alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016428EN.01001701.xml

| 21.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/17

---

Action brought on 1 September 2016 — IPA v Commission

(Case T-635/16)

(2016/C 428/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: SC IPA SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: L. Vasilescu, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the debit notes of 28 June 2016 Nos. 3241608864, in the amount of EUR 63 653,58, and 3241608865, in the amount of EUR 9 690,30, issued by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the debit notes of 28 June 2016 Nos. 3241608864, in the amount of EUR 63 653,58, and 3241608865, in the amount of EUR 9 690,30, issued by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant argues that in essence, the dispute lies in the calculation of the indirect costs related to the contract that has the applicant as beneficiary. Thus, a few years after the contract completion, the Commission imposed a flawed formula for the computation of the indirect costs, that is, non-conforming to the contract terms and contrary to the generally accepted principles and practices in accounting management.

The applicant contends that the Commission based its pretentions on an audit and agreed to all auditor findings, without noticing that the method of calculation of indirect costs applied by auditors violates: (i) the accounting and management principles and practices of the beneficiary that are also imposed by the contract as prevailing and (ii) the generally accepted principles and practices in accounting management.

The applicant also alleges that the calculation methods for the contract indirect costs, used by the auditor and agreed by the Commission, were unjustifiably different from the accounting system of the beneficiary, while by contract all costs had to be determined in accordance with the usual accounting and management principle and practice of the beneficiary. The beneficiary’s accounting system was the only accepted accounting system for the contract, and there was no reason to replace or disapprove the beneficiary’s accounting procedures used for the computation of contract’s indirect costs.

Finally it is alleged that, by the audit procedure, the auditor undervalued the real indirect costs for the contract, and the Commission, after agreeing in whole with the auditor’s conclusions, generated the debit notes of 28 June 2016 Nos. 3241608864, in the amount of EUR 63 653,58, and 3241608865, in the amount of EUR 9 690,30, to recover the differences in costs described in the audit.

---
June COOLEY and Dwayne Cooley v. Dr. Ernesto KUFOY, et al.

NO. 2019-C-0036

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 25, 2019

Denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60734

In The Matter Of: BOBBIE J. MARTIN

 Debtor

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

COUNTRY CREDIT, L.L.C., 

 Appellant

v.

BOBBIE J. MARTIN, 

 Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC 3:14-CV-709

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Country Credit, L.L.C. appeals the district court’s order affirming the 

bankruptcy court’s decision that debt arising from a payday loan made to 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 8, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60734 Document: 00513538868 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2016
No. 15-60734

2

Bobbie J. Martin was dischargeable. On appeal, we have reviewed the record, 

studied the briefs, and heard oral argument by both parties. We have 

concluded, in the light of our precedents, that the bankruptcy court did not err 

when it determined that Bobbie J. Martin’s debt, acquired through a payday 

loan from Country Credit, L.L.C., is dischargeable. Accordingly, the order of 

the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-60734 Document: 00513538868 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2016
EX PARTE Marcus Travell RAYFORD

CR-16-0871

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.
David J. PERSONS, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOC. as Trustee, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0860

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002***

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of GeoPetro Resources Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, StuartJ. Doshi , Chief Executive Officer, and J. Chris Steinhauser, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tohis knowledge, that:

 
| (1)    | The Report fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                   |
| (2)    | The information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the  financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 
| Dated: November 9,  2009 | /s/ Stuart J. Doshi                 |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                          | Stuart J. Doshi                     |
|                          | President, Chief  Executive Officer |
|                          | and Chairman of the  Board          |
|                          |                                |
| Dated: November 9,  2009 | /s/ J. Chris  Steinhauser           |
|                          | J. Chris Steinhauser                |
|                          | Chief Financial Officer             |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to GeoPetroResources Company and will be retained by GeoPetro Resources Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----

| * | This certification is  being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be  incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before  or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in  such filing. |
|---|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

----
# C_2021079EN.01003802.xml

| 8.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/38

---

Order of the General Court of 15 January 2021 — Aldi Stores v EUIPO — Dualit (Shape of a toaster)

(Case T-199/20) (1)

(2021/C 79/49)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                 |                                         |                                       |
|------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                                                 | **OCCULOGIX,                INC.**           |
|                                            |                                    |                                  |
| Date:   August                9, 2006 | By:                                | /s/ William                G. Dumencu |
|                                                 |  Chief                Financial Officer |
|                                                 |                                         |
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Victor Roskey, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 40-F of Enterra Energy Trust;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3.

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

4.

The 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 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 issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

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

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5

The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the 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 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 issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: August 24, 2006 | By: | Signed Victor Roskey
Victor Roskey
Senior VP Finance & Administration and Interim Chief Financial Officer
|--------------------- | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---
# C_2016260EN.01005001.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/50

---

Action brought on 2 June 2016 — Kneidinger v EUIPO — Topseat International (Toilet Lid)

(Case T-286/16)

(2016/C 260/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ernst Kneidinger (Wilhering, Austria) (represented by: M. Grötschl, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Topseat International (Plano, Texas, USA)

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 design at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: Community design No 2274035-0001

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2016 in Case R 1030/2015-3

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 — in particular the cost of the pleadings and the further costs of any possible oral proceedings and travel costs — and the costs incurred during the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs — in particular the cost of the pleadings and the further costs of any possible oral proceedings and travel costs — and the costs incurred during the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 6(1) and (3) of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6(1) and (3) of Regulation No 6/2002.

---
Casey SEAMAN, Appellant, v. Allison L. SEAMAN, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3930

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2016296EN.01002501.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/25

---

Action brought on 15 June 2016 — bet365 Group v EUIPO — Hansen (BET365)

(Case T-304/16)

(2016/C 296/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: bet365 Group Limited (Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC (Queen's Counsel), R. Black and J. Bickle, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Robert Hansen (München, Germany)

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: EU word mark ‘BET365’

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 3243/2014-5

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 and the other party to pay their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to pay their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Case 5:04-cv-00056-C Document 16 Filed 04/27/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 68
William MONROE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4498

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 22, 2019

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Jace CREHAN

NO. 2018-KO-2024

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

*1125Denied.
Vanessa SHARP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3960

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 2019

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
International Isotopes Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in registration statements (Nos.
333-82821 and 333-49088) on Form S-3 of International Isotopes Inc. of our
report dated April 27, 2001, except for Note 11 which is as of June 6, 2001,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of International Isotopes Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which report
appears in the 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of International Isotopes Inc.

Our report dated April 27, 2001, except for Note 11 which is as of June 6, 2001,
contains as explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has suffered
recurring losses from operations and has a net capital deficiency, that raises
substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The
consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might
result form the outcome of this uncertainty.


                                                  KPMG LLP


Dallas, Texas
September 28, 2001
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 44 Filed 02/03/04 Page 1 of 12 PageID 242
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 44 Filed 02/03/04 Page 2 of 12 PageID 243
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 44 Filed 02/03/04 Page 3 of 12 PageID 244
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 44 Filed 02/03/04 Page 4 of 12 PageID 245
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 44 Filed 02/03/04 Page 5 of 12 PageID 246
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 44 Filed 02/03/04 Page 6 of 12 PageID 247
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 44 Filed 02/03/04 Page 7 of 12 PageID 248
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 44 Filed 02/03/04 Page 8 of 12 PageID 249
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 44 Filed 02/03/04 Page 9 of 12 PageID 250
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 44 Filed 02/03/04 Page 10 of 12 PageID 251
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 44 Filed 02/03/04 Page 11 of 12 PageID 252
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 44 Filed 02/03/04 Page 12 of 12 PageID 253
# C_2016165EN.01001701.xml

| 10.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/17

---

Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Delfin Wellness v EUIPO — Laher (infrared cabins and saunas)

(Case T-114/16)

(2016/C 165/19)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Delfin Wellness GmbH (Leonding, Austria) (represented by: T. Riedler, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sabine Laher (Weyer, Austria)

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 design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: Community design No 1058812-0001, No 1058812-0002 and No 1058812-0003

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 in Cases R 849/2014-3, R 850/2014-3 und R 851/2014-3

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decisions of the Third Board of Appeal in Cases R 849/2014-3, R 850/2014-3 und R 851/2014-3; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions of the Third Board of Appeal in Cases R 849/2014-3, R 850/2014-3 und R 851/2014-3;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of all the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of all the proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 64 Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 64 Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 65[(1)](f) of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 65[(1)](f) of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 65(1)(d) of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 65(1)(d) of Regulation No 6/2002.

---
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 4 Filed 06/09/03 Page 1 of 1 PageID 16
Jermaine LEWIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2148

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LORENZO MILLS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 428 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of May, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A (the "Report") of Sea Sun
Capital Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004, the
undersigned, Wayne Izumi, the Treasurer, hereby certifies 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 the undersigned's knowledge and belief:

     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 results of operations
          of the Company.

Dated:   May 6, 2005                             /s/  Wayne Izumi
                                                 -----------------------
                                                 Wayne Izumi
                                                 Treasurer