alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018399EN.01003003.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/30

---

Order of the President of the Court of 2 August 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Estonia, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic

(Case C-594/17) (1)

(2018/C 399/39)

Language of the case: Slovene

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

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.

---
Linaker CHARLEMAGNE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2638

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 6, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2017178EN.01000401.xml

| 6.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/4

---

Appeal brought on 15 February 2017 by Société des produits Nestlé SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-112/13: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-84/17 P)

(2017/C 178/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (represented by: G.S.P. Vos, advocaat)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 December 2016, case T-112/13, on that basis that the General Court infringed article 7(3) and 52(2) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (‘EUTMR’) (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 December 2016, case T-112/13, on that basis that the General Court infringed article 7(3) and 52(2) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (‘EUTMR’) (1); and

1

| — | order the respondent, applicant before the General Court, Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent, applicant before the General Court, Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Nestlé appeals the General Court’s judgment on the ground that the General Court infringed article 7(3) and article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No. 207/2009 amended by Regulation (EU) No. 2015/2424 (2), also known as EUTMR.

2

More specifically, Nestlé’s appeal is directed against the decision of the General Court that concerning the extent of the territory in which it is necessary to establish distinctive character acquired through use of a mark, the distinctive character acquired through use of that mark must be shown throughout the territory of the European Union, that is, in all the Member States concerned.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1).

1

(2)  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) (OJ 2015, L 341, p. 21).

2

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

DANIEL M. SOTO, §

Petitioner, §

 § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-200-Y

 §

COLE JETER, Warden, §

FMC–Fort Worth, §

Respondent. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING 

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this action brought by petitioner Daniel M. Soto under 28

U.S.C. § 2241, the Court has made an independent review of the

following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:

1. The pleadings and record;

2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on

July 20, 2005; and

3. The petitioner's written objections to the proposed

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United

States magistrate judge filed on August 12, 2005.

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that Soto’s

objections must be overruled, that the motion to dismiss should be

granted, and that the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, for the

reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions.

 It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the magistrate judge should be, and are hereby,

ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that respondent Jeter’s June 14, 2005,

motion to dismiss [docket no. 7] be, and is hereby, GRANTED.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00200-Y Document 11 Filed 08/19/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 45
2

 It is further ORDERED that Daniel M. Soto’s petition for writ

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be, and is hereby,

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

SIGNED August 19, 2005.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00200-Y Document 11 Filed 08/19/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 46
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

JOHN SPIEGELBERG, d/b/a )

RED RAIDER OUTFITTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CHRISTOPHER J. TOELLE, d/b/a )

RAIDERLAND BOOKSTORE, )

) Civil Action No. 5:05-CV-130-C

Defendant. ) ECF

ORDER GRANTING VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

The parties have informed this Court that they have amicably settled this action by

agreement executed on April 5, 2006, wherein each side bears its own attorney fees and all costs

related to this action, both pre-filing and post-filing, and forever waive the right to recovery for

the same. Accordingly, this Court grants the parties’ joint request by joint stipulation for a

voluntary dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(ii).

SO ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2006.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 5:05-cv-00130-C Document 27 Filed 05/09/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 176
AMERICAN TREE CARE SERVICES and Harbor Specialty Insurance Company & Enstar (US) Inc., Appellants, v. Eric BUNDSHUH, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0309

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**AFFINITY GROUP HOLDING, INC.**

 

**STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350**

 

 

I, Joe McAdams, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Affinity Group Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), hereby certify as follows:

 

1.                                       This statementis provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with the Company’sAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the“Periodic Report”);

 

2.                                       The PeriodicReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

3.                                       The informationcontained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of dates andfor the periods indicated therein.

 

 

Date: March 21, 2003

 

 
|   | /s/  Joe McAdams                       |   |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   | Joe McAdams                            |   |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

130

----
#### J. D. Raulerson, Clerk Circuit Court, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida ex rel. Union Deposit Company, a Corporation, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed January 9, 1928.

*L. J. Glyatt,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Marks, Marks & Holt,*for Intervenor.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and the 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.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 MHI Hospitality Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William J.
Zaiser, Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, 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:



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

Date: November 10, 2010

By:

/s/ William J. ZaiserName:

William J. ZaiserTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
James ISABELLA, Former Husband, Appellant, v. Melanie WYRICK f/k/a Melanie Anne Isabella, Former Wife, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3581

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.9

                         AMENDMENT TO WARRANT AGREEMENT

                           CLASS B REDEEMABLE WARRANT

                       MEDICAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, INC.

     WHEREAS, a Warrant Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of November 1,
1996 was entered into between Medical Resources Management, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), and certain parties as listed in Schedule A to
the Agreement, hereinafter collectively called "Holders";

     WHEREAS, in connection with a private placement of 515,540 units (the
"Units") during the period from November 1, 1996 through April 29, 1997, the
Company issued Units to each of the Holders, each Unit consisting of (i) one
share of the Company's common stock, $.001 par value (the "Common Stock"), (ii)
one Class A common stock purchase warrant (the "Class A Warrant") and (iii) one
Class B common stock purchase warrant (the "Class B Warrant");

     WHEREAS, in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Agreement, the
right to exercise each Class B Warrant is scheduled to expire on November 1,
1999;

     WHEREAS, the Company desires to extend the expiration date of the Class B
Warrants for a period of an additional two (2) years, until November 1, 2001;

     WHEREAS, on May 11, 1999 the Company's Board of Directors voted to
extend the expiration date of the Class B Warrants until November 1, 2001;

     NOW, THEREFORE, Section 2.(A) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read
in its entirety as follows:

               EACH WARRANT SHALL ENTITLE THE HOLDER OF THE CERTIFICATE
         REPRESENTING SUCH WARRANT TO PURCHASE UPON THE EXERCISE THEREOF ONE
         SHARE OF COMMON STOCK, SUBJECT TO THE ADJUSTMENTS PROVIDED IN SECTION 5
         HEREOF, AT ANY TIME UNTIL 5:00 P.M., PACIFIC TIME, ON NOVEMBER 1, 2001,
         UNLESS EARLIER REDEEMED PURSUANT TO SECTION 6 HEREOF.

<PAGE>


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this amendment to the
Agreement to be duly executed, effective as of September 26, 1999.

(CORPORATE SEAL)

                                            MEDICAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, INC.

                                            By:
                                               --------------------------------
                                                 Allen Bonnifield, President

ATTEST:

-------------------------------
Michael Fewer, Secretary
EXHIBIT 32.1 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 Quarterly Report of DYNAMIC ALERT LIMITED (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard Cowan, 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:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: November 13, 2008
|-----------------------



|By:/s/ Richard CowanRichard CowanPresident/CEO and principal executive officer
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RONNIE REED, JR. )

)

V. ) 3-05-CV-1427-N

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal Justice )

Correctional Institutions Division )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge William F. Sanderson, Jr., made findings, conclusions

and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the

proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court

accepts the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

Signed May 5, 2006.

 

DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01427-N Document 15 Filed 05/05/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 123
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Kendle International Inc. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-57577, 333-61780,
333-34261, 333-108163 and 333-120906) of our reports dated March 16, 2006,
relating to the financial statements of Kendle International Inc., and
management's report on the effectiveness of internal control over Financial
Reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kendle International
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
March 16, 2006
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-12549-01-R6]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Notice of final order on petition.

# SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an Order dated December 19, 2024, denying a petition dated June 11, 2024, from Air Alliance Houston (the Petitioner). The petition requested that the EPA object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to Shell Chemical LP, for its Deer Park Chemical Plant located in Harris County, Texas. In addition, and as a part of the Order, the EPA Administrator found that cause exists to reopen the Shell Chemical Deer Park Chemical Plant permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70.7.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jonathan Ehrhart, EPA Region 6 Office, Air Permits Section, (214) 665-2295,                         *ehrhart.jonathan@epa.gov.*                         The final order and petition are available electronically at:                         *https://www.epa.gov/​title-v-operating-permits/​title-v-petition-database.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The EPA received a petition from Air Alliance Houston dated June 11, 2024, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. O1668, issued by TCEQ to Shell Chemical LP, for its Deer Park Chemical Plant located in Harris County, Texas. On December 19, 2024, the EPA Administrator issued an order denying the petition while concurrently making a finding that cause exists to reopen the Shell Chemical Deer Park Chemical Plant permit under 40 CFR 70.7. The order itself explains the basis for the EPA's decision.

Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later than March 24, 2025.

Dated: January 14, 2025.

James McDonald,

Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region 6.

[FR Doc. 2025-01352 Filed 1-17-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Statement

Kenneth A. Spearman, Board Member

Farm Credit Administration Board Meeting

March 13, 2014

Before the Board today is the question of whether or not to rescind a portion of the 

Compensation, Retirement Programs, and Related Benefits rule that requires a 

nonbinding, advisory vote of the stockholders under certain conditions. The Senior 

Executive Compensation rule is controversial, especially because of the nonbinding 

advisory vote provision.

As the independent safety and soundness regulator of the System, we must write and 

enforce rules and regulations that may be unpopular but, at the same time, vital for the 

System’s long-term financial health and well-being. I take this responsibility seriously.

While the nonbinding, advisory vote is not without merit, I’ve come to believe the 

appropriate course of action is to rescind that portion of the rule. To me, the nonbinding, 

advisory vote represented a System strength because it reinforced the active 

involvement of borrower-owners in control of their institutions. In addition, the rule’s 

disclosure provisions enhance transparency for stockholders by providing insight into 

their institutions’ compensations programs. It is my belief that transparency is critical in 

the cooperative borrower-owner decision process.

However, it has become apparent that the nonbinding, advisory vote provision of the 

rule is believed to erode the role and responsibilities of System elected representatives. 

As a former appointed director of a System institution, I would like to assure you that

this was not the intent.

While the nonbinding, advisory stockholder vote is being rescinded today, please know 

that I will continue to encourage the active participation of System borrower-owners in 

the management and control of their institutions. I do believe the strength of the System, 

or any cooperative for that matter, is the active participation of its member-owners.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBERT G. ROBERSON, #1008416, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) 3:05-CV-0963-P

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, )

Institutional Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After making the independent 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.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED.

Signed this 28 day of June 2005. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00417-Y Document 5 Filed 06/29/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 36
EX PARTE Derek Tyler HORTON

CR-17-0007

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 6, 2017 Reh. denied December 19, 2017

Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.