alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019112EN.01000301.xml

| 25.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2019 — Georgios Pandalis v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH

(Case C-194/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 51(1)(a) and (2) and Article 75 - EU trade mark Cystus - Food supplements not for medical purposes - Partial revocation - Lack of genuine use of the trade mark - Perception of the word ‘cystus’ as a descriptive indication of the main ingredient of the goods concerned - Obligation to state reasons))

(2019/C 112/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Georgios Pandalis (represented by: A. Franke, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Hanne and D. Walicka, acting as Agents), LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Georgios Pandalis to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Georgios Pandalis to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.

---
Denied and Opinion Filed June 4 , 2021

In t he 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05
- 21
- 00383
- CV IN RE JOSE IGNACIO GARCIA , Relator O riginal Proceeding from the Probate Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR
- 15
- 01517
- 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Partida

- Kipness, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Carlyle In his April 28, 2021 petition for writ of mandamus, relator asks this Court to compel respondent , a democratically elected judge, to resign. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that he lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) ( orig. proceeding). T he petitio n does not meet the requirements of Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure 52.3 or 52.7, and, i n any event, relator has failed t o show an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamu s.– 2

–

210383f.p05 /Cory L. Carlyle/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE
Steven PEROSINO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Bob GUALTIERI, Sheriff, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0903

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JAMES BRIAN CHAPPELL, #1003411, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) 3:04-CV-2576-N

) (consolidated with

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas ) 3:04cv2747-N)

Department of Criminal Justice, )

Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After making the independent review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court finds that

the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they

are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED.

Signed September 26, 2005.

_________________________________

DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02576-N Document 17 Filed 09/27/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 74
# C_2018013EN.01001102.xml

| 15.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/11

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Michael Siegberg v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-276/17) (1)

1

(2018/C 013/17)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

1

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.19



January 28, 1999



PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

Mr. Joe D. Goodwin
1536 Stonegate Way
Atlanta, Georgia 30327

Dear Joe:

I believe we reached agreement on the following points:

1.   LAI Worldwide ("the Company") will guarantee your annual compensation at
     the rate of $500,000 per year for the next year payable ratably each
     month.

2.   If you leave the firm (but not before April 30, 1999), we will pay you
     three months' severance pay.

3.   During your employment, the firm will of course keep you and your
     dependants on our group insurance plan covering medical and dental. If you
     leave the firm (but not before April 30, 1999), we will continue to keep
     you on our group insurance plan (at our cost) for the remainder of the
     one-year term of your compensation guarantee.

4.   In connection with any change of control of the Company (i.e., merger,
     consolidation, sale of stock, sale of assets, change of more than one-half
     of the Board of Directors), you will not be required to sign any contract
     or agreement related to employment, non-competition, stock ownership or
     otherwise, including, without limitation, with respect to any obligation
     that you continue employment with any purchaser of the company.

5.   If a change of control of the Company or a change in management of the
     Company (i.e., change in who holds the title of Chairman, Chief Executive
     Officer, President, or Chief Operating Officer of the Company) occurs
     prior to April 30, 1999, you shall have the immediate right to terminate
     your employment with the





<PAGE>   2

Mr. Joe D. Goodwin
January 28, 1998
Page 2


     Company prior to April 30, 1999 by delivery of notice to the Company, upon
     which early termination, we will honor items 2. and 3. of this letter,
     even though termination took place prior to April 30, 1999.

6.   The other terms you suggested (primarily the right to sell your stock and
     the vesting of your options) in your letter to me are solely in the
     purview of the Compensation Committee. However, as I said by phone,
     everyone's options vest in the event of change of control. We have also
     asked Richie to look into an early payout of the deferred compensation
     plan for everyone.

I hope this is satisfactory and we can get back to business. If you need a
lawyer to go over and redraft this letter, that is fine as well. Let me know.
See you Monday.

Best regards,



Robert L. Pearson
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

RLP/ds
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of International Isotopes, Inc and subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Form 10-K), I, Laurie McKenzie-Carter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, in my capacity as such, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

To my knowledge, the Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



(2)

The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





March 26, 2009

/s/ Laurie McKenzie-Carter

Laurie McKenzie-Carter

Chief Financial Officer
#### Rueben Kennedy and Will Kennedy, *Plaintiffs in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed October 14, 1927.

*Purl G. Adams, B. A. McGeaehy*and *Lloyd G. Powell,*for Plaintiffs in Error;

*Ered H. Davis,*Attorney General, and *H. E. Garter,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment 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 that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 1 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 2 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 3 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 4 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 5 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 6 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 7 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 8 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 9 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 10 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 11 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 12 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 13 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 14 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 15 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 16 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 17 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 18 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 19 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 20 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 21 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 22 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 23 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 24 of 25
Case 3:03-cv-02761-K Document 103-6 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 25 of 25
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION  I, Larry Eastland, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Great American Family Parks, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2006;  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 quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer is made known to us by others, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls 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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an quarterly report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  August 10, 2006  /s/ Larry EastlandLarry EastlandChief Executive Officer
V.A. v. MOBILE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160487

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2021481EN.01002601.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Esteves Lopes Granja v EUIPO — IVDP (PORTWO GIN)

(Case T-417/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark PORTWO GIN - Earlier designation of origin ‘Porto’ - Concepts of ‘use’ and ‘exploitation’ of a protected designation of origin - Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013)

(2021/C 481/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Joaquim José Esteves Lopes Granja (Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal) (represented by: O. Santos Costa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP (IVDP) (Peso da Régua, Portugal) (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2020 (Case R 993/2019-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP and Joaquim Jósé Esteves Lopes Granja.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Joaquim José Esteves Lopes Granja to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Joaquim José Esteves Lopes Granja to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-15 OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Feldman Mall Properties, 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     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):
    By:
    /s/ Larry FeldmanName:
    Larry FeldmanTitle:
    Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer
#### J. Harwell Wilson, *Appellant,*v. Sue Daniel, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed December 19, 1927.

Per Curiam.

This appeal is from an order overruling a demurrer to a bill of complaint to 'cancel an alleged contract to purchase certain lands in Polk County, Florida. The contract to purchase was entered into by appellant and appellee October 24, 1925, and among other provisions contains the following:

“And if the abstract shows merchantable title vested in first party and second party fails or refuses to complete *1141this deal within fifteen days after the delivery of the abstract of title by paying the additional cash payment of $7,500.00, and executing the notes and mortgages above described, then it is understood and agreed that first party will retain the $5,000.00 this day paid, as fair and just compensation for damages sustained by first party on account of breach of this contract by second party.”

The party of the second part, appellant here, breached the contract by failing to pay the $7,500.00 and executing the notes and mortgage referred to according to the terms of the said contract. Appellee then instituted her suit for cancellation.

For reversal appellant relies on Taylor v. Rawlins, 86 Fla. 279, 97 So. 714, 35 A. L. R. 271, and Taylor v. Rawlins, 90 Fla. 621, 106 So. 424.

We think that provision in the contract here quoted releases the instant case from control by the doctrine announced in Taylor v. Rawlins. We are of the view, however, that it is ruled by the doctrine announced in Chubb v. J. Harker Chadwick & Company decided by this Court January 21, 1927, 111 So. 538.

The decree of the chancellor is therfore affirmed on authority of that case. See also Realty Securities Corporation v. Johnson, decided by this Court January 18, 1927, 111 So. 532.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Malcolm PORTER, DOC #Y37365, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-929

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 13, 2019

Affirmed.
# C_2019383EN.01000601.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2019 — TestBioTech eV, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV, Sambucus eV v European Commission, Monsanto Europe, Monsanto Company, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

(Case C-82/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Environment - Genetically modified products - Commission decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing genetically modified soybean MON 87701 x MON 89788 - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 10(1) - Request for internal review of the decision, submitted under the provisions relating to public participation in environmental decision-making - Rejection of the request)

(2019/C 383/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: TestBioTech eV, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV, Sambucus eV (represented by: K. Smith QC and J. Stevenson, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, G. Gattinara and C. Valero, Agents), Monsanto Europe, Monsanto Company (represented initially by M. Pittie, and subsequently by P. Honoré and A. Helfer, avocats), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders TestBioTech eV, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV and Sambucus eV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders TestBioTech eV, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV and Sambucus eV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Monsanto Europe and Monsanto Company to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Monsanto Europe and Monsanto Company to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

---
Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of DirectorsOraSure Technologies, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-208505) and Form S-8 (No. 333-220148, No. 333-118385, No. 333-102235, No. 333-50340, No. 333-48662, No. 333-138814, No. 333-151077, 333-176315 and 333-198237) of OraSure Technologies, Inc. of our reports dated February 28, 2018, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of OraSure Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2017, and the related notes (collectively the consolidated financial statements), and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, which reports appear in the December 31, 2017 annual report on Form 10-K, as amended, of OraSure Technologies, Inc.  

/s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

June 7, 2018
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

KIM LAU,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES,

Respondent

______________________

2024-1380

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DE-1221-21-0300-M-2.

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the parties’ stipulation of dismissal of this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) with each side to bear its own costs,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition for review is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

Case: 24-1380 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 05/15/2024
2 LAU v. HHS

(3) All pending motions are denied as moot.

May 15, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 15, 2024

Case: 24-1380 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 05/15/2024