alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022368EN.01000302.xml

| 26.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/3

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava I — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against AM

(Case C-710/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Field of application - Article 51 - Legislative procedure for the adoption of a resolution relating to the revocation of an amnesty - Judicial procedure for review of the compliance of that resolution with the national Constitution - Failure to implement EU law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2022/C 368/04)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Bratislava I

Party in the main proceedings

AM,

Intervening party: Krajská prokuratúra v Bratislave

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Okresný súd Bratislava I (District Court, Bratislava I, Slovakia) by decision of 12 December 2018.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 579 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 579

 To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. Kenyon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2024

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. Kenyon.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Kenyon, Cr. No. 23-101, pending in the 
        United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the 
        prosecution has requested the production of testimony from Daniel 
        Schwager, a former employee of the Office of the Secretary of the 
        Senate;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent current and former officers and 
        employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request 
        for evidence relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Daniel Schwager, a former employee of the Office of 
the Secretary of the Senate, is authorized to provide relevant 
testimony in the case of United States v. Kenyon, except concerning 
matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Mr. 
Schwager, and any current or former officer or employee of the 
Secretary's office, in connection with the production of evidence 
authorized in section one of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
Case 23-43508-mxm11    Doc 35    Filed 01/09/24    Entered 01/09/24 11:49:59    Desc MainDocument      Page 1 of 9

Case 23-43508-mxm11    Doc 35    Filed 01/09/24    Entered 01/09/24 11:49:59    Desc MainDocument      Page 2 of 9

Case 23-43508-mxm11    Doc 35    Filed 01/09/24    Entered 01/09/24 11:49:59    Desc MainDocument      Page 3 of 9

Case 23-43508-mxm11    Doc 35    Filed 01/09/24    Entered 01/09/24 11:49:59    Desc MainDocument      Page 4 of 9

Case 23-43508-mxm11    Doc 35    Filed 01/09/24    Entered 01/09/24 11:49:59    Desc MainDocument      Page 5 of 9

Case 23-43508-mxm11    Doc 35    Filed 01/09/24    Entered 01/09/24 11:49:59    Desc MainDocument      Page 6 of 9

Case 23-43508-mxm11    Doc 35    Filed 01/09/24    Entered 01/09/24 11:49:59    Desc MainDocument      Page 7 of 9

Case 23-43508-mxm11    Doc 35    Filed 01/09/24    Entered 01/09/24 11:49:59    Desc MainDocument      Page 8 of 9

Case 23-43508-mxm11    Doc 35    Filed 01/09/24    Entered 01/09/24 11:49:59    Desc MainDocument      Page 9 of 9
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-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald Wilen,
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:    November
      16, 2009
            By:
            /s/ Ronald
WilenRonald
      WilenChief
      Executive Officer
# C_2019413EN.01005901.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/59

---

Action brought on 9 October 2019 – Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO – Ornua (KERRYMAID)

(Case T-693/19)

(2019/C 413/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ornua Co-operative Ltd (Dublin, Ireland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade word mark KERRYMAID – Application for registration No 10 083 251

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 July 2019 in Case R 2473/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision to the extent that the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision of 22 October 2013 of the Opposition Division in Case B 1 938 417 was dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision to the extent that the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision of 22 October 2013 of the Opposition Division in Case B 1 938 417 was dismissed;

| — | dismiss the opposition brought by Ornua Co-operative Ltd against the registration of the EU trade mark KERRYMAID, No. 10 083 251; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the opposition brought by Ornua Co-operative Ltd against the registration of the EU trade mark KERRYMAID, No. 10 083 251;

| — | order EUIPO and Ornua Co-operative Ltd, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Ornua Co-operative Ltd, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Richard ELDER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-2884

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10690 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus THOMAS EDGAR BELL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:92-CV-108
- - - - - - - - - - April 19, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Thomas Edgar Bell appeals the denial of his motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Bell contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the form of methamphetamine considered at sentencing. We affirm for essentially the reasons relied upon by the district court in its order adopting the magistrate judge's supplemental report. Bell v. United States , No. 2:90-CR-0017-01 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 1995). Bell does not argue other issues raised in the district court;No. 95-10690 -2- those issues are abandoned. Hobbs v. Blackburn , 752 F.2d 1079, 1083 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 474 U.S. 838 (1985). AFFIRMED.
Case 3:00-cv-00815-M Document 103 Filed 04/22/03 Page 1 of 2 PageID 635
 

 Case 3:00-cv-00815-M Document 103 Filed 04/22/03 Page 2 of 2 PageID 636
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

NO. 18-0628

DONALD DAVIS

v.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL §

§

§

§

§

§ Dallas County,

5th District.

September 14, 2018

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

         

I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE

, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case

numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of said Court under

the date shown.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 25th day of October, 2018

.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

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

## By Location

              - south dakota(1)

## By Year

Methods, protocols, and procedures        June 26, 2020        Selecting and Conducting Evaluations of Hydrologic Instruments

Policy and Directives        October 24, 2018        National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive Collection Policy

MOUs        June 3, 2005        MOU between the USGS and Clean Beaches Council

Strategic Plan        November 30, 2022        Western Fisheries Research Center 2023-2027 Strategic Plan

Technical Memos        April 5, 1996        TM96-05 Collection, processing, and analysis of carbon isotope samples
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DENNIE M. WILLIS,

Petitioner,

VS.

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas

Department of Criminal Justice,

Correctional Institutions Division,

Respondent.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:03-CV-1284-G

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER

After reviewing the objections to the findings, conclusions and

recommendation (“Findings”) of the United States Magistrate Judge and conducting

a de novo review of those parts of the Findings to which objections have been made, I

am of the opinion that the Findings of the magistrate judge are correct and they are

hereby accepted as the Findings of the court.

It is therefore ORDERED that those Findings are ADOPTED as the findings

and conclusions of the court.

May 5, 2005.

 

 Case 3:03-cv-01284-G Document 16 Filed 05/05/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 47
**EXHIBIT 12**

 

**ANVIL HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**

**COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXEDCHARGES**

**(In Thousands)**

 
| ** **                                                   | ** ** | **Fiscal Year Ended** | ** ** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                   | ** ** | **February 2,  2002** | ** ** | **February 1,  2003** | ** ** | **January 31,  2004** | ** ** | **January 29,  2005** | ** ** | **January 28,  2006** | ** ** |
|                                                         |       |                  |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Income (loss) before provision (benefit)  for income taxes   |       | $                     | 6,851      |   | $ | 16,726 |   | $ | (31,621 | ) | $ | (9,432 | ) | $ | (24,383 | ) |
|                                                         |       |                  |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense on debt                                     |       | 14,636                |       | 14,165 |   | 14,431 |   | 14,723 |   | 15,193 |   |
| Preferred dividends†                                    |       | 6,836                 |       | 6,254 |   | 6,091 |   | 6,904 |   | 7,836 |   |
| Amortization of debt expense                                 |       | 1,072                 |       | 836 |   | 796 |   | 878 |   | 906 |   |
| Estimated interest  Within rental expense                    |       | 814                   |       | 939 |   | 958 |   | 1,034 |   | 969 |   |
| Total fixed charges                                          |       | 23,358                |       | 22,194 |   | 22,276 |   | 23,539 |   | 24,904 |   |
|                                                         |       |                  |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Earnings (loss) before income taxes and  fixed charges† |       | $                     | 23,373     |   | $ | 32,666 |   | $ | (15,436 | ) | $ | 14,107 |   | $ | 521 |   |
|                                                         |       |                  |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                           |       | 1 to 1                |       | 1.47 to 1 |   |   |   | .60 to 1 |   | .02 to 1 |   |
|                                                         |       |                  |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Deficiency in earnings to cover fixed  charges               |       |                  |       |   |   | $ | 15,436 |   |   |   |   |   |

 

----

†  Beginning in the fiscal year ended January 29, 2005,the Company began classifying preferred dividends as interest expense pursuantto SFAS No. 150. Preferred dividends were not deducted in arriving at Income(loss) before provision (benefit) for income taxes in fiscal years prior toJanuary 29, 2005. Accordingly, for those fiscal years, such dividends are notadded back to the computation of Earnings (loss) before income taxes and fixedcharges.

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 764 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 764

   Expressing support for the designation of July 2024 as ``National 
                       Sarcoma Awareness Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 11 (legislative day, July 10), 2024

   Mr. Johnson (for himself and Mr. Rounds) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
                          Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing support for the designation of July 2024 as ``National 
                       Sarcoma Awareness Month''.

Whereas sarcoma is a rare cancer of the bones or connective tissues, such as 
        nerves, muscles, joints, fat, and blood vessels, that can arise nearly 
        anywhere in the body;
Whereas, in the United States--

    (1) about 17,000 individuals are diagnosed with sarcoma each year;

    (2) approximately 7,200 individuals die from sarcoma each year; and

    (3) about 50,000 individuals struggle with sarcoma at any given time;

Whereas, each year, about 1 percent of cancers diagnosed in adults and around 15 
        percent of cancers diagnosed in children are sarcoma;
Whereas more than 70 types of sarcoma have been identified;
Whereas the potential causes of sarcoma are not well understood;
Whereas treatment for sarcoma can include surgery, radiation therapy, or 
        chemotherapy;
Whereas sarcoma is often misdiagnosed and underreported; and
Whereas July 2024 would be an appropriate month to designate as National Sarcoma 
        Awareness Month--

    (1) to raise awareness about sarcoma; and

    (2) to encourage more individuals in the United States to get properly 
diagnosed and treated: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the Senate supports the designation of July 2024 as 
``National Sarcoma Awareness Month''.
                                 <all>
```
1728.

#### Aldred *v.*Tompkins.

Complaint, from city court of Sandersville — Judge Jordan. January 11, 1909.

Argued April 14, —

Decided October 5, 1909.

*W. E. Armistead, Evans S Evans,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hardwiclc, Wright S' Hyman,*contra.

Hiix, C. J.

The controlling issues in this case are questions of fact. The verdict is fully supported by the evidence and is clearly right under the law. The trial was free from any material error, and no reason appears why the verdict should be disturbed. The judgment refusing another trial is therefore *Affirmed.*
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 1212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00062]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, 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 C. 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 27, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1221 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1027, K2025-1026.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00062 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
# C_2016165EN.01001601.xml

| 10.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/16

---

Action brought on 16 March 2016 — Puma v EUIPO (FOREVER FASTER)

(Case T-104/16)

(2016/C 165/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘FOREVER FASTER’ — Application for registration No 1 217 411

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2016 in Case R 770/2015-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and order the defendant to allow the registration of the term ‘FOREVER FASTER’ for the contested goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and order the defendant to allow the registration of the term ‘FOREVER FASTER’ for the contested goods;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of the principles of equality and sound administration established by European laws. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles of equality and sound administration established by European laws.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ABILENE DIVISION

DAVID L. BOSLEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

) Civil Action No.

Defendant. ) 1:04-CV-063-C

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS MATTER comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation filed

August 19, 2005 (Doc. 22). Neither party has filed objections within the ten-day period specified

in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted by the

court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a judgment in accordance with the terms of this order

shall be entered forthwith.

DATED this 8th day of September, 2005.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 1:04-cv-00063-C Document 23 Filed 09/08/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 100
# C_2022095EN.01004502.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/45

---

Order of the General Court of 16 December 2021 — The Floow v Commission

(Case T-765/20) (1)

(2022/C 95/64)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

---