alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013123EN.01002001.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/20

---

Action brought on 21 February 2013 — Laboratoires Polive/OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (dodie)

(Case T-122/13)

2013/C 123/33

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoires Polive (Levallois Perret, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arbora & Ausonia, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision rendered by the second Board of Appeal on 28 November 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision rendered by the second Board of Appeal on 28 November 2012;

| — | Order the OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark (in colour) ‘dodie’, for goods in classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 037 821

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish and Portuguese trade marks of the word mark ‘DODOT’ for goods in classes 3, 5, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 44

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, upheld the opposition and rejected the trade mark applied for in relation to certain goods in classes 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2013336EN.01003202.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/32

---

Action brought on 23 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-93/13)

2013/C 336/72

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision to calculate the accrual of pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations unlawful and, therefore, inapplicable; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations unlawful and, therefore, inapplicable;

| — | Annul the decision of 3 October 2012 to accredit the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, in the context of their transfer into the pension scheme applicable to staff of the European institutions, pursuant to the General Implementing Provisions (‘the GIP’) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 3 October 2012 to accredit the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, in the context of their transfer into the pension scheme applicable to staff of the European institutions, pursuant to the General Implementing Provisions (‘the GIP’) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00470-CR

Tommie Edwin Jones, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 57873, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Tommie Edwin Jones, Jr. has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. We grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal.

 

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: September 21, 2005

Do Not Publish
2
# C_2015236EN.01003602.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Giovanni Cosmetics v OHIM — Vasconcelos & Gonçalves (GIOVANNI GALLI)

(Case T-559/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark GIOVANNI GALLI - Earlier Community word mark GIOVANNI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctive character of a first name and a surname))

(2015/C 236/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Giovanni Cosmetics, Inc. (Rancho Dominguez, California, United States) (represented by: J. van den Berg and M. Meddens-Bakker, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vasconcelos & Gonçalves, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 August 2013 (Case R 1189/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Giovanni Cosmetics, Inc. and Vasconcelos & Gonçalves, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Giovanni Cosmetics, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Giovanni Cosmetics, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

1

---
Norfolk’s Mayfield selected as Field Grade Officer of the Quarter
 
  By DLA Distribution Public Affairs
  Navy Lt. Cmdr. Christopher Mayfield, Defense Logistics Agency Norfolk, Va., chief of staff and chief financial officer, has been awarded the Distribution Field Grade Officer of the Quarter award for fourth quarter, fiscal year 2015.  “A leader who is respected by juniors, peers, and seniors alike, Lt. Cmdr. Mayfield consistently displayed superior leadership and executive management skills as the chief of staff, deftly working a myriad of issues in all aspects and locations of the command,” said Navy Capt. Harry Thetford, the organization’s commander.  Mayfield leads the day-to-day operations of 630 personnel across nine locations in four states, who execute an average of 86,000 transactions monthly, in addition to supporting Navy industrial and program management organizations.  He proactively arranged customer outreach events, which greatly enhanced customer knowledge of DLA capabilities, and improved communication and customer support.  A prime example of this was an engagement with Marine Corps logistics personnel, which improved support processes and significantly enhanced support to Marine Expeditionary Units deployed onboard Navy amphibious vessels.  Additionally, Mayfield arranged and led Distribution Norfolk employee tours of Navy warships.  “This initiative enhanced employee morale, and helped our workforce better understand how what they do each and every day directly supports shipboard operations,” said Thetford.  As the chief financial officer, Mayfield is responsible for personnel resources, financial resources, training, and travel.  “As a direct result of his proactive efforts, the time to fill vacant positions has been greatly reduced, and our new employee course was revitalized to ensure everyone gets off to a great start,” said Thetford.  Mayfield’s comprehensive review of over 670 billets provided a holistic picture of manning status that enabled informed management decisions.  “Lt. Cmdr. Mayfield’s leadership and contributions toward Global Distribution Excellence are unsurpassed,” concluded Thetford.
Exhibit 32.1



                            Section 906 Certification


I, Richard L. Hannigan, Sr., Chief Executive Officer and President of Voyager
Entertainment International, Inc., certify that (i) the attached annual report
on Form 10-KSB of Voyager Entertainment International, Inc. for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2006 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 Form 10-KSB Report for said period in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Voyager Entertainment
International, Inc.

/s/ Richard L. Hannigan, Sr.                            Dated: April 10, 2007
- ----------------------------                                 --------------
Richard L. Hannigan, Sr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
<Page>

                                                                    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 quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gary C. Granoff, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ GARY C. GRANOFF
----------------------------------------------
Gary C. Granoff
President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer

November 14, 2003
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4688

_____________________________
MV S ENIOR M ANAGEMENT , LLC

, Appellant,

v.

R EDUS F LORIDA H OUSING , LLC,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from t he Circuit Court for Duval County

. Adrian G. Soud , Judge

.
March 20, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. Upon review of the record and Appellant’s response to our order to show cause on jurisdiction, we find that the claim remaining pending below is interrelated with the claim on appeal, depriving us of jurisdiction. The order on appeal disposes of only count one of Appellee ’ s two

- count third

- party complaint against Appellant. Count one seeks contractual and common

- law indemnity . Count two, still pending below and stayed p ending this appeal, alleges breach of contract for Appellant’s failure to obtain insurance and indemnify Appe llee. Both counts relate to the same underlying tort claim against Appellee, and both counts arise out of the same management agreement between the two parties to this appeal. This is a classic case of a piecemeal appeal. See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb , 304 So. 2d 97, 99

- 100 (Fla.2 1974) (holding that piecemeal review is disfavored and the lower tribunal should rule on all interrelated claims to avo id the potential need for successive appeals).

This appeal does not fall within the scope of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k), allowing immediate appeals of certain partial final judgments. That rule requires that the cause of action disposed o f in the order appealed not be “interdependent with other pleaded claims
, ” and that is not the case here. Id.; see also Fla. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. v. Peacock’s Excavating Serv., Inc. , 186 So. 3d 6 , 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (dismissing appeal for lack of j urisdiction where claim still pending below involved same facts and contracts as the order appealed).

D ISMISS ED

.
R OWE , K ELSEY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion und er Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

R. Daniel Noey and Wesley D. Fina of Schutt, Schmidt & Noey, Jacksonville
, for Appellant.

W. Douglas Childs and Brian M. Pederson of Childs, Hester & Love, P.A., Jacksonville

, for Appellee Redus Florida Housing, LLC.
No. 10-6781.

#### Edward Faye Parks, Petitioner v. Edgewater Casino, et al.

562 U.S. 1093, 131 S. Ct. 799,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9538,

178 L. Ed. 2d 534,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10-6480.

#### Roosevelt Washington, Petitioner v. Michael Wilson.

562 U.S. 1048, 131 S. Ct. 607,

178 L. Ed. 2d 443,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8891,

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Order entered July 30, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00023-CR

ABEY BELETTE GIRMA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-59177-T

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-599

In Re: RONALD MCGILL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CA-98-272-5-F-3)

Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 22, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald McGill, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald McGill has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus

seeking to have this court compel the District Court for the

Eastern District of North Carolina to either issue a writ of habeas

corpus or grant his motion for either a temporary restraining order

or a preliminary injunction. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be

used only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States

Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Because McGill’s habeas

corpus petition has been transferred to the District Court for the

District of South Carolina, his petition for mandamus relief is

moot. Accordingly, although we grant McGill’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny his petition for mandamus relief. We also

deny McGill’s motions for a temporary restraining order and/or a

preliminary injunction, to dispense with the requirement of a security bond, and for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
# C_2018152EN.01005901.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/59

---

Order of the General Court of 26 February 2018 — Deloitte Consulting v Commission

(Case T-688/13) (1)

1

(2018/C 152/69)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.

1

---
#### Com. v. Holley

05/03/2016

74 MAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 135 A.3d 668
# C_2013207EN.01005902.xml

| 20.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/59

---

Action brought on 26 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-38/13)

2013/C 207/101

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to calculate the applicant’s accredited pension rights, acquired before he took up his post, on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare unlawful Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare unlawful Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | annul the decision of 18 June 2012 to calculate accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant before he took up his post, in connection with the transfer of those rights into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, on the basis of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 18 June 2012 to calculate accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant before he took up his post, in connection with the transfer of those rights into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, on the basis of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
1

Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:07 PM

To: 'Info@uvt.email'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - Unmanned Vehicle Technologies, LLC

Dear Mr. Fink:  

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA‐2015‐

1124).  This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.  

* Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e. ‐ fixed‐wing,rotorcraft, lighter‐than‐air) for the

proposed UAS operation.  The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload).  This

information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). .  

Please submit the additional information (non‐proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e‐mail to

333exemptions@faa.gov.  If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information

described above by 7/1/2015.  If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying

you further.  

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267‐9521.  

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202‐267‐9521
No. 10-150.

#### Bruce Carneil Webster, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1091, 131 S. Ct. 794,

178 L. Ed. 2d 531,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9507.

December 6, 2010.

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

Same case below, 605 F.3d 256.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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, David C. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer 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, 2008 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.


/S/ DAVID C. KAHN
-----------------------
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
AUGUST 13, 2008
No. 10-6481.

#### Gerard D. Grandoit, Petitioner v. The Physician Network, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 1132, 131 S. Ct. 976,

178 L. Ed. 2d 744,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 590.

January 10, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
No. 10-378.

#### Celester Cedric Edwards, Petitioner v. Alabama.

562 U.S. 1063, 131 S. Ct. 649,

178 L. Ed. 2d 480,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9346.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama denied.

Same case below, 75 So. 3d 1228.