alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(10)
              - products_publications(55)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_image(20)
              - multimedia_image-141771(20)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(2)
              - news_news-149245(3)
              - (-)news_news-149248(1)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(2)
              - alaska(2)
              - arizona(2)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(3)
              - colorado(2)
              - connecticut(2)
              - delaware(2)
              - district of columbia(2)
              - florida(3)
              - georgia(2)
              - guam(3)
              - hawaii(3)
              - idaho(1)
              - illinois(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - louisiana(4)
              - maine(2)
              - maryland(2)
              - massachusetts(2)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - mississippi(2)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(2)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(2)
              - new hampshire(2)
              - new jersey(3)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(4)
              - north carolina(2)
              - north dakota(1)
              - (-)ohio(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - rhode island(2)
              - south carolina(3)
              - south dakota(1)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(4)
              - u.s. virgin islands(2)
              - utah(3)
              - vermont(1)
              - virginia(2)
              - washington(2)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(1)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

National News Release        May 13, 2014        Coral Reefs are Critical for Risk Reduction & Adaptation
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 0004

_____________________________
E LLIS D ALE F ORD , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County

. Timothy Register , Judge

. April 11, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , M AKAR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________

Henry Mark Sims
, Public Defender, Marianna, for Appellant.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Steven Edward Woods
, Assistant Attorney Ge neral, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# C_2021310EN.01002601.xml

| 2.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2021 — Magnetec v EUIPO (CoolTUBE)

(Case T-481/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark CoolTUBE - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 310/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Magnetec — Gesellschaft für Magnettechnologie mbH (Langenselbold, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2020 (Case R 1755/2019-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign CoolTUBE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 May 2020 (Case R 1755/2019-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 May 2020 (Case R 1755/2019-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Magnetec — Gesellschaft für Magnettechnologie mbH, including the costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Magnetec — Gesellschaft für Magnettechnologie mbH, including the costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.

---
# C_2021035EN.01003601.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 13 November 2020 — AS Pilsētas zemes dienests v Latvijas Republikas Saeima

(Case C-598/20)

(2021/C 35/48)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AS Pilsētas zemes dienests

Institution from which the contested measure emanated: Latvijas Republikas Saeima

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the exemption from value added tax for the leasing of immovable property provided for in Article 135(1)(l) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that that exemption applies to the leasing of land in the case of compulsory leasing? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the exemption from value added tax for the leasing of immovable property provided for in Article 135(1)(l) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that that exemption applies to the leasing of land in the case of compulsory leasing?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative — that is to say that the leasing of land in the case of compulsory leasing is exempt from value added tax — then, where all other instances of the leasing of land are subject to value added tax, is such an exemption not contrary to one of the principles of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, namely the principle of neutrality of value added tax? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative — that is to say that the leasing of land in the case of compulsory leasing is exempt from value added tax — then, where all other instances of the leasing of land are subject to value added tax, is such an exemption not contrary to one of the principles of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, namely the principle of neutrality of value added tax?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
ORDER Page 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IN RE: § CASE NO. 22-30500-swe7

DENNIS JAMES ROGERS II, § 

 Debtor. § CHAPTER 7 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

AREYA HOLDER AURZADA, § 

CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE FOR THE § 

BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF § 

DENNIS JAMES ROGERS II § 

 Plaintiff, § 

 § 

v. § Adversary No. 24-03028 

 § 

FUNDERZ.NET, LLC, § 

 Defendant. § 

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Trustee’s Complaint (the “Motion to

Dismiss”) filed by Defendant Funderz.Net, LLC (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 5). Since the filing of 

the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 20) and a Notice of

United States Bankruptcy Judge

______________________________________________________________________

Signed August 2, 2024

The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

Case 24-03028-swe Doc 22 Filed 08/02/24 Entered 08/02/24 18:01:59 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
ORDER Page 2 

Mootness regarding the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 21).

It is well established that a later-filed amended complaint moots a motion asking the Court

to dismiss an earlier-filed complaint. See Griffin v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co., 697 F. App’x 793, 797 

(5th Cir. 2017) (“Once filed, that amended complaint rendered all earlier motions ... moot.”); see 

also Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-00139-JRG, Dkt. No. 40 

(E.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2021) (“Once Plaintiff filed its amended complaint, the Motion became moot.”);

Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. Eaton Corp. PLC, No. 2:19-CV-00290-JRG, 2019 WL

11250161, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2019) (“Accordingly, the filing of an amended complaint 

moots a motion to dismiss the original complaint.”).

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 5) should be and hereby

is DENIED-AS-MOOT. 

# # # END OF ORDER # # #

Case 24-03028-swe Doc 22 Filed 08/02/24 Entered 08/02/24 18:01:59 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
EX PARTE Michael A. QUALLS

CR-16-1097

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.
# C_2021242EN.01003601.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Kerckhoff (APO)

(Case T-282/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark APO - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 242/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Apologistics GmbH (Markkleeberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hug and S. Schreiber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Markus Kerckhoff (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2020 (Case R 982/2019-5), concerning invalidity proceedings between M. Kerckhoff and Apologistics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Apologistics GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Apologistics GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.

---
# C_2023235EN.01003101.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission

(Case T-451/20) (1)

(Competition - Data market - Administrative procedure - Article 18(3) and Article 24(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Request for information - Virtual data room - Obligation to state reasons - Legal certainty - Rights of the defence - Necessity of the information requested - Misuse of powers - Right to privacy - Proportionality - Principle of good administration - Professional secrecy)

(2023/C 235/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd, formerly Facebook Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: D. Jowell KC, D. Bailey, Barrister, J. Aitken, D. Das, S. Malhi, R. Haria, M. Quayle, Solicitors, and T. Oeyen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, C. Urraca Caviedes and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: S. Costanzo, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 3011 final of 4 May 2020 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) and to Article 24(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40628 — Facebook Data-related practices), as amended by Commission Decision C(2020) 9231 final of 11 December 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.

---
EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATIONS 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 on Form 20-F of Tata Communications Limited, a
limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of India (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the
undersigned officers of the Company certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to such officers best knowledge, that:

1. the Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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 as of, and for, the periods presented in the report.

The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying
with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.

Date: August 15, 2012



/s/    Vinod
KumarVinod KumarManaging Director and Group CEO/s/    Sanjay
BawejaSanjay BawejaChief Financial Officer
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 Digital Network International Alliance, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Eppie Wong Yuk Ping, CFO and a director 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Eppie Wong Yuk Ping



Eppie Wong Yuk Ping,

 CFO and a director

March 31, 2006
# C_2021310EN.01000802.xml

| 2.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/8

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège — Belgium) — VT v Centre public d'action sociale de Liège (CPAS)

(Case C-641/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Return decision - Judicial remedy - Provisional right of residence and social assistance during the period in which the appeal is pending)

(2021/C 310/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VT

Defendant: Centre public d'action sociale de Liège (CPAS)

Operative part of the order

Articles 5 and 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in the light of Article 19(2) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Article 14(1)(b) of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not confer automatic suspensory effect on an action brought by a third-country national against a return decision, within the meaning of Article 3(4) of that directive, concerning him, after the withdrawal by the competent authority of his refugee status pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, and, correlatively, does not confer on that third-country national a provisional right to reside and to have his basic needs taken care of until a decision on that action is taken, in the exceptional case where that national, who is affected by a serious illness, may, as a result of that decision being enforced, be exposed to a serious risk of grave and irreversible deterioration in his state of health. In this context, the national court, hearing a dispute the outcome of which is linked to the possible suspension of the effects of the return decision, must hold that the action brought against that decision has automatic suspensory effect, where that action contains arguments, that do not appear to be manifestly unfounded, seeking to establish that the enforcement of that decision would expose the third-country national to a serious risk of grave and irreversible deterioration in his state of health.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.

---
Lamont James WILLIAMS v. STATE

CR-16-0287

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2020279EN.01002101.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 16 March 2020 — AC v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-148/20)

(2020/C 279/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AC

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Questions referred

Is Directive (EU) 2016/681 (1) compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) in relation to the following points:

| (1) | Are the PNR data to be transferred under the directive sufficiently specified, having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Are the PNR data to be transferred under the directive sufficiently specified, having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter?

| (2) | In view of its scope and having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive provide for sufficient objective differentiation when PNR data are collected and transferred, in relation to the type of flights and the threat level in a particular country and in relation to the comparison against databases and patterns? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In view of its scope and having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive provide for sufficient objective differentiation when PNR data are collected and transferred, in relation to the type of flights and the threat level in a particular country and in relation to the comparison against databases and patterns?

| (3) | Is the blanket, indiscriminating retention period for all PNR data compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter? |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Is the blanket, indiscriminating retention period for all PNR data compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter?

| (4) | Having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive provide for adequate procedural protection of passengers in respect of the use of retained PNR data? |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive provide for adequate procedural protection of passengers in respect of the use of retained PNR data?

| (5) | Having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive adequately safeguard the level of protection of European fundamental rights when PNR data are transferred to third country authorities by third countries? |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive adequately safeguard the level of protection of European fundamental rights when PNR data are transferred to third country authorities by third countries?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 132).

---
**Exhibit 10.2**

 

AMENDMENT TO STOCK AGREEMENT 

 

This AMENDMENT TO STOCK AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is dated as of April 12, 2004. 

 

PREAMBLE 

 

Reference is made to that certain Stock Agreement (the “Stock Agreement”) dated as of September 24, 2003and by and among Pioglobal First Russia, Inc., a Delaware corporation and indirect majority owned subsidiary of Harbor Global Company Ltd., a Bermuda limited duration company, Pioglobal Omega, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and indirectwholly owned subsidiary of Parent, and Maria Churaeva, an individual (the “Subscriber”). 

 

The Pioglobal First Russia, Inc. was converted to and formed as a limited liability company having the name Pioglobal First Russia, LLC (the“Company”) under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the “Act”) on April 12, 2004 upon the filing of a Certificate of Conversion by Pioglobal First Russia, Inc, pursuant to Section 266 of the DelawareGeneral Corporation Law, and the filing by the Company of its Certificate of Formation with the Delaware Secretary of State pursuant to the Act. 

 

In connection with such conversion and formation of the Company, each issued and outstanding share of common stock, $.01 par value per share, of PioglobalFirst Russia, Inc. (the “Common Stock”) has been converted into the right to receive one (1) voting unit of the Company (each a “Unit” and collectively the “Units”), and upon the delivery to theCompany of one or more stock certificate(s) representing such shares of Common Stock, the Subscriber will be issued one (1) Unit of the Company in exchange for every one (1) share of Common Stock so surrendered. 

 

The Subscriber, as a stockholder and director of Pioglobal First Russia,Inc., has consented to the conversion of the Company into a Delaware limited liability company. 

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

 

1. All of the representations, warranties, acknowledgements, covenants and agreements made by the Subscriber in the StockAgreement shall relate to the Units from and after the conversion and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Company and its successors and assigns. 

 

2. All of the continuing obligations of Pioglobal First Russia, Inc., if any, shall be the obligations of the Company.

 

[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to Stock Agreement to be executed as ofthe date first set forth above. 

 
COMPANY:PIOGLOBAL FIRST RUSSIA, LLCBy: 
/s/ Donald H. Hunter
Name: Donald H. HunterTitle: TreasurerMAJORITY STOCKHOLDERPIOGLOBAL OMEGA, LLCBy: 
/s/ Donald H. Hunter
Name: Donald H. HunterSUBSCRIBERBy: 
/s/ Maria Churaeva
Name: Maria Churaeva
 

2