alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016270EN.01004801.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/48

---

Action brought on 6 May 2016 — Pio De Bragança v EUIPO — Ordem de São Miguel da Ala (QUIS UT DEUS)

(Case T-229/16)

(2016/C 270/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Duarte Pio De Bragança (Sintra, Portugal) (represented by: J. Sardinha, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ordem de São Miguel da Ala (Lisbon, Portugal)

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: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘quis ut deus’ — European Union trade mark No 005747936

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2016 in Case R 621/2015-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and, therefore, declare the total invalidity, on the grounds of lack of genuine use, of the contested trade mark including with respect to the ‘signboards of metal’ goods belonging to Class 6; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, therefore, declare the total invalidity, on the grounds of lack of genuine use, of the contested trade mark including with respect to the ‘signboards of metal’ goods belonging to Class 6;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 15(1) and Article 51(1)(a) and 51(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, [the present action] having been brought under Article 65 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

---
<PAGE>   1
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

                                  Exhibit 23.1

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3) and related Prospectuses of Equity Office Properties Trust for the
registration of: 137,427 common shares of beneficial interest (registration
statement no. 333-69619); 6,854,451 common shares of beneficial interest
(registration statement no. 333-62213); 20,210,129 common shares of beneficial
interest (registration statement no. 333-59069); 6,000,000 5.25% Series B
convertible, cumulative preferred shares of beneficial interest (registration
statement no. 333-61105); $1.5 billion common shares of beneficial interest,
preferred shares of beneficial interest, common share warrants and preferred
share warrants (registration statement no. 333-58729); 1,628,009 common shares
of beneficial interest (registration statement no. 333-58687); and 8,205,059
common shares of beneficial interest (registration statement no. 333-40401);
and in the Registration Statements (Form S-8) pertaining to Equity Office
Properties Trust 1997 Non-Qualified Employee Share Purchase Plan (registration
statement no. 333-72187) and the Amended and Restated 1997 Share Option and
Share Award Plan, (registration statement no. 333-72205), of our report dated
February 9, 1999, except for Note 23, as to which the date is February 16, 1999,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Equity
Office Properties Trust and Equity Office Predecessors included in the 1998
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Equity Office Properties Trust.

                                                       ERNST & YOUNG LLP




Chicago, Illinois
March 17, 1999
Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 1 of 21 PageID 533
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 2 of 21 PageID 534
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 3 of 21 PageID 535
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 4 of 21 PageID 536
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 5 of 21 PageID 537
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 6 of 21 PageID 538
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 7 of 21 PageID 539
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 8 of 21 PageID 540
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 9 of 21 PageID 541
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 10 of 21 PageID 542
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 11 of 21 PageID 543
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 12 of 21 PageID 544
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 13 of 21 PageID 545
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 14 of 21 PageID 546
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 15 of 21 PageID 547
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 16 of 21 PageID 548
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 17 of 21 PageID 549
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 18 of 21 PageID 550
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 19 of 21 PageID 551
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 20 of 21 PageID 552
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03102-P Document 30 Filed 06/20/05 Page 21 of 21 PageID 553
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 105 

To amend title 54, United States Code, to increase public access to 

recreational areas on Federal land. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend title 54, United States Code, to increase public 

access to recreational areas on Federal land. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Increasing Public Ac5 cess to Recreation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE FOR RECREATIONAL PUBLIC ACCESS. 

7 Subsection (c) of section 200306 of title 54, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘3 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘10 

10 percent’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 105 IH

1 (2) by striking ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘$50,000,000’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT VEILED
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION | MAR 2 1 2008
| cen US BSTC Couer

ARNULFO FRANCO, § . peony

Plaintiff, :
v. ; 2:04-CV-0278
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, :
Commissioner of Social Security, §

Defendant. ;

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.

REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER,
and REMANDING FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Came for consideration plaintiffs appeal of the decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security denying plaintiff disability benefits. The United States Magistrate Judge entered a
Report and Recommendation on March 7, 2008, recommending therein that the decision of the
Commissioner be reversed and the case remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative
action. On March 13, 2008, defendant gave notice that he does not object to the decision made
in the Report and Recommendation.

The undersigned United States District Judge has made an independent examination of
the record in this case. The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
is hereby ADOPTED. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s administrative decision finding
plaintiff not disabled is REVERSED, and the decision is REMANDED to the Commissioner for
further administrative proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, including but not limited to all action specified and recommended to be taken



on remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

ENTERED this_ 67/7 day of LLY, tg fy ? 2008.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit
      13.2





PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERCERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350







In connection with this Annual Report ofGolden
State Petro (IOM 1-B) PLC(the“Company”) on Form 20-F for
the annual period ended December 31,2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“SEC”) on or about the
date hereof (the“Report”), I, Kate Blankenship, the Principal Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adoptedpursuant 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.





A signed original of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
SEC or its staff upon request.





Date:  June 30, 2008















/s/  Kate
Blankenship




KateBlankenship


Principal Financial
Officer
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 191 

To repeal the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. OGLES (for himself, Mr. BURLISON, Mr. PERRY, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. BIGGS

of Arizona, Mr. CLOUD, Ms. HAGEMAN, Mr. BRECHEEN, Mr. CRANE, 

Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. SELF, Mrs. LUNA, Mr. ROY, Mr. MOORE

of Alabama, Mr. ZINKE, and Mr. TIFFANY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Agriculture, Natural 

Resources, Financial Services, Science, Space, and Technology, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Oversight and Government Reform, for a 

period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Inflation Reduction 

5 Act of 2025’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 191 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INFLATION REDUCTION ACT OF 2022. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Public Law 117–169 (commonly 

3 referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022) is re4 pealed. 

5 (b) RESCISSIONS.—The unobligated balances of any 

6 amounts made available under Public Law 117–169 are 

7 rescinded. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
In the MATTER OF the SUCCESSION OF Wayne Edmond BREEN

NO. 2C19-OC-0292

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 17 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KENNY TAYLOR,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 98-6187

(D.C. No. CIV-97-1821-R)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , BRISCOE , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Petitioner Kenny Taylor seeks to appeal from the district court’s denial of

his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. The district court denied the § 2255 motion as untimely filed, applying

United States v. Simmonds , 111 F.3d 737 (10th Cir. 1997). The district court also

denied petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability, required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253 before this court can consider his appeal. Petitioner reurges his request

before this court. He also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, and moves this

court to appoint him counsel on appeal. 

After review of petitioner’s motion and supporting documents, we grant his

request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. However, after careful

consideration of petitioner’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that he has not

made a substantial showing that the district court’s decision denied him a

constitutional right. See id. Accordingly, petitioner’s request for a certificate of

appealability is denied, and this appeal is dismissed. Petitioner’s request for

appointment of counsel is denied as moot. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby

Circuit Judge
Exhibit 13.1

                    PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with this Annual Report of Golden State Petro (IOM I-A) PLC (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the annual period ended December 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Tor Olav Troim, the Principal Executive Officer of the
Company, 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.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date: June 24, 2007








/s/ Tor Olav Troim
----------------------------
    Tor Olav Troim
    Principal Executive Officer
1Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-30108

Summary Calendar

MERE’S WRECKER SERVICE INC.; TIMOTHY KASSINGER

Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants

VERSUS

ABID HUSSAIN HEMANI; SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS INC.

Defendants-appellants-Cross-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(93-CV-1617)

August 21, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

This suit arises out of an accident between an eighteen wheel

tractor trailer and the wrecker which was extricating the tractor

trailer rig from a bog. Both sides claim various damages from the

other, and the resolution of the case turns on the credibility

decisions made by the experienced trial judge who heard the

witnesses. Although, in the “Statement of Facts” section of their
2

brief, Appellants complain that the amounts awarded Appellees were

“generous”, in the “Argument” section of their brief they discuss

only the trial court’s liability determination.

We have carefully considered the briefs, the trial judge’s

written ruling and the record and we find no reversible error on

any point. The trial judge considered all the evidence carefully,

made the requisite credibility determinations and reached a result

which we cannot say is erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment is

AFFIRMED largely for the reasons given by the trial court.

AFFIRMED.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 A0 39 0 . LI SA MORENO DI CKI N SON v . VAUGHN C. DI C KI N SON

Th i s cas e was d o ck et ed b y t h i s co u rt on Oct o b er 3
, 2 0 2 3
, an d ap p el l an t ’ s b ri ef

an d en u m erat i on s o f erro r w ere d u e Oct ob er 2 3
, 2 0 23

. As o f t he d at e o f t h i s o r d e r,

ap p el l an t s t i l l h as no t fi l ed a b ri ef an d en u m erat i o n o f erro rs an d h as n o t req ues t ed an

ex t en s i o n o f t i m e i n w h i ch t o do s o

. Acco rd i n g ly
, t hi s ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED

as ab an d o n ed p u rs u an t t o Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l es 1 3 an d 2 3

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. November 08, 2023

11/08/2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JASON PEREZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 515 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of April, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Order filed April 11, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-01046-CV

____________

JOHN PAYNE SMITH, Appellant

V.

ELSA ISELA JACQUEZ-SMITH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 312th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-30875

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due March 25, 2013. No brief or motion for extension 

of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant submits a brief to the clerk of this court on or before May 

9, 2013, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
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 Verdant Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Curd, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

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.



November 17, 2008



| |                                
| | -------------------------------
| | /s/ David J. Curd              
| | David J. Curd                  
| | Interim Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6530

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

EUGENE COOPER, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District 

Judge. (4:00-cr-01033-CWH-2) 

Submitted: July 21, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit 

Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Eugene Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Eugene Cooper appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for clarification of the denial of a sentence 

reduction for substantial assistance.∗

 We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. 

Cooper, No. 4:00-cr-01033-CWH-2 (D.S.C. Feb. 20, 2008). 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

 ∗

 On our initial remand for a determination of excusable 

neglect or good cause under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4), the 

district court found no excusable neglect based on its 

assessment of the merits of the appeal. Such a merits review of 

its own order is not the purpose of a limited remand under Rule 

4(b)(4). However, because the time limits of Rule 4(b) are not 

jurisdictional, see Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, __, 127 S. 

Ct. 2360, 2363-66 (2007); United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 

679, 683-86 (4th Cir. 2009), and the Government has not moved to 

dismiss the appeal as untimely, we decline to dismiss the appeal 

as untimely and instead address the merits of the motion for 

clarification.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellant,

v.

NELSON VACHON,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-424

[January 6, 2016]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Robert F. Diaz, Judge; L.T. Case No. 14-17516MM10A.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard 

Valuntas, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the county court’s order finding the mandatory $5,000 

civil penalty imposed for solicitation of prostitution under section 

796.07(6), Florida Statutes (2014), to be unconstitutionally excessive. 

See State v. Jones, No. 4D14-3019 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 2, 2015). We 

remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and Remanded.

GROSS, GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.