alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021310EN.01003102.xml

| 2.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/31

---

Order of the General Court of 16 June 2021 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT9)

(Case T-423/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark GT9 - Earlier EU figurative mark GT - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Relevant public - Level of attention - Action manifestly well founded)

(2021/C 310/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 (Case R 1610/2019 4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe and Huawei Technologies.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 April 2020 (Case R 1610/2019-4) is annulled. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 April 2020 (Case R 1610/2019-4) is annulled.

| 2. | EUIPO shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EUIPO shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.

---
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 45 Filed 08/29/02 Page 1 of 1 PageID 179
# C_2018042EN.01002502.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/25

---

Order of the General Court of 27 November 2017 — HeidelbergCement v Commission

(Case T-902/16) (1)

1

((Actions for annulment - Competition - Concentrations - Grey cement market in Croatia - Decision to initiate the in-depth examination phase pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Act not amenable to review - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 042/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz, P. Pichler and H. Weiß, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and T. Vecchi, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6591 final of 10 October 2016 to initiate the in-depth examination phase, pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, aimed at assessing the compatibility with the internal market of the acquisition of the control of Cemex Hungária Építőanyagok Kft. and Cemex Hrvatska d.d. by HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement KG through Duna-Dráva Cement Kft.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | HeidelbergCement AG is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

HeidelbergCement AG is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.

1

---
Rick MARTIN v. STATE

CR-16-0546

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 1, 2017 Reh. denied September 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0281. HOWELL F. WRIGHT v. NJUN HOLDING, LLC et al.

Howell F. Wright filed this direct appeal from the trial court’s order awarding

OCGA § 9-15-14 attorney fees. Such awards, however, must be appealed by

application for discretionary review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (10); Jones v. Padgett,

186 Ga. App. 362, 363 (2) (367 SE2d 88) (1988). Wright’sfailure to comply with the

discretionary appeal procedure deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider this

direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

October 13, 2017

10/13/2017
Case 3:03-cv-00718-B Document 1 Filed 04/08/2003 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:03-cv-00718-B Document 1 Filed 04/08/2003 Page 2 of 10
Case 3:03-cv-00718-B Document 1 Filed 04/08/2003 Page 3 of 10
Case 3:03-cv-00718-B Document 1 Filed 04/08/2003 Page 4 of 10
Case 3:03-cv-00718-B Document 1 Filed 04/08/2003 Page 5 of 10
Case 3:03-cv-00718-B Document 1 Filed 04/08/2003 Page 6 of 10
Case 3:03-cv-00718-B Document 1 Filed 04/08/2003 Page 7 of 10
Case 3:03-cv-00718-B Document 1 Filed 04/08/2003 Page 8 of 10
Case 3:03-cv-00718-B Document 1 Filed 04/08/2003 Page 9 of 10
Case 3:03-cv-00718-B Document 1 Filed 04/08/2003 Page 10 of 10
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 Trend Mining Company (the "Company") on
Form  10-KSB/A  for the  year  ended  September  30,  2005,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P.
Ryan, Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge:

         (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.

February 23, 2006


/s/ John P. Ryan
-------------------------------
John P. Ryan
Principal Financial Officer
Daniel JOSEY v. STATE

CR-16-0594

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 4, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Mark P. MONROE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3791

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 1, 2019

Mark P. Monroe, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Lewis, Rowe, and Makar, JJ., concur.
Case 4:03-cv-00422-A Document 28 Filed 07/01/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID 164
Jerry SPEED, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0440

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
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:*                         January 7, 2025.                    

# 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 26, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1201 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-999, K2025-998.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00027 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
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 Avaya Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Anthony J. Massetti, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
knowledge, 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.



|                                                                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                   
|/S/    ANTHONY J.
MASSETTI                                                                         
|Anthony J. Massetti Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

December 7, 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 Digital Network International Alliance, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 2004 (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

April 15, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SCOTT M. SEIDEL, TRUSTEE; and 

GNET ATC, LLC

Plaintiffs,

v.

18920 NW 11th, LLC; JAMES 

GOODMAN; JAMES FRINZI; 

STEVEN ZAKHARYAYEV; 

EVELINA PINKASOVA; PEOPLE 

NQ INC.; JJC & PEOPLE LLC; 

GDMN FAMILY INVESTMENTS 2, 

LLC,

Defendants.

Case No. 22-31641-mvl-7

Adversary Proceeding No. 

23-3072-mvl

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF MICHAEL CANCIENNE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants 18920 NW 11th, LLC; Steven

Zakharyayev; and Evelina Pinkhasova (together, “the 18920 Defendants”) provide

notice that attorney Michael Cancienne is appearing counsel of record in this case.

The 18920 Defendants respectfully request that copies of all pleadings, orders, 

notices, and other papers filed in this action be electronically provided to Mr. 

Cancienne as follows:

Michael Cancienne

State Bar No. 24055256

Jordan Lynch & Cancienne PLLC

1980 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2300 

Houston, Texas 77056

Telephone: 713-955-4025

Facsimile: 713-955-4793

mcanceienne@jlcfirm.com

Case 23-03072-mvl Doc 8 Filed 09/22/23 Entered 09/22/23 17:28:56 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
DATED: September 22, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

JORDAN, LYNCH & CANCIENNE PLLC

By: Joseph W. Golinkin II

Michael Cancienne

State Bar No. 24055256

Joseph W. (“Jeb”) Golinkin II

State Bar No. 24087596

1980 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2300

Houston, Texas 77056

Telephone: 713-955-4025

Facsimile: 713-955-4793

mcancienne@jlcfirm.com

jgolinkin@jlcfirm.com

ATTORNEYS FOR 18920 NW, LLC; 

STEVEN ZAKHARYAYEV; & EVELINA

PINKHASOVA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 22nd day of May, 2023, a true and correct copy

of the foregoing document was served on all counsel of record in accordance with the 

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

/s/ Joseph W. Golinkin II

Joseph W. Golinkin II

Case 23-03072-mvl Doc 8 Filed 09/22/23 Entered 09/22/23 17:28:56 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
ex1042.htm












LOAN AGREEMENT


June 30, 2016







Richard N. Jeffs (the “Lender”) of 11750 Fairtide Road, Ladysmith, BC  V9G 1K5, advanced CDN$32,000 (the “Principal Sum”) to Cell MedX Corp. (the “Borrower”) of 2857 Sumter Valley Circle, Henderson, NV 89052.  The Lender advanced the funds on June 30, 2016.







The Borrower agrees to repay the Principal Sum on demand, together with interest calculated and compounded monthly at the rate of 6% per year (the “Interest”) from June 30, 2016.  The Borrower is liable for repayment for the Principal Sum and accrued Interest and any costs that the Lender incurs in trying to collect the Principal Sum and the Interest.







 


The Borrower will evidence the debt and its repayment of the Principal Sum and the Interest with a promissory note in the attached form.


 


LENDER                                                                                    BORROWER


Richard N. Jeffs                                                                      Cell MedX Corp.







Per:                                                                                             Per:












/s/ Richard N. Jeffs                                                                /s/ Yanika Silina                                                                      


Richard N. Jeffs                                                                      Yanika Silina, CFO
















  





  











  








PROMISSORY NOTE







Principal Amount:  CDN$32,000                                                                                                                                June 30, 2016












For value received Cell MedX Corp., (the “Borrower”) promises to pay on demand to the order of Richard N. Jeffs (the “Lender”) the sum of $32,000 lawful money of Canada (the “Principal Sum”) together with interest on the Principal Sum from June 30, 2016 (“Effective Date”) both before and after maturity, default and judgment at the Interest Rate as defined below.







For the purposes of this promissory note, Interest Rate means 6 per cent per year.  Interest at the Interest Rate must be calculated and compounded monthly not in advance from and including the Effective Date (for an effective rate of 6.2% per annum calculated monthly), and is payable together with the Principal Sum when the Principal Sum is repaid.







The Borrower may repay the Principal Sum and the Interest in whole or in part at any time.







The Borrower waives presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonour of this promissory note.












BORROWER


Cell MedX Corp.







Per:












/s/ Yanika Silina


Yanika Silina, CFO
# C_2020209EN.01001802.xml

| 22.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/18

---

Action brought on 14 April 2020 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-161/20)

(2020/C 209/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, E. Georgieva, S. L. Kalėda, W. Mölls, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Council decision (1), contained in the act of Coreper of 5 February 2020, endorsing the submission to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) concerning the introduction of life cycle guidelines to estimate well-to-tank greenhouse gas emissions of sustainable alternative fuels, with a view to its transmission by the Presidency of the Council to the IMO on behalf of the Member States and the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Council decision (1), contained in the act of Coreper of 5 February 2020, endorsing the submission to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) concerning the introduction of life cycle guidelines to estimate well-to-tank greenhouse gas emissions of sustainable alternative fuels, with a view to its transmission by the Presidency of the Council to the IMO on behalf of the Member States and the Commission;

| — | maintain the effects of the decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

maintain the effects of the decision;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action for annulment brought by the Commission concerns a Council decision, contained in the act of Coreper of 5 February 2020, endorsing the submission to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) concerning the introduction of life cycle guidelines to estimate well-to-tank greenhouse gas emissions of sustainable alternative fuels (the GHG submission), with a view to its transmission by the Presidency of the Council to the IMO on behalf of the Member States and the Commission.

The Commission relies, in support of its action, on two grounds.

The Commission considers first that the decision of the Council breaches the exclusive competence of the Union under Article 3(2) TFEU. Indeed, the Union has exclusive competence in the area addressed by the GHG submission within the meaning of Article 3(2) TFEU, because that area is covered to a large extent by the common rules applicable to intra-EU situations within the meaning of the consistent case-law of the Court of Justice.

The Commission considers secondly that the decision of the Council breaches the institutional prerogatives of the Commission under Article 17(1) TEU, because only the Commission is entitled to act on behalf of the Union and to ensure the Union’s external representation.

---

(1)  Council document ST 6287/20 of 24 February 2020.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 1206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00065]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

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: January 7, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 572 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1013, K2025-1012.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00065 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
# C_2020161EN.01003201.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 10 February 2020 — Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil) v Mr M.

(Case C-67/20)

(2020/C 161/42)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

Defendant: Mr M.

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a remedy, provided by domestic law to asylum seekers who have been requested to have their applications for international protection examined in another Member State, which does not have suspensory effect and may acquire such effect only if the asylum seeker is deprived of liberty with a view to his imminent transfer an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a remedy, provided by domestic law to asylum seekers who have been requested to have their applications for international protection examined in another Member State, which does not have suspensory effect and may acquire such effect only if the asylum seeker is deprived of liberty with a view to his imminent transfer an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation? (1)

| 2. | Must the effective remedy prescribed in Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation be interpreted as precluding only the implementation of a measure of enforced transfer while an action brought against that transfer decision is being examined or as prohibiting any measure preparatory to removal, such as relocation to a centre which establishes return paths for asylum seekers who have been requested to have their asylum applications examined in another European country? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the effective remedy prescribed in Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation be interpreted as precluding only the implementation of a measure of enforced transfer while an action brought against that transfer decision is being examined or as prohibiting any measure preparatory to removal, such as relocation to a centre which establishes return paths for asylum seekers who have been requested to have their asylum applications examined in another European country?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

---