alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015107EN.01002601.xml

| 30.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2015 — Vita Phone v OHIM — (LIFEDATA)

(Case T-318/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark LIFEDATA - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of specific assessment - Duty to state reasons))

(2015/C 107/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Vita Phone GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: P. Ruess and A. Doepner-Thiele, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Marten and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2013 (Case R 1072/2012-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark LIFEDATA as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vita Phone GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vita Phone GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JERRY HOANG,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., all board of

directors, officers and unknown owners,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-35799

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01013-JCC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 24, 2016** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Jerry Hoang appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

quiet title action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of

FILED

MAR 04 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hoang’s action because Hoang failed

to allege facts sufficient to state any claim for relief. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l

Trust Co. v. Slotke, — P.3d — , 2016 WL 107783, at *5 (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 11,

2016) (holding trustee for a mortgage backed security into which plaintiff’s loan

had been transferred had authority to commence foreclosure proceedings and that

plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the validity of the assignment into the trust);

Walker v. Quality Loan Service Corp., 308 P.3d 716, 728 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013)

(rejecting the argument that the naming of Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc. as beneficiary renders a deed of trust void). 

The district court properly denied Hoang’s motion to remand because it had

subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)

(setting forth requirements for diversity jurisdiction).

We do not consider Hoang’s arguments raised for the first time in his reply

brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]rguments not

raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-35799
# Profiles in Resiliency: Michael Watson

/ Published Oct. 31, 2016
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 
Resiliency is one of the Defense Logistics Agency’s five core values: Integrity, Resiliency and Diversity, Innovation, Accountability and Excellence. Resiliency is the foundation for agency leaders’ actions in support of their customers and employees. It provides employees flexibility to adapt to changing environments while achieving outstanding results. 

DLA has produced a series of videos titled “Profiles in Resiliency,” to help support employees’ ability to bounce back and move forward.

Michael Watson, supervisory program analyst at DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pa., served in the U.S. Army for seven and a half years prior to beginning his career in federal service. During his time in active duty, he engaged in ground combat which made a lasting impression on him emotionally and has impacted his personal and professional life. He decided to elicit help from DLA’s Employee Assistance Program. Sharing his feelings helped Watson to progress into a place of resiliency and emotional wellness.

View more about Watson’s journey.
No. 09-10544.

#### Christopher Ysais, Petitioner v. New Mexico, et al.

562 U.S. 1086, 131 S. Ct. 689,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9161.

178 L. Ed. 2d 518,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

*519Former decision, 562 U.S. 846, 131 S. Ct. 88, 178 L. Ed. 2d 56, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5824.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         PARAGON CORPORATE HOLDINGS INC.
                SUBSIDIARIES of the REGISTRANT at MARCH 15, 2001


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Jurisdiction
                                                 of Incorporation
Subsidiaries (1)                                 or Organization                    Parent Company
----------------------------------------       ---------------------      ------------------------------------

<S>                                               <C>                       <C>
A. B. Dick Company                                   Delaware               Paragon Corporate Holdings Inc.

A. B. Dick Company of Canada, Ltd.                    Canada                      A. B. Dick Company

A. B. Dick N.V.                                      Belgium                      A. B. Dick Company

A. B. Dick Netherlands B.V.                        Netherlands                    A. B. Dick Company

A. B. Dick B.V.                                    Netherlands                    A. B. Dick Company

A. B. Dick  U.K. Limited                          United Kingdom                  A. B. Dick Company

Itek Graphix Corp.                                   Delaware                     A. B. Dick Company

CI, Inc.                                             Delaware               Paragon Corporate Holdings Inc.
</TABLE>


(1)  Each of the subsidiaries listed is 100% owned by its parent company.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                              24
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    24
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      24
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,830
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        70,092
<OTHER-SE>                                   (146,689)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        24
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,682
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,544
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (57,226)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (57,226)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.032)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.032)


</TABLE>
AEPWCABHA ABIAIIIAHA ~ ' STATE AVIATION 

CJIY)KSA YKPAIHH ♦ ADMINISTRATION 

(AEP2KABIACJIYWI&A YKPAIHH) ' ~ ► ~ OF UKRAINE 

Yxpaixa, 01135, M. KHis, np. RepeMorH, 14 

Ten:+38(044) 461-54-01 

(Daxc:+38(044) 486-92-92 

Be6: www.avia.gov.ua 

E-mail: vdz@avia.gov.ua 

3.26-10079 

03.06.2015 

14, Peremogy ave., 01135, Kyiv, Ukraine 

Tel.: +38(044) 461-54-01 

Fax: +38(044)486-92-92 

Web: www.avia.gov.ua 

E-mail: vdz@avia.gov.ua 

Mr. Paul L.Gretch 

Director 

Office of International Aviation 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington DC 20591 

Dear Mr. Gretch, 

The State Aviation Administration of Ukraine presents its compliments to you and 

taking into account the U.S. Department of Transportation's rule requiring a 

statement of reciprocity every six months with respect to charter applications filed 

by Ukrainian airlines to the U.S. Department of Transportation would like to confirm 

that it will accord the same privileges to U.S. airlines to operate cargo charter flights 

with Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Freedom to the extent that the U.S. Department of 

Transportation grants reciprocal privileges to Ukrainian airlines according to the 

submitted applications. 

Yours sincerely, 

Mykola Melnichenko, 

Deputy Chairman 

008522
#### Robert Mears et al., Respondents, v Christopher Long, Also Known as Chris Long, et al., Appellants.

[52 NYS3d 124]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hudson, J.), dated May 14, 2015, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike their answer and for leave to enter a default judgment against them based on their failure to comply with court-ordered discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The nature and degree of the sanction to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is within the broad discretion of the motion court *(see Parker Watchman, LLP v Laraia,*131 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2015]; *Lazar, Sanders, Thaler & Assoc., LLP v Lazar,*131 AD3d 1133 [2015]; *Wolf v Flowers,*122 AD3d 728 [2014]). The striking of a pleading may be appropriate where there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands or court-ordered discovery is willful and contumacious *(see Lucas v Stam,*147 AD3d 921 [2017]; *Shah v Oral Cancer Prevention Intl., Inc.,*138 AD3d 722, 724 [2016]; *Lazar, Sanders, Thaler & Assoc., LLP v Lazar,*131 AD3d at 1133; *Brandenburg v County of Rockland Sewer Dist. #1, State of N.Y.,*127 AD3d 680, 681 [2015]). The willful and contumacious character of a party’s conduct can be inferred from the *824party’s repeated failure to comply with discovery demands or orders without a reasonable excuse *(see Lucas v Stam,*147 AD3d 921 [2017]; *Lazar, Sanders, Thaler & Assoc., LLP v Lazar,*131 AD3d at 1134; *Brandenburg v County of Rockland Sewer Dist. #1, State of N.Y.,*127 AD3d at 680).

Here, the defendants’ willful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from their repeated failures, without an adequate excuse, to comply with discovery demands and the Supreme Court’s discovery orders *(see Lucas v Stam,*147 AD3d 921 [2017]; *Parker Waichman, LLP v Laraia,*131 AD3d at 1216; *Lazar, Sanders, Thaler & Assoc., LLP v Lazar,*131 AD3d at 1134; *Brandenburg v County of Rockland Sewer Dist. #1, State of N.Y.,*127 AD3d at 680). Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer and for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants.

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
AMENDMENT TO SUBORDINATED TERM LOAN NOTE BETWEEN RMD
    INSTRUMENTS, LLC AND DYNASIL CORPORATION OF AMERICA:
                      DECEMBER 19, 2008


The $2 million Subordinated Term Loan Note dated September
30, 2008 between RMD Instruments, LLC and Dynasil
Corporation of America is hereby amended as follows:

The Maturity Date in paragraph one is changed from March 31,
2009 to October 1, 2009.

All other terms remain unchanged.


     RMD INSTRUMENTS, LLC

By: ___/s/ Gerald Entine____________________
       Gerald Entine
       President



     DYNASIL CORPORATION OF AMERICA

By: ___/s/ Craig T. Dunham__________________
       Craig T. Dunham
       President
No. 10-6011.

#### Allen Dale Cutshaw, Petitioner v. Tennessee.

562 U.S. 970, 131 S. Ct. 477,

178 L. Ed. 2d 302,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7958.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Division, denied.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 22-60319

Summary Calendar

____________

Miguel Soto Hinojos, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A034 574 483

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

Miguel Soto Hinojos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his 

appeal from the denial of his application for withholding of removal and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 6, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60319 Document: 00516810324 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2023
No. 22-60319

2

We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s 

decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 

220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial 

evidence and legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. 

Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Soto Hinojos has abandoned all issues raised for review by failing to 

adequately brief them. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 

2003). While Soto Hinojos contends that he demonstrated that he was 

entitled to withholding of removal, the brief fails to address the BIA’s finding 

that he waived any challenge to his withholding claim by not presenting it to 

the immigration judge. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 

813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Similarly, with respect to his CAT claim, 

Soto Hinojos fails to address the BIA’s conclusion that he waived any 

challenge to the immigration judge’s finding that he could safely relocate 

within Mexico to avoid torture. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. Moreover, 

Soto Hinojos’s scant and conclusory argument regarding his CAT claim fails 

to offer supporting record citations or to explain how the cited legal 

authorities support his argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).

Accordingly, Soto Hinojos’s petition for review is DENIED. 

Additionally, the Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED, and 

retained counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED as unnecessary. 

Case: 22-60319 Document: 00516810324 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2023
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17395]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
clearance the following proposal for collection of information under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13 (44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)).
    Bureau: International Trade Administration.
    Title: American Management and Business Internship Training (AMBIT) 
Program: Applications.
    Agency Form Number: None.
    OMB Number: 0625-0224.
    Type of Request: Regular Submission.
    Burden: 1,050 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 450.
    Avg. Hours Per Response: Range from 1 to 3 hours.
    Needs and Uses: The U.S. Department of Commerce's International 
Trade Administration, in collaboration with the International Fund for 
Ireland (IFI), has established the American Management & Business 
Internship Training (AMBIT) program. AMBIT-participating U.S. firms 
provide one-to six-month training programs for managers and technical 
experts from Northern Ireland and the Border Counties of Ireland, 
thereby improving their skills while enhancing U.S. commercial 
opportunities in the region. AMBIT is one of several U.S. Government 
economic initiatives announced by President Clinton to demonstrate 
America's interest in supporting the economic development of Northern 
Ireland and the Six Border Counties of Ireland.
    The U.S. Department of Commerce works in partnership with the IFI, 
and organization established in 1986 by the British and Irish 
Governments to promote economic/social progress and to encourage 
contact, dialog, and reconciliation in the region. The United States, 
the European Union, Canada, and New Zealand contribute to the IFI 
budget.
    The applications are sent to U.S. companies and intern candidates 
via facsimile or mail upon request. Feedback surveys are given to 
participating companies and interns at the completion of the programs.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit, not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit, 
voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Victoria Baecher-Wassmer, (202) 395-7340.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, Departmental Forms Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5327, 14th and 
Constitution, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days to Victoria Beacher-Wassmer, 
OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: June 25, 1998.
Madeleine Clayton,
Management Analyst, Office of Management and Organization.
[FR Doc. 98-17395 Filed 6-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DA-U
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 1256

MICHAEL HODGES

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

KIARA HARRIS

,

Defendant

- Appellee

,

and

ASHLEY K. TUNNER, Judge; J. BELL, Agent DCSE; PATRICIA R. BATLEY, Court Clerk,

Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. David J. Novak , District Judge. ( 3:19

- cv

- 00955

- DJN )

Submitted : August 25, 2020 Decided: August 27, 2020

Before KING and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael Hodges, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Michael Hodges appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his

complaint as frivolous and /or for fail ure to state a claim. * We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Hodges v . Harris , No. 3:19

- cv

- 00955

- DJN (E.D. Va. Feb. 6, 2020 & Feb. 25, 2020).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

* Although the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC , 959 F.3d 605, 61 1 (4th Cir. 2020).
# C_2013325EN.01001403.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 12 August 2013 — Germanwings GmbH v Ronny Henning

(Case C-452/13)

2013/C 325/25

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Germanwings GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Ronny Henning

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

What time is relevant for the term ‘time of arrival’ used in Articles 2, 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91: (1)

1

| (a) | the time that the aircraft lands on the runway (‘touchdown’); |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the time that the aircraft lands on the runway (‘touchdown’);

| (b) | the time that the aircraft reaches its parking position and the parking brakes are engaged or the chocks have been applied (‘in-block time’); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the time that the aircraft reaches its parking position and the parking brakes are engaged or the chocks have been applied (‘in-block time’);

| (c) | the time that the aircraft door is opened; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the time that the aircraft door is opened;

| (d) | a time defined by the parties in the context of party autonomy. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

a time defined by the parties in the context of party autonomy.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2014361EN.01000801.xml

| 13.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/8

---

Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)

(Case T-722/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for revocation - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 361/09

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Directv Group, Inc. (El Segundo, United States) (represented by: F. Valentin, 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 of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bolloré (Ergué Gabéric, France) (represented by: S. Legrand, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2013 (Case R 1960/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Bolloré and The Directv Group, Inc.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the defendant and the intervener. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the defendant and the intervener.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.

1

---