alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020045EN.01009001.xml

| 10.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/90

---

Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipement)

(Case T-840/19)

(2020/C 45/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. van Werven, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) and Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Tinnus Enterprises

Design at issue: European Union design No 1431 829-0005

Contested decision: Interim Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 in Case R 1008/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision to suspend the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal and decide that said proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall continue; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision to suspend the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal and decide that said proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall continue;

| — | to join the current case before the General Court with the cases before the General Court in cases R 1006/2018-3, R 1005/2018-3, R 1010/2018-3 and R 1009/2018-3 lodged by Koopman International simultaneous with this action; |
| --- | --- |

—

to join the current case before the General Court with the cases before the General Court in cases R 1006/2018-3, R 1005/2018-3, R 1010/2018-3 and R 1009/2018-3 lodged by Koopman International simultaneous with this action;

| — | order Tinnus Enterprises to pay Koopman International’s costs and fees. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Tinnus Enterprises to pay Koopman International’s costs and fees.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘legal certainty’; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘legal certainty’;

| — | The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘economy of proceedings’; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘economy of proceedings’;

| — | The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘sound administration’; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘sound administration’;

| — | The Board of Appeal did not correctly balance the interests of all parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal did not correctly balance the interests of all parties.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00557-CV

IN RE Rebekah KILLION

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 30, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On May 30, 2023, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The next day, Relator 

filed a motion to stay trial. On June 1, 2023, we granted the motion to stay the pending trial, and 

we requested a response from Real Party in Interest. After considering the petition, Real Party in 

Interest’s Second Amended Response, and the record, we conclude Relator is not entitled to the 

relief sought. Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8(a). Our June 1, 2023 stay of the then-pending trial is lifted. Relator’s August 18, 2023 

motion for sanctions is denied.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020-CI-11671, styled In the Matter of the Marriage of Matthew Killion

and Rebekah M. Killion, pending in the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The Honorable Laura

Salinas, Presiding Judge of the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, signed the order that is the subject 

of Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
# C_2021462EN.01001701.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — Telekom Deutschland GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen

(Case C-34/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications - Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 - Article 3 - Open internet access - Article 3(1) - End users’ rights - Article 3(2) - Prohibition of agreements and commercial practices limiting the exercise of end users’ rights - Article 3(3) - Obligation of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic - Possibility of implementing reasonable traffic management measures - Additional ‘zero tariff’ option - Limitation on bandwidth)

(2021/C 462/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Telekom Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that a limitation on bandwidth, on account of the activation of a ‘zero tariff’ option, applied to video streaming, irrespective of whether it is streamed by partner operators or other content providers, is incompatible with the obligations arising from Article 3(3).

---

(1)  OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.

---
Lauren M. COUBERT, Appellant, v. James BARNETT and Richard Barnett, Appellees.

No. 1D18-86

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 19, 2018 Rehearing Denied January 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Levi Junior MOSLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1586

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 28, 2018.

Levi Junior Mosley, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - (-)news_news-149249(1)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - (-)connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - california(1)
              - colorado(1)
              - massachusetts(1)

## By Year

              - 2024(2)
              - 2023(2)
              - 2022(2)

Technical Announcement        April 12, 2016        USGS Continues to Write History

staff profileJacob E Poletti, M.S.

staff profileRoger Borcherdt

staff profileAdrian M Bender

staff profileMichelle Guy

staff profileMichael Pribil

staff profileClaudia Flores
D'Angelo BROWN, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Annette V. BROWN, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0321

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2018

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's order dated September 4, 2018, and with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and LINDSEY, JJ., concur.
Scott W. MCDOWELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1314

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
1

Filed 6/8/15 P. v. Randall CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not be en certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.



## COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUSTIN O ’ NEAL RANDALL,

Defendant and Appellant. C076559

(Super. Ct. No. CM038288,

CM038867)

On February 27, 2013, defendant Justin O ’ Neal Randall pried open the window of

a residence, entered, and stole items from the home, including money.

On March 5, 201 3 , defendant and two o ther males entered an inhabited residence.

One of the men pointed a firearm at the inhabitant. They stole a laptop computer,

PlayStation game console, and a television.

Defendant pleaded no contest to first degree robbery (Pen. Code, § § 211, 213,

subd . (a)(1) (A) ) 1 and first degree burglary ( § 459)

, and admitted a strike allegation

( § 1170.12, subds. (a)

- (d))

. The trial court sentenced defendant to a stipulated term of 14

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

years eight months in state prison, imposed various fines and fees, ordered $3,44 5 and

$ 680 in victim restitution, and awarded 428 days of presentence credit (373 actual and 55

conduct).

Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal. 3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental

brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed

and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination

of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more

favorable to defendant

.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

RENNER , J.

We concur:

HULL , Acting P. J.

MAURO , J.
Rolando JENKINS, DOC #522996, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-4684

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 9, 2019

Rolando Jenkins, pro se.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laurie Benoit-Knox, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Jerry D. Chase, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Lantronix, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Lantronix, Inc.







Date:
September 10, 2010
By:
/s/ JERRY D. CHASEName: Jerry D. Chase

Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer











I, Reagan Y. Sakai, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Lantronix, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Lantronix, Inc







Date:
September 10, 2010
By:
/s/ REAGAN Y. SAKAIName: Reagan Y. Sakai

Title:   Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00371

- CR

Jacob Owen Edwards

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§

§ From County Criminal Court No. 2

o f Denton County (CR

- 2014

- 09118

-

B )

October 26, 2017

Per Curiam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has conside red the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>



                                   EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Capital Growth Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Scott Allen, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
Company.

Date:  April 14, 2004

                                            /s/ Scott Allen
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Scott Allen, Chief Executive
                                            Officer and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and is
not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 10.6

AMENDMENT TO PREFERRED STOCK RIGHTS AGREEMENT



---

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed in their names and on their behalf by and through their duly authorized officers, as of this 18day ofOctober, 2001.

|Integrated Telecom Express, Inc. |  | Fleet National Bank  
|-------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|                                 |  |                      
|/s/ James Williams               |  | /s/ Michael J. Connor
|By:                              |  | James Williams       
|Title:                           |  | CFO                  
|                                 |  |                      
|                                 |  |                      
|                                 |  |                      
|                                 |  |                      
|                                 |  |                      
|                                 |  |                      

---

QuickLinks
Eddie PACE, Appellant, v. COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INC., Appellee.

No. 4D17-3887

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 20, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_education(17)
              - science_faqs(14)
              - science_science(750)
              - products_data(356)
              - products_maps(78)
              - products_publications(4311)
              - products_software(12)
              - products_web_tools(51)
              - multimedia_audio(105)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(96)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(9)
              - multimedia_before_after(17)
              - multimedia_image(1659)
              - multimedia_image-141769(49)
              - multimedia_image-141770(14)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1466)
              - multimedia_image-141772(11)
              - multimedia_image-141774(8)
              - multimedia_image-141775(73)
              - multimedia_image-141776(27)
              - multimedia_image-204460(5)
              - (-)multimedia_image-207195(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(20)
              - multimedia_video(419)
              - multimedia_video-149194(144)
              - multimedia_video-149195(141)
              - multimedia_video-149196(26)
              - multimedia_video-149197(35)
              - multimedia_video-149198(17)
              - multimedia_video-149225(7)
              - multimedia_webcam(22)
              - multimedia_webcam-141785(16)
              - (-)multimedia_webcam-141786(4)
              - documents_file(41)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149208(6)
              - documents_file-149210(2)
              - documents_file-149212(1)
              - documents_file-149214(6)
              - documents_file-149216(4)
              - documents_file-149217(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(10)
              - documents_file-149222(3)
              - news_news-149245(99)
              - news_news-149246(8)
              - news_news-149248(28)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(51)
              - news_newsletters(17)
              - news_other_news(101)
              - connect_social_media(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(104)
              - other_basic-37(3)
              - other_basic-42(55)

## By Location

              - california(3)

## By Year

Screenshots        April 11, 2024        QR code for Alaska Flood Observation Facebook Group

Screenshots        April 11, 2024        QR code for DGGS Photo Database of Flooding in Alaska

webcam        September 23, 2021        San Lorenzo River at Big Trees State Park, CA

webcam        May 17, 2022        Truckee River at Boca Bridge near Truckee, CA

webcam        September 23, 2021        Merced River at Happy Isles Bridge, Yosemite, CA

webcam        September 23, 2021        Eel River at Fernbridge, CA
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350







In connection with the filing of the Annual Report of First Northern Community Bancorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Owen J. Onsum, the chief executive officer of the Company, certify pursuant to section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge,





(i)  the Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Owen J. OnsumOwen J. Onsum





March 29, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.2

          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 IPEC Holdings Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shawn C. Fabry,
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.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request


Date:  November 14, 2003              /S/ SHAWN C. FABRY
                                      ----------------------------------
                                      Shawn C. Fabry
                                      Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 30, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-10512

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

MARVIN CLARENCE PRESLEY

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:93-CR-99-2-K

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marvin Clarence Presley appeals the sentence imposed

following the revocation of his supervised release. He argues

for the first time on appeal pursuant to Blakely v. Washington,

124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and United States v. Williams, 343 F.3d

423 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 966 (2003), that his

sentence should not have exceeded one year of imprisonment

because his underlying conspiracy conviction was only a Class E

felony. 
No. 04-10512

-2-

Neither Blakely nor Williams, however, plainly supports the

determination urged by Presley either that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1)

creates an additional aggravated offense for every offense in the

United States Code or that the statutory maximum for purposes of

felony classification under 18 U.S.C. § 3559 is the top end of an

offender’s guideline range, as opposed to the maximum term of

imprisonment authorized by the statute. Consequently, Presley

has not demonstrated plain error on the part of the district

court. See United States v. Vasquez, 216 F.3d 456, 459 (5th Cir.

2000).

AFFIRMED.
REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER OF TAMPA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Michael WARD, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4918

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.