alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016211EN.01006001.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/60

---

Action brought on 7 April 2016 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Ernst and Häcker (CERTIFIED FINANCIAL MODELER CFM)

(Case T-156/16)

(2016/C 211/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States) (represented by: S. Rohlfing and G. Engels, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dietmar Ernst (Nürtingen, Germany), Joachim Häcker (Nürtingen)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘CERTIFIED FINANCIAL MODELER CFM’ — Application for registration No 9 569 658

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 in Case R 9/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the opposition filed by the plaintiff against the trademark application No 9 569 658 by the participants; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the opposition filed by the plaintiff against the trademark application No 9 569 658 by the participants;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs or; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs or;

| — | in case the participants will join the proceedings as interveners, to order the participants to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff both in the appeal proceedings before the EUIPO and in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

in case the participants will join the proceedings as interveners, to order the participants to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff both in the appeal proceedings before the EUIPO and in the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
<PAGE>   1

Exhibit 21

                            Kendle International Inc.
                                 Subsidiary List

Subsidiary                                  Jurisdiction of Organization
----------                                  ----------------------------

Kendle U.K. Inc.                                       Ohio

Kendle GmbH                                           Germany

Kendle Vermogensverwaltungs GmbH                      Germany

Kendle International B.V.                         The Netherlands

U-Gene Clinical Research B.V.                     The Netherlands

U-Gene Research Biotechnology B.V.                The Netherlands

Kendle International Holdings Limited             United Kingdom

Kendle Branches Limited                           United Kingdom

Kendle International Limited                      United Kingdom

Kendle U.K. Limited                               United Kingdom

Kendle International SARL                             France

ACER/EXCEL INC.                                     New Jersey

Health Care Communications Inc.                        Ohio

Kendle Delaware Inc.                                  Delaware

Kendle Canada Inc.                                     Canada
Kevirent BRUNDAGE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0729

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 09, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# C_2019187EN.01000902.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 — Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China) Inc. v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-237/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive countervailing duty - Regulation (EC) No 597/2009)

(2019/C 187/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power Group Co. Ltd, formerly Csi Solar Power (China) Inc. (represented by: J. Bourgeois and A. Willems, avocats, and by S. De Knop and M. Meulenbelt, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, and by N. Tuominen, avocată), European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, J.-F. Brakeland and N. Kuplewatzky, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd and Csi Solar Power Group Co. Ltd to pay the costs relating to the main appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd and Csi Solar Power Group Co. Ltd to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the main appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the main appeal;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal;

| 5. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs relating to the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs relating to the cross-appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

---
April 21, 2004


Mark A. Tanner
Chief Financial Officer
Trailer Bridge, Inc.
10405 New Berlin Road E.
Jacksonville, FL 32226

Dear Mr. Tanner:

         Consistent with the conversations of earlier today and as required by
Section 4.1(g) of the Loan Agreement between Congress Financial and Trailer
Bridge, Inc. please be advised as follows regarding charterhire for the vessels
chartered from Kadampanattu Corp.

         Beginning March 1, 2004 continuing to and including December 31, 2004
daily charterhire amounts for each of the SAN JUAN-JAX BRIDGE and the JAX-SAN
JUAN BRIDGE shall require cash payment of $8,375.00 per day in accordance with
the existing charter party agreements. A deferred amount $1,675.00 per day for
each vessel shall be added to a promissory note in the form acceptable to the
parties with payments made in accordance with the Congress Financial Loan
Agreement with Trailer Bridge and in accord with the separate agreement between
Congress Financial and Kadampanattu Corp. entered into as part of the Congress
Financial Loan Agreement.


                                         Very truly yours,

                                         /s/ John D. McCown

                                         John D. McCown
                                         President


AGREED AND ACCEPTED
Trailer Bridge, Inc.

/s/ Mark A. Tanner
-----------------------------------
By:      Mark A. Tanner
Its:     Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

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 on Form 10-Q of Comstock Homebuilding Companies, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of Christopher Clemente, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Jeffrey R. Dauer, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, to our best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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: August 14, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Christopher Clemente            
|                      |  |  |  | Christopher Clemente                
|                      |  |  |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|                      |  | 
|Date: August 14, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Jeffrey R. Dauer                
|                      |  |  |  | Jeffrey R. Dauer                    
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer             

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
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 Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 4742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01033]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged 
in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question 
whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the 
BHC Act.
    Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, 
comments received will be made available without change and will not be 
modified to remove personal or business information including 
confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments 
should not include any information such as confidential information 
that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than 
January 31, 2025.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Holly A. Rieser, Senior 
Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can 
also be sent electronically to [email protected]:
    1. Magnolia Banking Corporation, Magnolia, Arkansas; to engage de 
novo in extending credit and servicing loans pursuant to section 
225.28(b)(1) of the Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2025-01033 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00209-CR

Leland Al Craig, III, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY, 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 30841, HONORABLE GUILFORD L. JONES, III, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s motion to withdraw notice of appeal is granted. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: November 22, 2005

Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, B. Steven Springrose, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Biotel 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 officer(s) 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 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 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(s) 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 functions):

     (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 14, 2007                  By: /s/ B. Steven Springrose
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Chief Executive Officer and President
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

§

v. § Criminal Action No. 3:05-CR-079-L (01)

§

LESTER RAY MORGAN, #33486-177. §

ORDER

This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver, who entered Findings,

Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on July 10,

2012, recommending that: (1) Defendant Lester RayMorgan (“Defendant”)should be granted a sixday extension of time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4) because he has shown excusable

neglect for the delay in filing a notice of appeal; and (2) his motion to proceed in forma pauperis

should be denied because his appeal presents no legal points of arguable merit. Defendant filed

objections to the Report on July 26, 2012, contending that the magistrate judge’s findings that his

appeal is frivolous goes beyond what the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

directed this court to determine regarding excusable neglect.

Having reviewed the pleadings, file, and record in this case, and the findings and conclusions

of the magistrate judge, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate

judge are correct, accepts them as those of the court, and overrules Defendant’s objection. In

addition to referring the issue of whether Defendant has shown excusable neglect, this court also

referred to the magistrate judgeDefendant’s January26, 2012 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. 53). In determining whether Defendant should be granted leave to proceed in forma

Order – Page 1
pauperis on appeal as requested, the magistrate judge properly considered whether the appeal is

taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 

The court grants Defendant a six-dayextension of time to appeal under Fed. R. App. 4(b)(4),

and his appeal filed on January 26, 2012, is deemed timely; the court denies Defendant’s Motion

for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 53). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Fed. R.

App. P. 24(a)(3), the court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. In support of the

finding that the appeal is not taken in good faith, the court adopts and incorporates by reference its

January 5, 2012 order, denying Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2). Although the court has certified that the appeal is not taken in good faith, Defendant

may challenge this finding by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with

the Clerk of Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, within 30 days of this order.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to return this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Fifth Circuit. 

It is so ordered this 7th day of August, 2012.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

Order – Page 2
Case 4:06-cv-00066-A Document 12 Filed 04/13/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 58
 

 Case 4:06-cv-00066-A Document 12 Filed 04/13/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 59
 

 Case 4:06-cv-00066-A Document 12 Filed 04/13/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 60
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 16, 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 January 6, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1245 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1062, K2025-1061.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00871 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CLINT ALAN WOOD, §

Petitioner, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1850-H

§

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division, §

Respondent §

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters 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.

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 11 day of March, 2008. th