alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1530

BARBARA J. NEWSOME-BALTROP,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PAYCO AMERICAN CORPORATION; FM SERVICES

CORPORATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District

Judge. (CA-95-978-A)

Submitted: December 10, 1996 Decided: January 16, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barbara J. Newsome-Baltrop, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Lang Lowndes,

BUTLER, MACON, WILLIAMS, PANTELE & LOWNDES, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Barbara J. Newsome-Baltrop appeals the district court's order

granting summary judgment to Defendants in this employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Newsome-Baltrop v.

Payco American Corp., No. CA-95-978-A (E.D. Va. Feb. 14, 1996). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2016156EN.01005301.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/53

---

Action brought on 29 February 2016 — Solenis Technologies v EUIPO (STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.)

(Case T-96/16)

(2016/C 156/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Solenis Technologies LP (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: A. Sanz Cerralbo, 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 ‘STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.’ — Application for registration No 13 355 508

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 December 2015 in Case R 613/2015-2

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested decision insofar as it refuses the registration of EU trade mark application No 13 355 508 ‘STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.’; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision insofar as it refuses the registration of EU trade mark application No 13 355 508 ‘STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.’;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

Plea in law

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

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [SEC File No. 270-521, OMB Control No. 3235-0579]

# AGENCY:

Securities and Exchange Commission. ACTION: Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Securities and Exchange Commission published a notice document in the                         **Federal Register**                         on December 27, 2024, concerning a Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Regulation BTR. The document contained a typographical error.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Naomi P. Lewis, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, (202) 551-5400.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of December 27, 2024, in FR Doc. 2024-30768, at 89 FR 105665, in the first column, in the last paragraph, on the 51st and 52nd lines, the reference to “                    *https://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAViewICR?​ref_​nbr=​202412-3235-022*                    ” should be replaced with “                    *https://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAViewICR?​ref_​nbr=​202412-3235-023*                    ”.                

Dated: December 30, 2024.

Stephanie J. Fouse,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2024-31577 Filed 1-2-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
# C_2017053EN.01003901.xml

| 20.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/39

---

Action brought on 20 December 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — Senator (TRINOMIC)

(Case T-896/16)

(2017/C 053/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Senator GmbH & Co. KGaA (Groß-Bieberau, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant for the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TRINOMIC’ — Application No 12 697 074

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2016 in Case R 70/2016-4

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 the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

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 the principle of equal treatment and of the principle that the administration is bound by its own decisions. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of the principle that the administration is bound by its own decisions.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #20720 and #20721; NORTH CAROLINA Disaster Number NC-20009]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 3.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4827-DR), dated October 2, 2024.

*Incident:*                         Tropical Storm Helene.                    

# DATES:

Issued on December 20, 2024.

*Incident Period:*                         September 25, 2024 through December 18, 2024.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         January 20, 2025.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         July 2, 2025.                    

# ADDRESSES:

*Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov*                         to apply for a disaster assistance loan.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of North Carolina, dated October 2, 2024, is hereby amended to update the incident period for this disaster as beginning September 25, 2024 and continuing through December 18, 2024.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Alejandro Contreras,

Acting Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.

[FR Doc. 2024-31605 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBERT JEAN HUDSON, §

Petitioner, §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:03-CV-1643-K

§ (death-penalty Case)

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division, §

Respondent. §

CERTIFICATE AS TO APPEALABILITY

Considering the record in this case, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) and

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court hereby finds and orders:

IFP STATUS:

(X) the party appealing is GRANTED in forma pauperisstatus on appeal. Petitioner moved

to proceed in forma pauperis in this case on June 30, 2004 (Doc. 18), and the Court

denied Petitioner’s motion as moot (Doc. 19) because Petitioner had paid the filing fee.

For purposes of the instant motion, however, the amount of money listed on the

Certificate of Inmate Trust Account as of the date Hudson moved to proceed in forma

pauperis is relevant, and Petitioner is GRANTED in forma pauperis status on appeal.

( ) the party appealing is DENIED in forma pauperis status on appeal

for the following reasons:

( ) the Court certifies, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3),

that the appeal is not taken in good faith.

( ) the person appealing is not a pauper because he has paid the appellate filing fee;

( ) the person appealing has not complied with the requirements of Rule 24 of the

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and /or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) as ordered

by the Court. (See Notice of Deficiency and Order entered on ).
COA:

( ) a Certificate of Appealability is GRANTED on the following issues: 

 

(X) a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. The Court hereby incorporates by reference

the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered in this case on September 20, 2007, in

support of this Court’s finding that Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing

of the denial of a federal constitutional right in each of the matters made the subject of

his motion for COA . See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1602, 146

L. Ed .2d 542 (2000). 

SIGNED this 23 day of October, 2007. rd

_______________________________________

ED KINKEADE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
# C_2020433EN.01002501.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 23 September 2020 — Airhelp Limited v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-451/20)

(2020/C 433/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Airhelp Limited

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that that regulation also applies to an air route booked under a single booking but consisting of two flights, both of which are operated by (the same) Community air carrier, if both the place of departure of the first flight and place of arrival of the second flight are in a third country and only the place of arrival of the first flight and the place of departure of the second flight are in the territory of a Member State?
  If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that that regulation also applies to an air route booked under a single booking but consisting of two flights, both of which are operated by (the same) Community air carrier, if both the place of departure of the first flight and place of arrival of the second flight are in a third country and only the place of arrival of the first flight and the place of departure of the second flight are in the territory of a Member State?

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

| 2. | Must Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that a passenger is entitled to compensation under Article 7(1) of that Regulation even if, on the alternative flight offered to him, his scheduled arrival time at the final destination would have been less than two hours after the scheduled arrival time of the cancelled flight, but he does not actually arrive within that time? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that a passenger is entitled to compensation under Article 7(1) of that Regulation even if, on the alternative flight offered to him, his scheduled arrival time at the final destination would have been less than two hours after the scheduled arrival time of the cancelled flight, but he does not actually arrive within that time?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
Exhibit 13.2
 Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of EXFO Inc., hereby certifies, that:
 
 1.
The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended August 31, 2012 of EXFO 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of EXFO.
 
 
 Date:           Decenber 10, 2012
 
 
 
 /s/Pierre Plamondon
 Pierre Plamondon, CPA, CA
 Vice-President, Finance
 and Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Financial Officer)
 
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as separate disclosure document.
## **EXHIBIT 32.2**

## ** **

**METALSUSA, INC.**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURUANTTO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Metals USA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Terry L. Freeman, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Annual Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company.

 
| Dated: March 9, 2005 | /s/ Terry L. Freeman    |   |
|----------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                 | Terry L. Freeman        |
|                 | Chief Financial Officer |

 

The foregoingCertification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Act andis not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(a)/15d-14(a)

I, Paul G. Anderson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of FCStone Group, 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(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)) 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying
officer(s) 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 registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 25, 2006



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Paul G. Anderson         
|Paul G. Anderson             
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal Executive Officer)
**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 Capital Resource Funding, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2005 filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Laura
      Koran, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based
      on my knowledge:





(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.










January
      20,
      2006 /s/
      Laura Koran


Laura
      Koran


Chief Financial Officer
Ronnie K. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW, Respondent.

No. 1D18-0179

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 18, 2018 Rehearing Denied February 15, 2019

Seth E. Miller, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Rana Wallace, General Counsel, and Mark Hiers, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The appendix reveals Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder, which was used as the present offense of conviction, and three other counts. The Commission aggravated Petitioner's presumptive parole release date for his separate conviction of shooting into occupied vehicle and for use of a firearm. However, use of a firearm is included in the definition of the offense of shooting into occupied vehicle, and the Commission's rules do not permit additional aggravation for factors included in the definition of other convictions already used as aggravating elements. *Mattingly v. Fla. Parole and Probation Comm'n* , 417 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The order denying Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus is quashed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Lewis, Wetherell, and Winokur, Jj., concur.