alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Daniel Eric COBBLE v. Stephanie Anne LOCKHART and Paul Curtis Lockhart

2160787

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# C_2019131EN.01005801.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/58

---

Order of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — VFP v Commission

(Case T-726/16) (1)

(2019/C 131/67)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Grand Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.

---
Edric BENNETT, DOC #563736, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-760

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Aaron C. DAVENPORT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0404

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 2019

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 23.1




Board of Directors
Trend Mining Company
(Formerly Silver Trend Mining Company)
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho



                     CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the use of our audit report dated December 15, 2000, on the
financial statements of Trend Mining Company (an exploration stage company) as
of September 30, 2000, for the filing with and attachment to the Form 10-KSB/A
for the year ending September 30,2000.


/s/ Williams & Webster, P.S.


Williams & Webster, P.S.
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
Spokane, Washington


March 23, 2001
# C_2021349EN.01003402.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Fashioneast and AM.VI. v EUIPO — Moschillo (RICH JOHN RICHMOND)

(Case T-297/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark RICH JOHN RICHMOND - Absence of genuine use of a trade mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Use in a form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character of the mark - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 349/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Fashioneast Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), AM.VI. Srl (Naples, Italy) (represented by: A. Camusso and M. Baghetti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Cottrell, J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Moschillo Srl (Avellino, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2020 (Case R 1381/2019-2) relating to revocation proceedings between Moschillo, on the one hand, and Fashioneast and AM.VI., on the other.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fashioneast Sàrl and AM.VI. Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fashioneast Sàrl and AM.VI. Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.

---
EX PARTE Eugene KELLY

CR-16-0972

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Tuscaloosa Cir. Ct.
Spanley Eugene Edric HARRIS v. STATE

CR-16-0693

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 4, 2017 Reh. denied August 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

I, John D. Hellmann, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Design Within Reach, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other
certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: January 16, 2007 |  |                        
|                       | 
|                       |  | /s/ John D. Hellmann   
|                       |  | John D. Hellmann       
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer
Harvey DEMAREST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2957

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 6, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 Quarterly Report of James River Coal Company (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for
      the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Samuel M. Hopkins, II, Chief
      Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to § 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
                registrant.




November
      8, 2006




/s/ 
Samuel
              M. Hopkins, IISamuel
                M. Hopkins, IITitle: 
                Chief Accounting Officer
**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 United Energy Corp. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian
      King, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.





Dated:
                August 10, 2007
            By:
            /s/
                Brian KingBrian
                KingChief
                Executive Officer
T.J. v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160597

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

PAM BASSEL STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

860 Airport Freeway, Ste 150

Hurst, TX 76054

Phone: (817) 916-4710

IN RE: CASE NO.:24-40433-MXM-13

JOE WAYNE BYRD

5312 BELLIS DR

KELLER, TX 76244

SSN/TIN: XXX-XX-8483

DEBTOR

TRUSTEE'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO 

CERTIFY CASE FOR DISMISSAL IN SEVEN DAYS FOR NO FIRST PLAN PAYMENT

After seven days from March 08, 2024, Trustee will certify this case for dismissal because Debtor did not timely pay the 

first Plan Payment to Trustee within thirty days of filing the Petition. To prevent dismissal, Debtor's first Plan Payment must be 

received by 4:00 PM on March 15, 2024. FAILURE TO TIMELY CURE THE DELINQUENCY SHALL RESULT IN DISMISSAL 

WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE.

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Ethan S. Cartwright

 Ethan S. Cartwright, Staff Attorney

 Bar No. 24068273

 PAM BASSEL STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

 Bar No. 01344800

 860 Airport Freeway, Ste 150

 Hurst, TX 76054

 (817) 916-4710 Phone

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on or before the date of filing. Service was accomplished 

electronically on Debtor's attorney and all parties entitled to electronic notice and by first class mail on the Debtor and the 

parties listed below, if any. 

By: /s/ Ethan S. Cartwright

 Ethan S. Cartwright

JOE WAYNE BYRD

5312 BELLIS DR

KELLER, TX 76244

TRUSTEE'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO CERTIFY CASE FOR DISMISSAL 

Page 1 of 1

Case 24-40433-mxm13 Doc 35 Filed 03/08/24 Entered 03/08/24 10:11:36 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
EX PARTE Broderick MCCOY

CR-15-1403

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 30, 2017

Mand. pet. dismissed.
#### C. O. Brower, *Appellant,*v. J. A. Ahler, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed October 27, 1927.

Petition for Rehearing Denied November 25, 1927.

*James T. Yoeelle,*for Appellant;

*Nottingham*and *Anderson,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court *653that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court tfat the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J! J., concur.
Getting Started as a Proxy in the Pilot Records Database

Is your proxy 

company 

ready to get 

started?

1. Is your proxy company listed in the PRD? Each proxy company must be listed

in the PRD before user accounts can be created. If your proxy company is not

listed in the PRD, for example your company is not shown as an option in

registration forms, send an email to 9-AMC-AVS-PrdSupport@faa.gov for help

on how to get your proxy company listed.

2. Does your proxy company have agreements with any operators who are

required to review pilot records? Your company can only access the PRD

with the approval of an operator who uses the PRD.

3. If you have agreements with an operator to review pilot records on their

behalf, has that company actually registered an Authorized Responsible

Person in the PRD? Proxies cannot be approved to check records on behalf of

any particular operator until that operator has registered an Authorized

Responsible Person in PRD. Check with your contracted operators to see if

they are registered in the PRD yet.

For every operator 

for which you need 

to review records, 

you must complete 

these steps to start 

using the PRD.

4.

5.

6.

A couple other notes:

· The same proxy employee can be a Proxy Responsible Person for several operators as needed. A

Proxy Responsible Person can review pilot records and approve other proxy users for that

operator.

· If you need more proxy employees to access records for a particular operator, additional Proxy

Consumers can be added. There can only be a single Proxy Responsible Person, however.

Once you answer YES to the above questions, you are ready to get started!

Your proxy company should decide which employee will be the Proxy

Responsible Person for the operator. The Proxy Responsible Person, once 

approved by the operator, will be able to review any pilot records released to

the operator. Additional proxy employees can be given access as well as

Authorized Consumers, but you must assign a Proxy Responsible Person at a

minimum.

That proxy employee needs to submit an application to be the Proxy

Responsible Person. The application is made via the PRD web site. The 

operator Authorized Responsible Person must approve the registration before

you can review records on their behalf.

Once the Proxy Responsible Person is approved, they can review any records

that are released to the operator by pilots.

I I
# C_2020175EN.01002802.xml

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/28

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 13 March 2020 — Intertranslations (Intertransleïsions) Metafraseis v Parliament

(Case T-20/20 R)

(Interim measures - Public service contracts - Application for interim measures - No urgency)

(2020/C 175/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intertranslations (Intertransleïsions) Metafraseis AE (Kallithea, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Toliušis and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures, in the first place, suspending the operation of the decisions of the Parliament of 4 December 2019 which rank the applicant’s tender in the second place for the award of the cascade contract relating to Lot No 5 of the contract for translation services into English in Call for tenders TRA/EU19/2019 and award the first contract arising from that call for tenders to another tenderer, in the second place, suspending the contract concluded with that other tenderer and, in the third place, ordering the Parliament to communicate to the applicant the missing sections of the Evaluation Committee’s statement of reasons.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
-32

8.-

i

es ate loss i
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersignedcertifies that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthat information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of RadView Software Ltd.

| Date: April 13, 2006  |   |                                  |
|----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                            |   | /s/ ILAN  KINREICH                    |
|                       |   | Ilan Kinreich                         |
|                       |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
| Date: April 13,  2006 |   |                                  |
|                       |   | /s/ CHRISTOPHER  DINEEN               |
|                       |   | Christopher Dineen                    |
|                       |   | Chief Financial Officer               |

 

The foregoing certification if being furnished solelyto accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is notbeing filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is notto be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

----
Exhibit 8.1  The table below presents our significant subsidiaries and investees, the places of incorporation and our effective ownership interests therein as of December 31, 2015.  Subsidiary

Accounting   Method

Ownership   Interest

Place of   Incorporation/   OrganizationSibintertelecom

Consolidated

100.0
%
RussiaRussian   Telephone Company

Consolidated

100.0
%
RussiaDega Retail   Holding Limited

Consolidated

100.0
%
British Virgin IslandsSputnikovoe TV

Consolidated

100.0
%
RussiaNVision Group   Companies

Consolidated

100.0
%
Russia/Ukraine/Czech   Republic/Uzbekistan/Kazachstan/ Pakistan/CyprusMTS Bermuda(1)

Consolidated

100.0
%
BermudaMTS Ukraine

Consolidated

100.0
%
UkraineMTS Turkmenistan

Consolidated

100.0
%
TurkmenistanStream LLC

Consolidated

100.0
%
RussiaMetro-Telecom

Consolidated

95.0
%
RussiaMGTS

Consolidated

94.7
%
RussiaMTS   International Funding(2)

Consolidated

SE

IrelandK-Telecom

Consolidated

80.0
%
ArmeniaNavigation   Information Systems Group

Consolidated

77.7
%
RussiaUMS

Consolidated

50.01
%
UzbekistanMTS Belarus

Equity

49.0
%
BelarusMTS Bank

Equity

27.0
%
RussiaZifrovoe TV

Equity

20.0
%
RussiaOZON

Equity

10.8
%
Cyprus  
 (1)A wholly owned subsidiary established to repurchase our ADSs.  (2)A private limited company organized and existing under the laws of Ireland for the sole purpose of financing a loan to MTS. The company is a structured entity of the Group.  See also Note 2 to our audited consolidated financial statements.
EX PARTE Willie PICKETT

CR-16-0944

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
# C_2022073EN.01004402.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/44

---

Order of the General Court of 29 November 2021 — Grupa Azoty and Others v Commission

(Case T-726/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Guidelines on certain State aid measures in the context of the system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading post-2021 - Eligible sectors - Exclusion of the fertiliser manufacturing sector - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 73/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Grupa Azoty S.A. (Tarnów, Poland), Azomureș S.A. (Târgu Mureş, Romania), Lipasmata Kavalas LTD Ypokatastima Allodapis (Palaio Fáliro, Greece) (represented by: D. Haverbeke, L. Ruessmann and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment in part of the Communication from the Commission of 25 September 2020 entitled ‘Guidelines on certain State aid measures in the context of the system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading post-2021’ (OJ 2020 C 317, p. 5).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application to intervene submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application to intervene submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | Grupa Azoty S.A., Azomureș S.A. and Lipasmata Kavalas LTD Ypokatastima Allodapis shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Grupa Azoty S.A., Azomureș S.A. and Lipasmata Kavalas LTD Ypokatastima Allodapis shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear the costs relating to its application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear the costs relating to its application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 1.3.2021.

---
# C_2021242EN.01004301.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Lee v EUIPO (Table knives, forks and spoons)

(Case T-382/20) (1)

(Community design - Application for a Community design representing table knives, forks and spoons - Lack of priority claim - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 67(1) and (2) Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Duty of due care)

(2021/C 242/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Keun Jig Lee (Paju-si, South Korea) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and B. La Tella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2020 (Case R 2559/2019-3), relating to an application for restitutio in integrum.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Keun Jig Lee to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Keun Jig Lee to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.

---