alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Bankruptcy Court 

Northern District of Texas 

In re Big Horn Construction & Reclamation LLC Case No. 

Debtor(s) Chapter 7 

CORPORATE OWNERSHIP STATEMENT (RULE 7007.1) 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7007.1 and to enable the Judges to evaluate possible disqualification or 

recusal, the undersigned counsel for Big Horn Construction & Reclamation LLC in the above captioned action, certifies 

that the following is a (are) corporation(s), other than the debtor or a governmental unit, that directly or indirectly own(s) 

10% or more of any class of the corporation's(s') equity interests, or states that there are no entities to report under FRBP 

7007.1: 

• None [Check if applicable] 

June 7, 2024 

Date Robert A. Simon 18390000 

Signature of Attorney or Litigant 

Counsel for Big Horn Construction & Reclamation LLC 

Whitaker Chalk Swindle and Schwartz 

301 Commerce St. STE 3500 

Fort Worth, TX 76102 

817-878-0500 Fax:817-878-0501 

rsimon@whitakerchalk.com 

Case 24-42003-mxm7 Doc 3 Filed 06/07/24 Entered 06/07/24 16:43:54 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
#### Walter D. Payne and Ida L. Payne, His Wife, *Appellants,*v. Auston J. Cook and Elizabeth F. Cook, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed November 16, 1927.

Petition for Rehearing Denied December 18, 1927.

*H. G. Nicholas,*for Appellants;

*McElya*and *Milledge,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree 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 decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whiteield, P. J., and Terrell and Bueord, J. J., concur.
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 57 Filed 12/30/03 Page 1 of 5 PageID 294
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 57 Filed 12/30/03 Page 2 of 5 PageID 295
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 57 Filed 12/30/03 Page 3 of 5 PageID 296
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 57 Filed 12/30/03 Page 4 of 5 PageID 297
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 57 Filed 12/30/03 Page 5 of 5 PageID 298
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31650]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. P-14581-002]

Turlock & Modesto Irrigation District; Notice of Reasonable 
Period of Time for Water Quality Certification Application

    On December 13, 2024, the Turlock & Modesto Irrigation District 
submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a 
copy of its application for Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water 
quality certification filed with the California State Water Resources 
Control Board (Water Board), in conjunction with the above captioned 
project. The submittal also included a response from the Water Board 
stating that it received the application on the same day. Pursuant to 
section 5.23(b) of the Commission's regulations,\1\ we hereby notify 
the Water Board of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 5.23(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: December 13, 2024
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: 
December 13, 2025.
    If the Water Board fails or refuses to act on the water quality 
certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying 
authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean 
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: December 30, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-31650 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
Pedro GONZALEZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0361

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
PARKSIDE VILLAS, LLC; Rodger Kooser, Bruce K. Herman, Stanley Budzinski, WestLB AG; and Gustavo J. Carbonnell Architect/Planner, P.A., Appellants, v. FIRST CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Appellee.

No. 4D18-362

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
|   | (a) | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended      June 30, 2010 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange      Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:                        |  /s/           FRANK V. RIOLO |   |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                       | Frank      V. Riolo                                         |
|                       | Chief      Executive Officer of                             |
|                       | American      Casino & Entertainment Properties LLC     |
|                       |                                                        |
| Date:      August 11, 2010 |

----
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D23-2475 

LT Case No. 2021-CF-000822-A 

_____________________________ 

MARCUS SHAW, 

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County. 

James R. Baxley, Judge. 

Marcus Shaw, Bonifay, pro se. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Whitney 

Brown Hartless, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the 

Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. 

December 12, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

EDWARDS, C.J., JAY, and HARRIS, JJ., concur. 
2 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,
Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahr a Bridget M. McCormac k
David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstei n Kurtis T. Wilde r Elizabeth T. Clement,
J ustices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at t he direction of the Court.

May 16, 2018

d0509t 

# Order

Clerk May 16, 2018

156500 & (28)(29) (30)(31)(32)(53)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 156 500 COA: 337966 Wayne CC: 12-005176-FC BRANDON LEWIS CAIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add new issues is GRANTED . The application for leave to appeal the July 7, 2017 order of the C ourt of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.5 08(D). The mot ions for miscellaneous
relief are DENIED.
----

----

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

|                               |   |                              |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|
| Date:       February 11, 2010 |   | /s/      William P. Brand, Jr.    |   |
|                               |   | William      P. Brand, Jr.        |   |
|                               |   | Chief Financial      Officer |   |
|                               |   |                              |   |

----

----
#### Wm. H. Schruben et al., etc., *Appellants,*v. Olive H. Johnson, *Appellee.*

En Bane.

Decision Filed July 13, 1927.

Petition for Rehearing Denied October 3, 1927.

*O. 8. Miller,*for Appellants;

*B. C. Horne,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order 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 order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

*205Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Strum and Brown, J. J., concur.

Buford, J., disqualified.
EXHIBIT 13.1





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, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stuart Rogers, Chief Executive 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/Stuart Rogers


________________________________


Stuart Rogers


Chief Executive Officer


Principal Executive Officer


April 29, 2013





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 2 Filed 05/23/03 Page 1 of 1 PageID 14
Troy HILL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D17-4755

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 5, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 29, 2019

Troy Hill, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The writ of prohibition is denied on the merits. *See**State v. Telucien* , 225 So.3d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ; *Wallace v. State* , 189 So.3d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

Bilbrey, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.
# C_2016222EN.01002901.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/29

---

Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DRAMA)

(Case T-183/16)

(2016/C 222/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASTER DRAMA’ — Application for registration No 11 566 544

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2500/2014-5

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, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
#### George Hinrichs, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Theo. Baars, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed October 27, 1927.

*R. P. Beese,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*William Fisher,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court up'on 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.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
# C_2021062EN.01001601.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 25 November 2020 — Tolnatext Bt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-636/20)

(2021/C 62/18)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pécsi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tolnatext Bt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Question referred

Must Article 22(6) and Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (1) be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to procedures carried out by a customs authority which is not acting in a judicial capacity, that authority must grant a right to be heard in procedures undertaken ex officio as well as in those undertaken on application?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).

---
# C_2016296EN.01004201.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/42

---

Action brought on 4 July 2016 — Axel Springer v EUIPO — Stiftung Warentest (TestBild)

(Case T-359/16)

(2016/C 296/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Axel Springer SE (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and G. Müllejans)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stiftung Warentest (Berlin, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘TestBild’ — Application for registration No 4 555 579

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2016 in Case R 555/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

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

—

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

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) 3-03-CR-434-D

) (3-05-CV-952-D)

KATHY CHEWNING )

ORDER

After making the 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.

Signed August 23, 2005.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cr-00434-D Document 120 Filed 08/24/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 267
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31683]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

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

AGENCY: Postal Service TM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 6, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1101 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-876, K2025-877.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31683 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
##### 



AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO THE EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF
PATRICK H. DUDASIK
    1.
    
    Amendment. Section 4(c)(i)(B)(2) of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide
as follows: any material adverse change in the status, position or responsibilities of
Executive, including a change in Executives reporting relationship;.2.
    
    Reaffirmation. In all other respects the Agreement remains the same and in
full force and effect.3.
    
    Effective Date. This Amendment No. 1 shall become effective as of the date
first written above (the Effective Date). On and after the Effective Date of this
Amendment No. 1, each reference in the Agreement to this Agreement, hereunder,
hereof, or words of like import referring to the Agreement shall mean and be a reference
to the Agreement as amended by this Amendment No. 1.4.
    
    Governing Law. The validity and construction of this Amendment No. 1 shall be
determined and governed in all respects by the laws of the State of Illinois without regard
to conflict of laws principles.
  CALAMOS ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.
    
    
    
    PATRICK H. DUDASIKBy:
Its:
    
    /s/ John P. Calamos, Sr.

Chairman, CEO & Co-CIO
    
    
    
    /s/
Patrick H. DudasikCALAMOS ADVISORS LLCBy:
Its:
    
    /s/ Patrick H. Dudasik

EVP, COO, CFO & Treasurer
Exhibit 99.1

                     Form of Section 906 Certification

               CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                    AND
                 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cygni Investments, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the
"Report"), I, Carl Suter, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
     of the Company.

/s/ Carl Suter
Carl Suter
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer

Date:  August 13, 2003
# C_2023007EN.01002101.xml

| 9.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2022 — KD v EUIPO

(Case T-298/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - 2019 Appraisal exercise - Appraisal report - Pre-litigation procedure - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Duty of care - Liability - Non-material damage)

(2023/C 7/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KD (represented by S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by K. Tóth, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU and brought on 22 May 2020, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of her appraisal report for the 2019 appraisal exercise and, secondly, compensation in respect of the non-material damage she claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls KD’s appraisal report in respect of the 2019 appraisal exercise; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls KD’s appraisal report in respect of the 2019 appraisal exercise;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by KD; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by KD;

| 4. | Orders KD to pay a quarter of her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders KD to pay a quarter of her own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.

---