SES, DoDDirector, DLA Disposition Services
COUNTY COURT —ERIE COUNTY.

October 8, 1924.

#### THE PEOPLE v. JOSEPH DOMAGALA.

(123 Misc. 757.)

Motor vehicle — Operating while intoxicated — Highway Law, | 290, STARTING MOTOR CONSTITUTES OPERATION.

The starting of a motor in an automobile constitutes operation of the automobile within the . meaning of subdivision 3 of section 290 of the Highway Law, which provides that any person who operates a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, therefore, the defendant was properly convicted under that subdivision since it appears that he, while intoxicated, started the motor in his automobile, which was facing the curb, and attempted to start the automobile but failed to do so because the motor stalled when the automobile came in contact with the curb.

Appeal from a judgment of conviction.

*William J. Bullion,*for the appellant.

*Guy B.*Moore, district attorney *(William H. Hartzberg,*assistant district attorney, of counsel), for the respondent.

Noonan, J.:

From a judgment of conviction for violating section 290, subdivision 3, of the Highway Law, which reads as follows, “ Whoever operates a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,” an appeal has been taken to this court.

About three-thirty p.m. two police officers found the respondent, in an intoxicated condition, in his automobile, which was parked directly across the street, with the front wheels squarely against the curb.

*514It is obvious that the judgment of conviction must stand or fall upon the construction given to the word “ operate.” Having in mind the meaning given to “ operate ” in similar cases, the following definitions are applicable in this case: “ To put in action and supervise the working of: as *to operate a machine ”*(29 Cyc. 1496; Standard Dict.) ; “ cause to move or perform the acts desired; as *to operate a machine"*(Cent. Dict.) ; “ to bring about a specified result ” (29 Cyc. 1496).

The respondent started his motor six different times, and every time, when he attempted to throw it into gear*, the motor stalled. Counsel for the respondent insists that the law was not violated until or unless the automobile was moved along the *street.*This claim is clearly untenable. Under any of the above definitions, the respondent began to violate the law the instant he began to manipulate the machinery of the motor for the purpose of putting the automobile into motion. The fact that the motor was not powerful enough to force the automobile over the curb without stopping is no defense.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Let an order be entered accordingly.

Ordered accordingly.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 EAGLEPICHER HOLDINGS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES
EXCLUDING EAGLEPICHER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 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 EaglePicher Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the period ended November 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Bert Iedema, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 result of operations of the Company. /s/ BERT IEDEMA
    
    Date: March 14, 2005Bert Iedema, President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 10-6950.

#### In re Michael S. Gorbey, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1028, 131 S. Ct. 587,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8736,

178 L. Ed. 2d 428,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.