alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017231EN.01002101.xml

| 17.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/21

---

Appeal brought on 16 May 2017 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2017 in Case T-194/13: United Parcel Service v European Commission

(Case C-265/17 P)

(2017/C 231/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, N. Khan, H. Leupold, A. Biolan, Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: United Parcel Service, Inc., FedEx Corp.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment;

| — | refer the proceedings back to the General Court, and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the proceedings back to the General Court, and

| — | reserve the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1) | The Judgment errs in finding that the Commission was required to disclose to UPS the final version of its price concentration model before adopting the Decision. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The Judgment errs in finding that the Commission was required to disclose to UPS the final version of its price concentration model before adopting the Decision.

| 2) | Even if the Commission’s failure to disclose the final version of the price concentration model to UPS before the adoption of the Decision could breach UPS’s rights of defence, the Judgment erred in its characterisation of the evidential character of the price concentration model and, consequently, in the legal test applied in determining that the Decision was to be annulled. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Even if the Commission’s failure to disclose the final version of the price concentration model to UPS before the adoption of the Decision could breach UPS’s rights of defence, the Judgment erred in its characterisation of the evidential character of the price concentration model and, consequently, in the legal test applied in determining that the Decision was to be annulled.

| 3) | Even if a breach of UPS’s rights of defence could arise in the circumstances, the Judgment erred in failing to address the Commission’s submissions that UPS’s plea was ineffective and that UPS could understand the price concentration model. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Even if a breach of UPS’s rights of defence could arise in the circumstances, the Judgment erred in failing to address the Commission’s submissions that UPS’s plea was ineffective and that UPS could understand the price concentration model.

| 4) | In any event, the findings made in the Judgment could not justify the annulment of the Decision. |
| --- | --- |

4)

In any event, the findings made in the Judgment could not justify the annulment of the Decision.

---
# C_2018032EN.01001301.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 18 October 2017 — J. Portugal Ramos Vinhos SA v Adega Cooperativa de Borba CRL

(Case C-629/17)

(2018/C 032/20)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J. Portugal Ramos Vinhos SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Adega Cooperativa de Borba CRL

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

In relation to the wording in Article [3](1)(c) of Directive 2008/95/EC, (1)‘indications which may serve, in trade, to designate other characteristics of the goods or service’, when used in the assessment of the permissibility of the registration of signs or indications intended to be adopted in order to designate wine products, must that wording be interpreted to the effect that it covers, in the verbal expressions adopted as a mark, including a protected geographical name as a designation of origin of wine, a reference to the word ‘adega’ [winery] — in the sense of a term currently used to identify the facilities and sites where the production process for such goods takes place — in the verbal expression adopted as a mark, in situations where that word (adega) is one of the various verbal elements which make up the corporate name of the legal entity seeking to register the mark?

1

indications which may serve, in trade, to designate other characteristics of the goods or service’,

adega’

adega

---

(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

1

---
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

K. H., :

Petitioner : SEALED CASE

:

v. :

:

Department of Human Services, :

Respondent : No. 739 C.D. 2022

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, May 30, 2024, upon consideration of Petitioner’s

application for reargument, the application is DENIED.
Case 4:05-cv-00490-A Document 9 Filed 10/28/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 37
Stephon Reginald GISCOMBE v. STATE

CR-16-0870

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Dennis G. Dracup, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Language Line, 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 officers 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)) for the registrant and we 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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants 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 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 the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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 10, 2007



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Dennis G. Dracup                
|    |  | Dennis G. Dracup                    
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RUSSELL B. CANFIELD, )

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:05-CV-1828-D 

)

BAYLOR MEDICAL CENTER, )

Defendant. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and plaintiff’s objections

thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion

that the Amended Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are

accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.

SIGNED August 23, 2006.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01828-D Document 15 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 53
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,181,020
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,217,144
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,565,150
<PP&E>                                       1,799,050
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,712,171
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,194,478
<BONDS>                                        273,231
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        76,163
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,732,457
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,712,171
<SALES>                                     12,193,633
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,193,633
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,238,668
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (103,990)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 58,955
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             58,955
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    58,955
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
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
No. 99-60720 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60720 Summary Calendar

ALBERT EDMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DAVID TURNER, Superintendent, Southern Mississippi Correctional Institute; FLORENCE JONES, ADOS, Southern Mississippi Correctional Institute; HUBERT JORDAN, Disciplinary Committee; DONALD WEST, Lieutenant; JERRY WALLEY, Lieutenant; KEITH DUNNAM, Sergeant; THOMAS MATHIAS, Sergeant; JAMES JOHNSON; REGINA HANCOCK; TERRI KILPATRICK; JAMES ANDERSON, Commissioner; LAQUINTA WRIGHT, Correctional Officer II, Area II; MICHAEL SUMNER, Captain, Warden, Area II Infirmary; MARIA SERAPIO, SMCI Medical Dir., Medical Director of Southern Mississippi Correctional Institute, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:99-CV-134-PG --------------------\ April 27, 2000 Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Albert Edmond, Mississippi prisoner # 30523, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.No. 99-60720 -2- § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). He argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claims for denial of due process in his disciplinary proceedings; retaliatory transfer and job assignment; a violation of his right to privacy; failure to train; inadequate mental health care; deliberate indifference; and harassing statements. We have reviewed the record, the district court's opinion, and Edmond’s brief, and we find that the district court did not err in dismissing Edmond’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Black v. Warren , 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). Further, we hold that Edmond’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Edmond is hereby informed that the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), in addition to the strike for the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Edmond that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SENIKA JETTON GRAVES, )

ID # 1225028, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:05-CV-1503-N

) ECF

JUDGE WADE, JR., )

Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the

Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings

and Conclusions of the Court.

SIGNED January 6, 2006.

 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01503-N Document 10 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 32
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4813-4814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00876]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, 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 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 
January 7, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1250 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at

[[Page 4814]]

www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1068, K2025-1067.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00876 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Statement

Dallas Tonsager, Board Member

Farm Credit Administration Board Meeting

October 13, 2016

During this month of October, I would like to recognize the value and importance of cooperative 

business structures like the Farm Credit System (System). The System has been successful in 

large part because of the cooperative principles that guide the operations and decisions of each 

System bank and association: self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and 

social responsibility. 

Agricultural and utility cooperatives are significant borrowers of the System and are integral to 

rural America and American agriculture. The member-borrowers of System institutions are the 

farmers and ranchers in their communities who have an interest in ensuring not only the value 

of their institution but also the productivity of agriculture and the rural communities that are 

served by the System institution. 

I commend Congress, in its wisdom, for creating the Farm Credit System as a cooperative 

structure and all of the agricultural producers who have created cooperatives to better serve 

their agricultural needs and the needs of their rural communities.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of XsunX, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K
for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date himself (the “ Report ”), the undersigned hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.





Date:     May
18, 2009





/s/ 
      Jeff HuittName:
      Jeff HuittTitles:
      Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting
      Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version 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 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
FIRST BANK AND TRUST v. Warren G. TREME

NO. 2019-C-0099

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 2019

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Avaya Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Garry K. McGuire,Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President, Corporate Development of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

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

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ GARRY  K. MCGUIRE                                                       |     |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------|
| Garry K. McGuire                                                            |     |
| *Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice  President, Corporate Development* | * * |
| December 13, 2005                                                      |     |

 

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Te xas

June 24, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00572

- CV

Bobby HOLLY and Dolores Holly,

Appellants

v.

NEWBERRY RANCHES OF TEXAS LLC,

Appellee

From the 63rd Judicial District Court

, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 34257

Honorable Enrique Fernandez , Judge Presidin g



### O R D E R

Appellee’s brief was originally due May 28, 2021. Appellee’s first motion for extension

of time was granted, extending the deadline for filing the brief to June 28, 2021. On June 24,

2021, appellee filed a motion requesting an additional extension of time to file the brief until July

13, 2021. After consideration, we GRANT the motion and ORDER appellee to file its brief by

July 13, 2021.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the s aid

court on this 24th day of June, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court