alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016343EN.01004701.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/47

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL LOVER)

(Case T-428/16)

(2016/C 343/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Isabel Martín Osete (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Daniella Rey (Toulouse, France)

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 ‘AN IDEAL LOVER’ — EU trade mark No 5 261 599

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 in Case R 1527/2015-2

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 55(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 55(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Order - Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL DANTE GARRETT §

 §

 Petitioner, §

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO.

§ 3:04-CV-957-P

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division, §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER

This is a writ of habeas corpus case filed by a state inmate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The Magistrate Judge filed her Findings and Conclusions on September 29, 2006. Respondent

filed objections on October 3, 2006 objecting to the magistrate judge’s failure to rule on his

defense that this petition is time-barred. The magistrate judge made no ruling on the timeliness

of the petition but instead proceeded directly to the merits of the claims. Petitioner timely filed 

objections on October 17, 2006. 

After review of the file, the magistrate judge’s report, and respondent’s and petitioner’s

objections, the court overrules respondent’s and petitioner’s objections. The issue of whether a

habeas petition is time-barred is not a jurisdictional issue, but rather is a defense. Davis v.

Johnson, 158 F.3d 806,811 (5 Cir. 1998). Respondent cites no authority which requires that th

limitations defenses be resolved ahead of other issues. Hence, the court finds no error on the

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00957-P Document 31 Filed 11/07/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 147
 Respondent states he is filing the objections to preserve the issue for appeal. However, the magistrate 1

judge made no findings, conclusions or recommendations regarding the limitations issue. Thus, this court treats

respondent’s objections as objecting to the magistrate judge’s failure to rule on the limitations defense.

 Petitioner filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment on October 30, 2006. However, since the court 2

vacated its previous judgment by order of October 23, 2006, this motion is Denied as moot.

Order - Page 2

part of the magistrate judge in deciding the claims on the merits rather than deciding the

timeliness issue.1

Petitioner’s objections address issues that were thoroughly discussed by the magistrate

judge in her report. Petitioner’s objections are overruled.2

After reviewing all the relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings,

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, respondent’s objections, and

petitioner’s objections, the court accepts the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge and adopts them as the findings of this court.

Signed this 7 day of November. 2006. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00957-P Document 31 Filed 11/07/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 148
Case 3:04-cv-00969-K Document 51 Filed 08/30/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 688
Case 3:04-cv-00969-K Document 51 Filed 08/30/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID 689
Case 3:04-cv-00969-K Document 51 Filed 08/30/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID 690
Case 3:04-cv-00969-K Document 51 Filed 08/30/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID 691
Case 3:04-cv-00969-K Document 51 Filed 08/30/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID 692
Table of Contents

Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

William H. Joyce, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer of Nalco Holding Company(‘‘Nalco’’) and Bradley J. Bell, ExecutiveVice President and Chief Financial Officer of Nalco, in conjunctionwith the filing of Nalco’s 10-Q financial report (the‘‘Report’’) with the Securities andExchange Commission, covering the calendar quarter ending June30,  2006, hereby certify as follows:

|  |          |                                                                                           |
|--|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | a.  | TheReport fully complies with the requirements of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, and |

|  |          |                                                                                                                                     |
|--|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | b.  | The information in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations for Nalco. |

|  | /s/ WILLIAMH.JOYCE |
|--|--------------------|

|  |
|--|
|  |  |  |
|  |

|  | WilliamH. JoyceChairman and Chief Executive OfficerDate: August9,  2006 |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | /s/ BRADLEY J.BELL |
|--|--------------------|

|  |
|--|
|  |  |  |
|  |

|  | BradleyJ. BellExecutive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficerDate: August  9,2006 |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
E. S., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4706

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-3702

___________ Rolf A. Rosendahl, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western Margie Bontz; Fum; David Moore; * District of Missouri. John Doe, CO II; Does, A-Z, * inclusive, in their individual and or * [UNPUBLISHED] their official capacities herein; Jesse * Montemayor; Michael J. Carter; * Terry Wynne; Darin Morgan; * Richard Spackler, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 6, 2001 Filed: July 24, 2001

___________ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. -2- Missouri inmate Rolf A. Rosendahl appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against various Western Missouri Corrections Center employees. Mr. Rosendahl claimedthat defendants (1) retaliatedagainst him for filing lawsuits and grievances by issuing him false conduct violations and placing him inadministrative segregation, (2) denied him access to the courts by seizing and storing his legal materials, and (3) violated his free speech rights by opening an envelope containing a letter he wrote and then punishing him for the letter’s contents. Having reviewed the record de novo, we affirm for the reasons explained by the distr ict court. See Davis v. Norris , 249 F.3d 800, 801 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (“Prisoners’ First Amendment rights may be circumscribed if legitimate penological objectives outweigh preservation of their rights.”); Rouse v. Benson , 193 F.3d 936, 939 (8thCir. 1999) (standard of review); Gardner v. Howard , 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997) (there is no § 1983 liability based on prison officials’ violation of prison policy; inmatemust prove constitutional-right violation); Goff v. Burton , 91 F.3d 1188, 1191 (8th Cir. 1996) (to avoid liability on inmate’s retaliatory-discipline claim, defendants must simply prove there was “some evidence” supporting their decision to discipline him; claim must fail if contested discipline was imposed for actual rule violation); Gassler v. Wood , 14 F.3d 406, 408 n.5 (8th Cir. 1994) (“prison officials do not commit constitutional violations by reading prisoners’ nonprivileged mail”)

. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b)
AND 15d-14(b)


(Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Richard Nathan, certify, 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 my
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 the operation of the
      Company.





/s/ Richard
      NathanChief
      Executive Officer
                Innovative
      Card Technologies, Inc


Date: November 13,
2009





This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.





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 3:04-cv-00433-P Document 20 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 64
Dorothy MOTT, Kimberly Tait, Sandra Emanuel, and Robin Stevens v. Roger MOTT and Raymond Mott

2161039

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 13 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 13

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
              limiting the pardon power of the President.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2025

    Mr. Cohen (for himself, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, and Mr. Levin) 
  submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
              limiting the pardon power of the President.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The President shall not have the power to grant 
pardons and reprieves to--
            ``(1) the President's self;
            ``(2) any person, up to a third degree relation, of the 
        President, or a spouse thereof;
            ``(3) any current or former member of the President's 
        administration;
            ``(4) any person who worked on the President's presidential 
        campaign as a paid employee;
            ``(5) any person or entity for an offense that was 
        motivated by a direct and significant personal or pecuniary 
        interest of any of the foregoing persons; or
            ``(6) any person or entity for an offense that was at the 
        direction of, or in coordination with, the President.
```Any pardon issued for a corrupt purpose shall be invalid. '.
    ``Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article 
by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

SHAKEEL KAHN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 18-8079 

(D.C. No. 2:17-CR-00029-ABJ-1) 

(D. Wyo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, BACHARACH, and EID, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 Defendant appeals from the district court’s order dated October 3, 2018, 

denying his motion for release pending trial. Defendant is charged with more than 

twenty counts of violations of the Controlled Substances Act. He was originally 

released on bond with conditions, but his bond was revoked when the district court 

found that he had violated conditions of release by contacting a witness. Since then 

he has filed three motions seeking release, all of which have been denied. Defendant 

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

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

May 6, 2019

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

now appeals the most recent denial, arguing that his prolonged pretrial detention 

violates his right to due process. 

In reviewing the district court’s order denying release, this court reviews 

mixed questions of law and fact de novo, and factual findings for clear error. United 

States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 2003). 

 Having reviewed the parties’ filings in this court and the district court order 

and filings, we affirm the district court’s order denying release for substantially the 

reasons stated in its October 3, 2018 order. Specifically, we find no error in the 

district court’s ruling that defendant’s pretrial detention to this point does not violate 

his due process rights under the particular circumstances of this case. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 4817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00869]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

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

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

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 16, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean 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 
January 7, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
590 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1078, K2025-1077.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00869 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 70 

To prohibit the Administrator of General Services from awarding contracts 

for certain commercial payment systems under the SmartPay Program, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona (for himself, Mr. OGLES, and Mr. CLINE) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Administrator of General Services from 

awarding contracts for certain commercial payment systems under the SmartPay Program, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘No SmartPay for Anti5 2A Companies Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 70 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR CER2 TAIN COMMERCIAL PAYMENT SYSTEMS 

3 UNDER THE SMARTPAY PROGRAM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator of General 

5 Services may not award a contract under the SmartPay 

6 Program for the procurement of a commercial payment 

7 system that uses a payment processing agency that has 

8 implemented a merchant category code for gun retailers. 

9 (b) APPLICABILITY.—This Act shall not apply to any 

10 contract awarded before the date of the enactment of this 

11 Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# 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® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1176 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-964, K2025-963.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31735 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Skyler Wade BENNETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3583

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Carolyn BISBAL, Appellant, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust, Not in Its Individual Capacity, but Solely as Trustee for BCAT 2015-14ATT, Jesus Guevara and David Yeazell, Appellees.

Case No. 5D18-1367

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 154 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 154

 To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish Election Day as a 
                            Federal holiday.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Fitzpatrick (for himself and Mrs. Dingell) introduced the following 
 bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish Election Day as a 
                            Federal holiday.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Election Day Act''.

SEC. 2. PATRIOT DAY.

    Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting after the item relating to Columbus Day the following:
            ``Election Day.''.
                                 <all>
```