alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANGELO DIVISION

MELINDA J. ALDEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

) Civil Action No.

Defendant. ) 6:04-CV-027-C

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

September 15, 2005 (Doc. 23). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on

September 29, 2005 (Doc. 24). The court has made a de novo determination of the Report and

Recommendation after consideration of Plaintiff’s objections, the submissions of the parties, and

the transcript of the administrative proceedings. 

The court finds the objections to be without merit. The court further finds that the ALJ

applied the correct legal standards and that substantial evidence supports his decision. The court

also finds that the Report and Recommendation applied the correct legal standards.

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.

 

 Case 6:04-cv-00027-C Document 25 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 136
2

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

shall be entered forthwith.

Dated September 30, 2005.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 6:04-cv-00027-C Document 25 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 137
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ANVIL
HOLDINGS' FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN ITS 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY
31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                             959
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,093
<ALLOWANCES>                                       822
<INVENTORY>                                     42,089
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                78,473
<PP&E>                                          56,179
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,990
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 147,113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,335
<BONDS>                                        126,445
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           31,392
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            39
<OTHER-SE>                                    (66,294)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   147,113
<SALES>                                        214,867
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               214,867
<CGS>                                          167,491
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   958
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,536
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,557)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,423)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,134)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,757)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,891)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    11.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    11.25
        

</TABLE>
Lee Edward JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1808

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 25, 2019

Affirmed.
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 422 

Designating August 1, 2023, as ‘‘Gold Star Children’s Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 19, 2023 

Mr. WICKER (for himself and Mr. MANCHIN) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating August 1, 2023, as ‘‘Gold Star Children’s Day’’. 

Whereas the recognition of Gold Star Families in the United 

States dates back to World War I, when the families of 

fallen service members displayed a service flag with a 

gold star in the window of their homes; 

Whereas, in 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed 

into law legislation declaring Gold Star Mother’s Day, a 

national observance honoring the mothers of fallen service members annually on the last Sunday of September; 

Whereas, since 2010, the Senate has honored Gold Star 

Spouses by resolution annually, recognizing the unique 

sacrifices made by spouses of fallen service members; 

Whereas thousands of sons and daughters of military families 

have lost mothers or fathers who served in the Armed 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 422 ATS 

Forces and also deserve national recognition for the burden and legacy they carry; and 

Whereas no date has existed to specifically recognize the children of fallen service members of the United States as 

part of a national debt of gratitude that the people of the 

United States owe to the service members who sacrificed 

all in protecting the freedom of the United States and 

the people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates August 1, 2023, as ‘‘Gold Star 

3 Children’s Day’’; 

4 (2) honors the sacrifices and hardships of the 

5 children of fallen service members; and 

6 (3) encourages the people of the United States 

7 to observe Gold Star Children’s Day in support of 

8 children of the fallen men and women of the Armed 

9 Forces of the United States. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2021028EN.01004601.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 — Forex Bank v EUIPO — Coino UK (FOREX)

(Case T-26/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark FOREX - Declaration of partial invalidity - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 28/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Forex Bank AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: A. Jute, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Coino UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 (Case R 2460/2018 2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Coino UK and Forex Bank.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Forex Bank AB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Forex Bank AB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---
# C_2021502EN.01002901.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/29

---

Order of the General Court of 5 October 2021 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

(Case T-613/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Acknowledgement by the Parliament of the election of a Member of the European Parliament as a result of another parliamentary seat becoming vacant - Locus standi - Concept of ‘addressee’ of a decision - Lack of direct concern - No regulatory act of general application - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 502/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (Sant Joan de Vilatorrada, Spain) (represented by: M. Marsal i Ferret, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, T. Lukácsi and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the acknowledgement of the election of Mr Jordi Solé i Ferrando as a Member of the European Parliament replacing the applicant with effect from 3 January 2020, announced by the President of the Parliament in plenary on 23 July 2020.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Spain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Spain.

| 3. | Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies shall pay the costs.

| 4. | The Kingdom of Spain shall bear the costs relating to its application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Kingdom of Spain shall bear the costs relating to its application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.

---
# C_2017022EN.01005901.xml

| 23.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/59

---

Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Rare Hospitality International v EUIPO (LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE)

(Case T-856/16)

(2017/C 022/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rare Hospitality International, Inc. (Orlando, Florida, United States) (represented by: I. Lázaro Betancor, 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: EU word mark ‘LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE’ — Application for registration No 13 948 682

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2016 in Case R 2149/2015-5

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 to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of principle of equal treatment and sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of principle of equal treatment and sound administration.

---
Jerrod Deshawn LUCAS v. STATE

CR-16-0711

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 19, 2006
 VALLEY BANCORP
  
 (Commission File Number)000-50950
    
    (IRS Employer Identification No.)88-0493760
 1300 S. Jones Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada
(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    89146
(zip code)
 (702) 821-4100
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act of (17 CFR
240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act of (17 CFR
240.13e-4(c))




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 5.02      Departure of Directors or Principal Executive Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Principal OfficersItem 9.01      Financial Statements and ExhibitsSIGNATURESEXHIBIT 99.1    Table of Contents  
 Item 5.02      Departure of Directors or Principal Executive Officers; Election of Directors;
Appointment of Principal Officers
     
 Item 9.01      Financial Statements and Exhibits




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES
   VALLEY BANCORPBy /s/ Barry L. HulinBarry L. HulinPresident and Chief Executive Officer
STATE of Louisiana v. Kyvonte Latrell EAGLIN

No. 2018-K-0822

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 2019

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON DAVIS**

PER CURIAM

Writ granted in part. Defendant was found guilty of manslaughter in response to the charge of second degree murder, and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment at hard labor. The court of appeal affirmed. *State v. Eaglin* , 17-657 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/28/18), 239 So.3d 1001. In affirming, a majority of the panel found the error in admitting a highly inflammatory photograph of defendant, which lacked any probative value, was harmless because the State introduced *sufficient evidence* to support the conviction. *See* *Eaglin* , 17-657, p. 40, 239 So.3d at 1027 ("There was consistent testimony regarding the fight that preceded the shooting that was sufficient to convict the defendant of manslaughter. The trial court's error in admitting the prejudicial photograph, Exhibit S-2, is, *762therefore harmless."). Judge Cooks, dissenting, noted that the majority applied the wrong standard in determining whether the error was harmless. The dissent is correct in that assessment. Under *Chapman v. California* , 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), an appellate court must decide "whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction," and "the court must be able to declare a belief that [the error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." *Id.* , 386 U.S. at 24, 87 S.Ct. at 828. In applying the *Chapman* standard, "[t]he question, however, is not whether the legally admitted evidence was sufficient ..., which we assume it was, but rather, whether the State has proved 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.' " *See* *Satterwhite v. Texas* , 486 U.S. 249, 258-259, 108 S.Ct. 1792, 1798, 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988) (quoting *Chapman* ). Because the court of appeal applied the wrong standard, we grant in part and remand to the court of appeal to determine whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. The application is otherwise denied.

**REVERSED AND REMANDED**
Marlon A. SMIKLE, Appellant, v. WFTV, INC., Channel 9 News, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1753

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 863 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 863

       Designating October 12, 2024, as ``National Loggers Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 2024

   Ms. Baldwin (for herself and Ms. Collins) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
       Designating October 12, 2024, as ``National Loggers Day''.

Whereas the logging industry has served as an economic driver and cultural 
        tradition in the United States for centuries;
Whereas the logging industry creates rural jobs and provides revenue for local 
        and State governments and National forests;
Whereas loggers provide renewable material for products used by people in the 
        United States every day;
Whereas loggers are the first link in the $300,000,000,000 domestic forest 
        products supply chain;
Whereas loggers are the means by which healthy forest management plans are 
        accomplished;
Whereas logging provides for healthy forests, which--

    (1) create and maintain vital wildlife habitats;

    (2) protect watersheds;

    (3) provide young forests that sequester carbon for cleaner air;

    (4) provide social wellbeing and public recreational opportunities; and

    (5) reduce loss of life and property from wildfires; and

Whereas logging provides for healthy forests through regeneration and 
        conservation, including by planting 2,500,000,000 trees annually: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate designates October 12, 2024, as 
``National Loggers Day''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 13.2









CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Annual Report of MAX Resource Corp. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the Report), I, David Pearce, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/David Pearce



David Pearce

Chief Financial Officer

June 29, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0651

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

REX WILLIAM ALLEN,

Defendant 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 November 24, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 18 2023

10/18/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0651
Dona BUNTON v. Tymoth Wayne BUNTON

2160564

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Charles Douglas NAPIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2752

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 20, 2019

Affirmed.
# C_2021368EN.01001704.xml

| 13.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/17

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — German) — GJ v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-712/20) (1)

(2021/C 368/26)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12. 4.2021.

---
# C_2021278EN.01004402.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/44

---

Order of the General Court of 25 May 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)

(Case T-261/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 278/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: R. Gioia and L. Mansi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 (Case R 1547/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Rochem Marine and Rochem Group.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Rochem Group AG and Rochem Marine Srl. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Rochem Group AG and Rochem Marine Srl.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.

---
# C_2016335EN.01005102.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/51

---

Action brought on 28 July 2016 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Vivatech (Immunostad)

(Case T-403/16)

(2016/C 335/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J. Plate, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vivatech (Paris, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: the applicant

Proprietor of the mark at issue:

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Immunostad’ — EU trade mark No 9 552 225

Mark at issue:

Proceedings before EUIPO: invalidity proceedings

Proceedings before EUIPO:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 in Case R 863/2015–5

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 to bear the costs, including the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs, including the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---