alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021019EN.01007202.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/72

---

Order of the General Court of 27 October 2020 — CH and CN v Parliament

(Case T-222/20) (1)

(2021/C 19/80)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---
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 FCStone Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
1st Quarter 2007 ending November 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert V. Johnson, Chief 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 and belief:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b) 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/ Robert V. Johnson   
|Robert V. Johnson       
|(Chief Financial Officer

January 16, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



38.
Jamel A. SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3067

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 907 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 907

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 
            Dr. Ralph de la Torre v. Bernard Sanders, et al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            November 21 (legislative day, November 20), 2024

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 
            Dr. Ralph de la Torre v. Bernard Sanders, et al.

Whereas, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 
        Committee Chairman Bernard Sanders, Ranking Member Bill Cassidy, and 18 
        other Members of the Committee have been named as defendants in the case 
        of Dr. Ralph de la Torre v. Bernard Sanders, et al.,Civil Action No. 
        1:24-cv-02776-TNM, pending in the United States District Court for the 
        District of Columbia;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  288b(a) and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to defend Committees and Members of the Senate in 
        civil actions relating to their official responsibilities: Now 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Committee 
Chairman Bernard Sanders, Ranking Member Bill Cassidy, and 18 other 
Committee Members named as defendants in the case of Dr. Ralph de la 
Torre v. Bernard Sanders, et al. 
                                 <all>
```
Evans Lewis BUTLER v. STATE

CR-16-0167

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 662 

To authorize testimony, document production, and representation in United 

States of America v. Robert Menendez, et al. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 23, 2024 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize testimony, document production, and representation in United States of America v. Robert Menendez, 

et al. 

Whereas, in the case of United States of America v. Robert 

Menendez, et al., Cr. No. 23-490, pending in the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of New 

York, testimony and the production of documents may be 

needed from various current and former Members and 

employees of the Senate, relating to their official responsibilities; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent current or former Members and employees of the 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

SRES 662 ATS 

Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request 

for testimony 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 

1 Resolved, That current and former Members and em2 ployees of the Senate are authorized to testify and produce 

3 documents in the case of United States of America v. Rob4 ert Menendez, et al., and related proceedings, except con5 cerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted. 

6 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 

7 represent current and former Members and employees of 

8 the Senate in connection with the production of evidence 

9 authorized in section one of this resolution. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LAZARUS MIAL,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 512 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of April, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Sandra CHIN, Appellant, v. ENCLAVE AT ST. LUCIE WEST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee.

No. 4D18-2581

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 28, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Marshall Runae PORTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3289

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 6, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Porter v. State*, 185 So. 3d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (table decision); *Porter v. State*, 163 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (table decision); *Porter v. State*, 126 So. 3d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (table decision); *Porter v. State*, 63 So. 3d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (table decision); *Porter v. State*, 54 So. 3d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (table decision).

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31681]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

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

AGENCY: Postal Service TM.

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 6, 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 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1099 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-874, K2025-875.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31681 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
# C_2022198EN.01003602.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — D & A Pharma v Commission and EMA

(Case T-556/20) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Application for conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Hopveus — sodium oxybate - Decision of refusal by the Commission - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Procedure - Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use - Request for consultation of a specific scientific advisory group - Impartiality of members of an ad hoc committee of experts - Manifest errors of assessment - Equal treatment)

(2022/C 198/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Debregeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Viguié and D. Krzisch, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: G. Wils and A. Sipos, acting as Agents), European Medicines Agency (represented by: S. Marino, S. Drosos, C. Bortoluzzi and H. Kerr, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission’s Implementing Decision of 6 July 2020 refusing marketing authorisation for Hopveus — sodium oxybate, a medicinal product for human use, under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Debregeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Debregeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.

---
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, J.Chris Steinhauser, certify that:

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GeoPetro Resources Company;

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

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): 

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date:  May 15, 2007 | /s/ J. Chris Steinhauser                      |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                | J. Chris Steinhauser, Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
# C_2016343EN.01004201.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/42

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Galletas Gullon v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (Shape of a package)

(Case T-404/16)

(2016/C 343/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Galletas Gullon, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: tridimensional mark (Shape of a package) — EU trade mark No 3 408 424

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 in Case R 1613/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0197

IN THE MATTER OF: 

S.T.S., 

Respondent and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 5, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 7 2021

12/07/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0197
# C_2017178EN.01003402.xml

| 6.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/34

---

Order of the General Court of 21 March 2017 — La Patrouille v EUIPO — Alpha Industries (AEROBATIX)

(Case T-710/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 178/53)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.

1

---
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 FCStone Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal 1st Quarter 2005 ending November 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert V. Johnson, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b) 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/ Robert V. Johnson   
|Robert V. Johnson       
|(Chief Financial Officer
|                        
|January 13, 2006        



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



25
# C_2020371EN.01003004.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/30

---

Order of the General Court of 25 August 2020 — Tempora v Parliament

(Case T-450/20) (1)

(2020/C 371/37)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---
# C_2022198EN.01003902.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — PrenzMarien v EUIPO — Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) (STONES)

(Case T-766/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark STONES - Declaration of revocation in part - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use in the European Union - Article 19(1) and Article 10(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

(2022/C 198/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PrenzMarien GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Ltd (Burton Upon Trent, United Kingdom) (represented by: H.-M. Elo and E. Hodge, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2020 (Case R 274/2020-2), relating to revocation proceedings between PrenzMarien and Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders PrenzMarien GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---
1 

NO. 01-15-00017-CV

In the Court of Appeals

First District of Texas at Houston

___________________________________

In re M.D. Mark, Inc. 

__________________________________________________________________

____________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus 

190th District Court Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-34393

__________________________________________________________________

RELATOR’S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

MANDAMUS 

__________________________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

M.D. MARK, INC., Relator asks the Court to dismiss this Relator’s Petition 

for Writ of Mandamus. 

1. On January 8, 2015, Relator filed its Petition for Writ of Mandamus 

challenging the trial court’s order denying the motion to appear pro hac vice of 

Dan Bonifazi. 

2. On January 13, 2015, the trial court held a status conference and with 

no objection from the real parties in interest signed an order granting the motion to 

appear pro hac vice.

ACCEPTED

01-15-00017-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

1/14/2015 12:52:49 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/14/2015 12:52:49 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

3. Relator does not want to proceed with the Petition for Writ of 

Mandamus and requests that the petition be dismissed with all costs assessed 

against the party incurring the same. 

Respectfully submitted,

DUNN, NEAL & GERGER, L.L.P.

By: __/s/ James A. Dunn____________

James A. Dunn

Texas Bar No. 06244800

3006 Brazos Street

Houston, Texas 77006

Tel.: (713) 403-7405

Fax.: (713) 960- 0204

Email: jdunn@dnglegal.com

Attorney for Relator

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that on January 13, 2015, the issue of the dismissal of the petition 

for writ of mandamus was discussed with counsel for the real parties in interest, 

Thomas Lillard, who indicated he was not opposed. 

___/s/ James A. Dunn _______________

 James A. Dunn

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on January 14, 2015, I served a copy of this instrument to 

Thomas F. Lillard, counsel for Defendants, via the electronic service manager in 

accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 

___/s/ James A. Dunn ____________

James A. Dunn