alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021009EN.01001701.xml

| 11.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 — Allergan Holdings France v EUIPO — Dermavita (JUVEDERM ULTRA)

(Case T-664/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark JUVEDERM ULTRA - Genuine use of the mark - Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 9/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Allergan Holdings France (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor, and T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, V.J. Ruzek, and K. Zajfert, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dermavita Co. Ltd (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2019 (Joined Cases R 1655/2018-4 and R 1723/2018-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Dermavita Co. and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Allergan Holdings France to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Allergan Holdings France to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 100 

Designating March 11, 2011, as ‘‘World Plumbing Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 10, 2011 

Mr. BENNET (for himself, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. MERKLEY, and Mr. HATCH) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

MARCH 14, 2011 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating March 11, 2011, as ‘‘World Plumbing Day’’. 

Whereas the industry of plumbing plays an important role in 

safeguarding the public health of the people of the United 

States and the world; 

Whereas 884,000,000 people around the world do not have 

access to safe drinking water; 

Whereas 2,600,000,000 people around the world live without 

adequate sanitation facilities; 

Whereas the lack of sanitation is the largest cause of infection in the world; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 100 ATS 

Whereas in the developing world, 24,000 children under the 

age of 5 die every day from preventable causes, such as 

diarrhea contracted from unclean water; 

Whereas safe and efficient plumbing helps save money and 

reduces future water supply costs and infrastructure 

costs; 

Whereas the installation of modern plumbing systems must 

be accomplished in a specific, safe manner by trained 

professionals in order to prevent widespread disease, 

which can be crippling and deadly to the community; 

Whereas the people of the United States rely on plumbing 

professionals to maintain, repair, and rebuild the aging 

water infrastructure of the United States; and 

Whereas Congress and plumbing professionals across the 

United States and the world are committed to safeguarding public health: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate designates March 11, 

2 2011, as ‘‘World Plumbing Day’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
 THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED BY THE 10-QSB
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 FOR INNOVACOM, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED BY ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                            69,000
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     52,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      34,000
<INVENTORY>                                      136,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 314,000
<PP&E>                                           463,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   192,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   622,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         13,442,000
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          25,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (12,845,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     622,000
<SALES>                                           36,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  36,000
<CGS>                                            167,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,143,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               659,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,766,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       2,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,768,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  123,000
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,645,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.07)



</TABLE>
Order filed August 6, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00241

- CV

____________ LISA PRIYMAK AND GAR EGUIN STEP , Appellant

V. KROGER CO., Appellee

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014

- 19634



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due July 20, 2015

. No brief or motion for extension of
time has been filed.
Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before August 21, 2015
, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10854

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PAMELA O’GUINN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-39-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pamela

O’Guinn on direct appeal has filed a motion to withdraw and a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 

O’Guinn has not filed a response. Our independent review of the

brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this

direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EL PASO BEHAVIORAL HOSPITAL LLC, 

D/B/A/ RIO VISTA BEHAVIORAL 

HEALTH HOSPITAL,

Appellant,

v.

MARK V. TORREZ, Individually and as 

Representative of A.V.T., a Minor,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00342-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#2022DCV2944)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We 

further order Appellant to pay all costs of this appeal and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023.

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 61 

Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax is not in the economic 

interest of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 6, 2012 

Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. COATS, Mr. 

COBURN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. HELLER, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. 

INHOFE, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. LEE, Mr. 

MCCONNELL, Mr. MORAN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. THUNE, Mr. 

BOOZMAN, Mr. COCHRAN, and Mr. WICKER) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax is not 

in the economic interest of the United States. 

Whereas a carbon tax is regressive in nature and would unfairly burden those vulnerable individuals and families in 

the United States that are already struggling under a 

stagnating economy; 

Whereas a carbon tax would increase the cost of every good 

manufactured in the United States; 

Whereas a carbon tax would harm the entire United States 

manufacturing sector; 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•SCON 61 IS 

Whereas the increase in production of domestic energy resources on private and State-owned land has created significant job growth and private capital investment; and 

Whereas affordable and reliable energy sources are critical to 

maintaining the United States’ global competitiveness: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that a carbon 

3 tax would be detrimental to American families and busi4 nesses, and is not in the interest of the United States. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
# United States Court **of Appeals** 
**f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 61095 Summary Calendar

**Michael Leonard Mora**

**- Jimenez,** 

Petitioner **,**

versus

**Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,**
Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A203 825 273

Before **King, Costa,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges.

**Per Curiam :**  *

Michael Leonard Mora

- Jimenez is a native and citizen of Cuba. Originally, Mora

- Jimenez sought review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILE D March 15, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-61095 Document: 00516239203 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2022No. 20

- 61095

2 and rescind his in absentia order of removal. Because the BIA has since granted a motion to reopen, the parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss the instant petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

This court generally has jurisdiction to review a “final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). An order of removal is final when the B IA affirms an IJ’s finding of removability or when the time for appealing an IJ’s decision has expired. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B) . “Judicial review of a final order of removal is available only where the applicant has exhausted all administrative remedies of right.” Roy v. Ashcroft , 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004); § 1252(d)(1); see also Omari v. Holder , 562 F.3d 314, 320 (5th C ir. 2009). In this case, the BIA has granted a motion to reopen and remanded the case to the IJ. The BIA has specifically ordered that the IJ reopen the proceedings in which Mora

- Jimenez was ordered removed in absentia. The BIA must address any claims a rising from these proceedings before Mora

Jimenez can assert them before this court. See Roy , 389 F.3d at 137. Because

Mora

- Jimenez is currently pursuing administrative remedies below, he is no longer subject to a final order of removal that this court h as jurisdiction to
review. Id. ; see Gregoire v. Holder , 421 F. App’x 432, 433 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding that a BIA order granting reconsideration and remanding the matter to an IJ deprived this court of jurisdiction). 1

**MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED. PETITIO N FOR** 

**REVIEW DISMISSED.**

1 Unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 2996, are not binding precedent, but they may be persuasive authority. Ballard v. Burton , 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006); 5 **th Cir. R.** 47.5.4. Case: 20-61095 Document: 00516239203 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2022
# C_2021513EN.01003601.xml

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/36

---

Order of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Diageo and Others v Commission

(Case T-473/19) (1)

(2021/C 513/51)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

---
##### 



Certification of the
Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Valley National Gases
Incorporated;
 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 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; andc) 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 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;
andb) 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.
  /s/
James P. Hart
  2
```

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Amincor,  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-K for the period  ended  December 31, 2011 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on April 16, 2012 (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the
capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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, as amended; 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: April 16, 2012                         /s/ John R. Rice, III
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             John R. Rice, III, President
```

----
# C_2020061EN.01004301.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/43

---

Order of the General Court of 18 December 2019 — Ceramica Flaminia v EUIPO — Ceramica Cielo (goclean)

(Case T-192/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark goclean - Revocation of the contested decision - Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 61/54)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Ceramica Flaminia (Civita Castellana, Italy) (represented by: A. Improda and R. Arista, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Ceramica Cielo SpA (Fabrica di Roma, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 January 2019 (Case R 991/2018-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Ceramica Cielo and Ceramica Flaminia.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 32



Certification

Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of CuraGen Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the Form
10-Q) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |     |  |                                                                             
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 5, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Patrick J. Zenner                                                       
|                      |  |     |  | Patrick J. Zenner                                                           
|                      |  |     |  | Interim Chief Executive Officer and                                         
|                      |  |     |  | Chairman of the Board (principal executive officer of the registrant)       
|                      |  |    
|Dated: August 5, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ David M. Wurzer                                                         
|                      |  |     |  | David M. Wurzer                                                             
|                      |  |     |  | Executive Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer                           
|                      |  |     |  | and Treasurer (principal financial and accounting officer of the registrant)
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of Periodic Report
  (1)
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 4, 2008
 /s/ Terrance D. PaulName:
    Terrance D. PaulTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer
Cherry 

J. 

920, 605 P.2d 196 (1979). The district court's written order of January 6, 

2015, specifically provides that the matter is continued for further 

evidentiary proceedings, based on appellant's express request for the 

continuance. The minute order of December 24, 2014, is likewise not final 

for the same reasons. See also Rust v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 

686, 688-89, 747 P.2d 1380, 1381-82 (1987) (explaining that a minute 

order is ineffective for any purpose and cannot be appealed, and that a 

written order or judgment must be filed before a district court ruling can 

be appealed). The notice of appeal is premature under NRAP 4(a) because 

the district court has not entered a final written judgment adjudicating all 

the rights and liabilities of all the parties. Accordingly, we conclude that 

we lack jurisdiction over this appeal and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 2 

cc: Hon. Sandra L. Pomrenze, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Robert E. Gaston, Settlement Judge 

Bourke Law Ltd. 

The Law Offices of Patrick Driscoll, LLC 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2Appellant's motion for late filing of the fast track statement, filed 

on May 18, 2015, is denied as moot. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
# C_2020054EN.01002801.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 24 October 2019 — Criminal proceedings against LG, MH

(Case C-790/19)

(2020/C 54/29)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Brașov

Parties to the main proceedings

LG, MH

Question referred

Must Article 1(3)(a) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the person who commits the act which constitutes the offence of money laundering must always be a person other than the person who commits the predicate offence (the alleged offence from which is derived the money that is laundered)?

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 141, p. 73.

---