alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 30, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 19, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1165 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-951, K2025-951.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31154 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-18-00139-CV

JODY LONG APPELLANT

V.

AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL 

DISTRICT LODGE 776; PAUL 

BLACK, IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS PRESIDENTDIRECTING BUSINESS 

REPRESENTATIVE OF DISTRICT 

LODGE 776; AND EARNEST 

BOONE, IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS SECRETARYTREASURER OF DISTRICT 

LODGE 776

APPELLEES

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

FROM THE 342ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 342-295833-17

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

 1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

We have considered “Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal.” It is the 

court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution 

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: PITTMAN, J.; SUDDERTH, C.J.; and WALKER, J.

DELIVERED: July 12, 2018
1852.

#### HARRELL *v.*SOUTHERN STATES PHOSPHATE & FERTILIZER COMPANY.

The verdict rendered not being absolutely demanded by the evidence, this court will not undertake to say that the judge erred in granting a first new trial, and especially will not hold that he abused his discretion in granting it upon a consideration of the newly discovered evidence, which is not merely cumulative and impeaching.

Complaint, from city court of Bainbridge — Judge Harrell. March 24, 1909.

Submitted June 10,- —

Decided July 31, 1909.

*R.*Cr. *Hartsfield,*for plaintiff in error.

*Donalson & Donalson,*contra.

Russell, J.

Harrell was sued as the surviving partner of J. E. Harrell & Son. The only issue in the case was partnership or no partnership. The plaintiff attempted to show that Harrell was in partnership with his deceased father. The defendant testified that he was not, at the time of the creation of the alleged debt or at any other time, a member of the partnership with his father. He did not contend that he had withdrawn from the partnership, but asserted that he had never been a member thereof. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff made a motion for a new trial, on the general and on special grounds, including that of newly discovered evidence. The newly discovered evidence consisted of certain letters written by the defendant to certain dealers in fertilizers, other than the plaintiff, in which he practically admitted that he was a member of the firm of J. E.. Harrell & Son; and it was also shown that on the trial of another *536ease the defendant admitted that he was a member of the partnership. The judge granted a new trial. We do not think that in doing so he abused his discretion. It is true that newly discovered evidence, as a ground for new trial, is not favored; and the newly discovered evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching in character. But the proof of a substantive fact, even though it may be in line with certain evidence at the former trial, and though it may be impeaching of certain testimony offered by the defendant, may nevertheless be more than cumulative and impeaching, in the sense of the statute. It may be of such a character as that it will carry conviction of the justness of that parly’s cause in whose favor it is offered, and produce a different result on another trial. See *G. S. & F. Ry.*v. *Ransom,*5 *Ga. App.*740 (63 S. E. 525); *Andrews*v. *Mitchell,*92 *Ga.*629 (18 S. E. 1017); *Atlanta Con. St. Ry. Co.*v. *Beauchamp,*93 *Ga.*7 (19 S. E. 24); *Fellows*v. *State,*114 *Ga.*233 (39 S. E. 885). In any event, this court will not undertake to say that the trial judge abused his discretion in granting a first new trial, in view of the conflict in the evidence .

*Judgment a'ffirmed.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                              List of Subsidiaries
Subsidiary Name
---------------

    1.   Silverline Technologies, Inc.Silverline Technologies U.K. Limited/(1)/.
    2.   Silverline Technologies (Canada), Inc./(1)/ .
    3.   SeraNova, Inc.
    4.   SeraNova India Pvt Ltd/(2)/
    5.   Network Publishing, Inc./(2)/
    6.   Azimuth Consulting Limited/(2)/
    7.   Azimuth Holdings Limited/(2)/
    8.   Braithwaite Richmond Limited/(2)/
    9.   Azimuth Corporation Limited/(2)/
    10.  Sky Capital International Ltd
    11.  CIT Canada Inc./(1)/.
    12.  CIT Egypt Inc./(1)/.
    13.  SeraNova Mauritius/(2)/.
    14.  SeraNova Limited/(2)/.
    15.  SeraNova New Zealand Limited/(2)/.
    16.  SeraNova Asia Pacific Limited/(2)/.
    17.  SeraNova Holdings Limited/(2)/.
    18.  SeraNova Philippines Inc./(3)/.
    19.  SeraNova (Thailand) Limited/(3)/.
    20.  SeraNova (Hong Kong) Limited/(3)/.
    21.  SeraNova Singapore Private Limited/(3)/.
    22.  SeraNova Holdings Australia Pty Limited/(4)/.
    23.  SeaNova Australia Pty Limited/(5)/.

--------------------------------------------------
(1)  A subsidiary of Silverline Technologies, Inc.
(2)  A subsidiary of SeraNova, Inc.
(3)  A subsidiary of SeraNova New Zealand Limited.
(4)  A subsidiary of SeraNova Holdings Limited
(5)  A subsidiary of SeraNova Holdings Australia Pty Limited
# C_2021490EN.01003702.xml

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Sedus Stoll v EUIPO — Kappes (Sedus ergo+)

(Case T-429/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ - Earlier national word mark ERGOPLUS - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 490/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sedus Stoll AG (Dogern, Germany) (represented by: M. Goldmann and J. Thomsen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, D. Hanf and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wolfgang Kappes (Bochum, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneiders, N. Gottschalk and B. Schneiders, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2020 (Case R 1303/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Kappes and Sedus Stoll.

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 12 March 2020 (Case R 1303/2019-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 March 2020 (Case R 1303/2019-1);

| 2. | Dismisses the appeal brought before EUIPO by Wolfgang Kappes; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the appeal brought before EUIPO by Wolfgang Kappes;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sedus Stoll AG for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sedus Stoll AG for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court;

| 4. | Orders Mr Kappes to bear his own costs and to pay the expenses necessarily incurred by Sedus Stoll for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Kappes to bear his own costs and to pay the expenses necessarily incurred by Sedus Stoll for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---
Order filed August 9, 2022 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00045-CV

____________

MARYAM MOHAMMADI, Appellant

V.

ALBERTSONS, LLC D/B/A RANDALL'S; ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, 

LLC D/B/A RANDALL'S AND RANDALL'S FOOD MARKETS, INC. 

D/B/A RANDALL'S; RANDALL'S FOOD & DRUGS L.P., D/B/A 

RANDALL'S, Appellee

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-51885

ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original Defendant’s Exhibit 1.
The clerk of the 190th District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of 

this court the original Defendant’s Exhibit 1, on or before August 16, 2022.

The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this 

original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; 

and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of Defendant’s 

Exhibit 1, to the clerk of the 190th District Court. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Spain.
[Cite as State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. , 2022
- Ohio
- 1141.]



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO ex rel. BRIAN M. AMES,

Relator

- Appellant,

- v - PORTAGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,

Respondent

- Appellee. CASE NO. 2022 - P - 0013

Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas

Trial Court No. 2019 CV 00878

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Decided: April 4, 2022 Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Brian M. Ames , pro se, 2632 Ranfield Road, Mogadore, OH 44260 (Relator

- Appellant). Victor V. Vigluicci , Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Respondent

- Appellee).
MARY JANE TRAPP, J. {¶1} Appellant , Brian M. Ames , filed a pro se notice of appeal o n February 11 , 20 22 , from a n entry in which the trial court denied his motion for summary judgment

. {¶2} Initially, we must determine if there is a final order since we may entertain only those appeals from final judgments. Noble v. Colwell , 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 96 (1989). Accordi ng to Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, a trial court’s judgment can only be immediately reviewed by an appellate court if it constitutes a “final order

. ” Germ v. Fuerst

, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2003

- L

- 116, 2003

- Ohio

- 6241, ¶ 3. If it is no t final, then an appellate court does not have jurisdiction to review the matter, and the matter2

Case No. 2022

- P

- 0013 must be dismissed. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am. , 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1989). For a judgment to be final and appealable, it must satisfy the requ irements of R.C. 2505.02 and if applicable, Civ.R. 54(B). See Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Tomaiko , 11th Dist. Portage No. 2011

- P

- 0103, 2011

- Ohio

- 6838, ¶ 3. {¶3} Pursuant to R.C. 2505.02(B), there are seven categories of a “final order,” and if the judgment o f the trial court satisfies any of them, it will be deemed a “final order” and can be immediately appealed and reviewed by a court of appeals. {¶4} Here , A mes is appeal ing the trial court’s January 27, 2022 denial of his motion for summary judgment. The trial court’s entry does not fit within any of the categories of R.C. 2505.02. I n fact, “ [a] n order denying a motion for summary judgment is not a final appealable order.” Hitchcock v. Segedy , 11th Dist. Geauga Nos. 200 9

- G

2925 and 2009

- G

- 2926, 2009

- Ohio

- 6035

. Further, mere ly inclu ding Civ.R. 54(B) language into a n otherwise non - final order does not transform it into a final o ne
. Jori, L.L.C. v. B2B Internatl., L.L.C. , 11th Dist. Lake No. 2016

- L

- 046, 2016

- Ohio

- 7162, at ¶ 18. {¶5} A mes will have a meaningful remedy by way of an appeal once a final order is reached as to all claims and parties when the case is decided and/or dismissed. See Johnson v. Warren Police Dept. , 11th Dist. No. 2005

- T

- 0117, 2005

- Ohio

- 6904, at ¶14. {¶6} This appeal is sua sponte dismissed for lack of a final appealable order.

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J. , CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J. ,
concur
.
Rayon PAYNE, Appellant, v. Sandra KOCH, Individually and o/b/o C.P., a Child, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2736

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 5, 2019 Rehearing Denied February 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2020339EN.01000601.xml

| 12.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 23 July 2020 — A SCPI

(Case C-342/20)

(2020/C 339/07)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A SCPI

Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Question referred

Are Articles 49, 63 and 65 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation under which only foreign open-ended investment funds constituted by contract can be regarded as equivalent to Finnish investment funds exempt from income tax, meaning that foreign investment funds established in a legal form other than by contract are subject to withholding tax in Finland, even though there are otherwise no significant objective differences between their situation and that of Finnish investment funds?

---
1

 
     Section 2. Miscellaneous.     (a) All of the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement are incorporated herein by referencewith the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. Except as expressly amended hereby,the Loan Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.     (b) This Amendment shall be governed by and construed and interpreted in accordance with thelaws of the State of New York without regard to principles of conflicts of law.     (c) Borrower hereby (1) unconditionally ratifies and confirms, renews and reaffirms all of itsobligations under the Loan Agreement and all of the terms, covenants and conditions thereunder(except for conditions precedent and any representations or warranties made as of a specific date),(2) acknowledges and agrees that such obligations remain in full force and effect, binding on andenforceable against it in accordance with the terms, covenants and conditions of the LoanAgreement, without impairment and (3) represents, warrants and covenants that it is not in defaultunder the Loan Agreement or any of the other Loan Documents beyond any applicable notice and cureperiods, and there are no defenses, offsets or counterclaims against the Indebtedness.[Signatures Appear on Following Page]
2

 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is herebyacknowledged and agreed, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment as of thedate first hereinabove set forth.             **BORROWER****:**               W2007 ACEP SEVENTH MEZZANINE A    BORROWER, L.P., a Delaware limitedpartnership               By: W2007 ACEP Seventh Mezzanine A Gen-    Par, L.L.C., its general partner                 By: /s/ David Gutstadt                 Name: David Gutstadt        Title: Vice President               W2007 ACEP SEVENTH MEZZANINE B    BORROWER, L.P., a Delaware limitedpartnership               By: W2007 ACEP Seventh Mezzanine B Gen-    Par, L.L.C., its general partner                 By: /s/ David Gutstadt                 Name: David Gutstadt        Title: Vice President  [Signatures continue on following page]Stratosphere
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John
Lennon, President and Chief Executive 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) and 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.

/s/ JOHN LENNON
-------------------------------------
John Lennon
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 15, 2006
Jarrod SCORDATO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4077

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2020161EN.01002501.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 2 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 22 January 2020 — RH v AB Volvo and Others

(Case C-30/20)

(2020/C 161/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 2 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RH

Defendants: AB Volvo, Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH, Volvo Lastvagnar AB, Volvo Group España, S. A.

Question referred

Should Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which establishes that a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State: ‘... in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’, be interpreted as establishing only the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State for the aforesaid place, meaning that the national court with territorial jurisdiction within that State is to be determined by reference to domestic rules of procedure, or should it be interpreted as a combined rule which, therefore, directly determines both international jurisdiction and national territorial jurisdiction, without any need to refer to domestic regulation?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

---
---

Summary of Guaranty Contract of Maximum Amount ( the Contract) Entered into by and between Xiangqian Li and Shenzhen Longgang Branch, Bank of China (the Creditor) Dated May 3, 2011

Main contents:

- Guaranty Contract number: 2011 Zhenzhongyin Gang Baoxiezi 000212-1;
- Xiangqian Li undertakes to assume joint and several liabilities for Shenzhen
BAK Battery Co., Ltd (the Obligor)s indebtedness towards Bank of China under the Comprehensive Credit Facility Agreement of Maximum Amount (reference no.: 2011 Zhenzhongyin Gang Exiezi 000212) from May 3, 2011 to May 3, 2012, and
the maximum amount secured is RMB 450 million.
- Guaranty Responsibility: The guaranty under this Contract shall be guaranty with joint and several liabilities. The guarantor is obligated to pay off the debt in the event the obligor is unable to pay off the debt (including the
creditor declares the debt becomes mature in advance to its original expiry date due to default of the obligor or the guarantor).
- Scope of Guaranty:The guaranty shall cover all of the loan principal, interest, penalty interest, breach of contract compensation, damages, undertaking fee and all the expenses such as litigation cost, lawyers fee,
notification cost and public notice cost etc. which is incurred to the Creditor in realizing its creditors right.
- Guaranty period: The guaranty period is from the effective date of this Contract to two years after the expiry of the term of the Credit Facility Agreement and relevant agreement entered into under the Credit Facility Agreement.

Headlines of the articles omitted:

- Payment on demand
- Declaration and guaranty
- Remedies for breach of contract
- Right reserved
- Modification, amendment and termination of the Contract
- Disputation settlement
- Attachment
- Supplement articles
- Validity

---
ACCEPTED

01-14-00888-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

2/5/2015 9:39:27 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/5/2015 9:39:27 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk