alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Joel Grossbarth, as Successor in Interest to Tognino & Grossbarth, LLP, Respondent, v Dankner, Milstein and Ruffo, P.C., Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 627]

In a proceeding to recover an attorney’s fee, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Loehr, J.), dated April 30, 2015, which granted the petition to the extent of finding that the petitioner was entitled to a determination of his fee on a quantum meruit basis and his disbursements and directing the commencement of discovery.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of a judgment in the action entered December 16, 2016 *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(Matter of Grossbarth v Dankner, Milstein & Ruffo, P.C.,*157 AD3d 681 [2018] [decided herewith]; *see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; *Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d at 248).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
# C_2014112EN.01003501.xml

| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/35

---

Action brought on 10 December 2013 — Petco Animal Supplies Stores v OHIM — Gutiérrez Ariza (PETCO)

(Case T-664/13)

2014/C 112/47

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. (San Diego, United States) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Domingo Gutiérrez Ariza (Malaga, 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 decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 October 2013 given in Case R 347/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 October 2013 given in Case R 347/2013-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

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 word mark ‘PETCO’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 31 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 10 114 081

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: Community trade mark No 9 062 902 for the figurative mark in red and white containing the verbal element ‘PETCO’ for goods and services in Classes 31 and 35

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Accepted the appeal in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arya Ramcharan, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 879]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered October 27, 2015, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur— Acosta, P.J., Sweeny, Gische, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 287 

To prohibit oil and gas leasing on the outer Continental Shelf off the coast 

of New England. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2019 

Mr. CICILLINE (for himself, Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts, Mr. COURTNEY, 

Ms. DELAURO, Mr. GOLDEN, Mrs. HAYES, Mr. HIMES, Mr. KEATING, 

Mr. KENNEDY, Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. 

LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. LYNCH, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MOULTON, 

Mr. NEAL, Mr. PAPPAS, Ms. PINGREE, Ms. PRESSLEY, Mrs. TRAHAN, 

and Mr. WELCH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit oil and gas leasing on the outer Continental 

Shelf off the coast of New England. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘New England Coastal 

5 Protection Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 287 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING ON THE 

2 OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OFF THE COAST 

3 OF NEW ENGLAND. 

4 Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

5 (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(q) PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN

8 CERTAIN AREAS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.— 

9 Notwithstanding any other provision of this section or any 

10 other law, the Secretary may not issue a lease for the ex11 ploration, development, or production of oil or natural gas 

12 in any area of the outer Continental Shelf off the coast 

13 of the State of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 

14 Rhode Island, or Connecticut.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
                
                Defense Logistics Agency
                        The Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency
                    DLA
            Search
                        Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                            Search
                    Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                        Search
    Home

    What DLA Offers
    
        Excess Property Disposal

    Document Services

    Products

    Services

    Programs

    Working With DLA
    
        Applications

    Small Business

    Federal and International Cataloging

    Defense Data Standards

    Events

    Procurement Policies

    Government Programs

    Forms

    Organizations
    
        DLA Headquarters

    DLA Aviation

    DLA Disposition Services

    DLA Distribution

    DLA Energy

    DLA Land and Maritime

    DLA Troop Support

    DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM

    DLA Europe & Africa

    DLA Indo-Pacific

    Customer Support
    
        Self Help Tools

    How to Order

    Find Your Order

    Customer Facing Offices

    Training

    Brochures

    Warfighter Support

    Customer Service Management

    Careers

    About DLA
    
        Contact Us

    Locations

    Leaders

    News

    History

    Media Gallery

    DLA Campaigns  Home
  Land and Maritime
  About
  DLA Land and Maritime Image Galleries
 DLA Land and Maritime images
 Supply Chain Alliance and Exhibition
 DLA Land and Maritime News
 Hall of Fame Ceremonies
 DSCC Activities
 DLA Land and Maritime Hall of Fame ceremonies
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.85 MB)
 
 #DLALandandMaritime #HallofFame #Classof2023 #Classof2022 #hof23
 Photo Gallery
 2024 DLA Supply Chain Alliance Conference and Exhibition Image Gallery
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.85 MB)
 
 #DLALandandMaritime #HallofFame #Classof2023 #Classof2022 #hof23
 Photo Gallery
 DLA Land and Maritime news
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.85 MB)
 
 #DLALandandMaritime #HallofFame #Classof2023 #Classof2022 #hof23
 Photo Gallery
 DSCC activities
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.85 MB)
 
 #DLALandandMaritime #HallofFame #Classof2023 #Classof2022 #hof23
 Photo Gallery
 Contact UsSite IndexStrategic PlanDLA IG HotlineFOIANo FEAR ActWhistleblower ProtectionDLA CareersImagesWebmasterEEOSection 508Public AffairsSAPRExternal Links DisclaimerDOD Information Quality GuidelinesPrivacy/SecurityUSA.govDOD Web PolicyDOD Open GovernmentPlain Language
                    Stay Connected
            
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
No. 10-6962.

#### Terry R. James, Petitioner v. Fiesta Food Mart, Inc.

562 U.S. 1072, 131 S. Ct. 667,

178 L. Ed. 2d 497,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9428.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 393 Fed. Appx. 220.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20184 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAYMUNDO GARCIA-GARZA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-564-1

-------------------- October 29, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Raymundo Garcia-Garza (“Garcia”) has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Garcia has not responded to the motion. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
No. 10A422.

#### Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc., et al., Applicants v. Lori Swanson, Attorney General of Minnesota, et al.

562 U.S. 997, 131 S. Ct. 446,

178 L. Ed. 2d 347,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8329.

October 29, 2010.

Application for an injunction pending appeal, presented to Justice Alito, and by him referred to the Court, denied.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STEVEN D. HARRIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-1238

[January 7, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Sherwood Bauer, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 432003CF000563A.

Steven D. Harris, Chipley, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 31.1: Rule 13a-14(a) Certification  I, Yuan Gang, certify that:  1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of China Junlian Integrated Surveillance, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this  report;  3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this  report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this  report;  4.  The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer and have:  a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,  to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this  report is being prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5.  The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to  adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting.  Date: May 14, 2007 /s/ Yuan Gang Yuan Gang, Chief Executive Officer
# C_2014024EN.01002702.xml

| 25.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/27

---

Action brought on 8 November 2013 — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure v OHIM — Gauff (Gauff THE ENGINEERS WITH THE BROADER VIEW)

(Case T-586/13)

2014/C 24/49

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: G. Schneider-Rothhaar, 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: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

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 taken by the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Appeal Case R 118/2003-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision taken by the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Appeal Case R 118/2003-1);

| — | refer the case back to OHIM with the recommendation to restore it to its previous state; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to OHIM with the recommendation to restore it to its previous state;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘THE ENGINEERS WITH THE BROADER VIEW’ for goods and services in Classes 11, 19, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 and 42 — application for Community trade mark No 10 028 082

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word sign and the Community word sign ‘Gauff’ and the German figurative mark and the Community figurative mark ‘GAUFF’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 44

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: rejection of the application for restoring the case to its previous state and rejection of the action as being inadmissible

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 81 of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
No. 10-541.

#### Orly Taitz, Petitioner v. Thomas D. MacDonald, et al.

562 U.S. 1137, 131 S. Ct. 918,

178 L. Ed. 2d 751,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 491.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 368 Fed. Appx. 949.
No. 10-7400.

#### Jennie D. Rhodes, Petitioner v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security.

562 U.S. 1153, 131 S. Ct. 941,

178 L. Ed. 2d 780,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 146.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 375 Fed. Appx. 653.
# C_2014061EN.01001401.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/14

---

Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Brammer v OHIM — Office Ernest T. Freylinger (EUROMARKER)

(Case T-683/13)

2014/C 61/24

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Brammer GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. Kornfeld, 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: Office Ernest T. Freylinger SA (Strassen, Luxembourg)

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:

in so far as the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) also confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division of 4 July 2012, in that it upheld the opposition also for the supply of services in Class 38 and in Class 42,

| — | find that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) made an error; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) made an error;

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2013 in Case R 1653/2012-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2013 in Case R 1653/2012-1;

| — | order the defendant OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Brammer GmbH

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EUROMARKER’ for services in Classes 38, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application Nr 9 852 849

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Office Ernest T. Freylinger SA

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘EURIMARK’ for services in Classes 35, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark No 5 850 111

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

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

Pleas in law:

---
No. 10-247.

#### Cathie Weller, Individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of James Hetherington, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 898, 131 S. Ct. 362,

178 L. Ed. 2d 150,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6239.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 379 Fed. Appx. 910.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16729]


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

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, June 25, 1998.

PLACE: Board Conference Room, Eighth Floor, 1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C., 20419.

STATUS: The meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Agency caseload and case processing.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Robert E. Taylor, Clerk of 
the Board, (202) 653-7200.

    Dated: June 18, 1998.
Robert E. Taylor,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-16729 Filed 6-18-98; 4:41 pm]
BILLING CODE 7400-01-M
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00290-CV

Audelia Villanueva Sepulveda

v.

Maria Alicia Sepulveda

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 8 of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CL-13-2024-H

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION in accordance with its opinion. Costs of 

the appeal are adjudged against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 11, 2014
No. 10-7090.

#### John Tyrone Blocker, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1053, 131 S. Ct. 623,

178 L. Ed. 2d 452,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8862.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 612 F.3d 413.
No. 10-5762.

#### Rico Duvall Cole, III, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1181, 131 S. Ct. 994,

178 L. Ed. 2d 832,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 818.

January 18, 2011.

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

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 295.