alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1278

LOUIS G. ANTONELLIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; WILLIAM C. HARRISON;

JEFF JERNIGAN; DONNA WEEKS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (5:07-cv-00188-H)

Submitted: July 29, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis G. Antonellis, Appellant Pro Se. Reid Calwell Adams, Jr.,

WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North

Carolina; Julie B. Bradburn, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE,

PLLC,, Raleigh, North Carolina; Mark P. Henriques, WOMBLE, CARLYLE,

SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Louis Antonellis appeals the district court’s order

granting the Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

Antonellis’ motion to present oral argument and affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Antonellis v. Cumberland

County Bd. of Educ., No. 5:07-cv-00188-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2008).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-25-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,337
<ALLOWANCES>                                        71
<INVENTORY>                                     25,242
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,122
<PP&E>                                          90,849
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,897
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 200,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,340
<BONDS>                                        138,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,701
<SALES>                                         65,677
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,677
<CGS>                                           53,990
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,382
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    71
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,604
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,299)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,299)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,299)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     This  certification  is being filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002.  This
certification  is  included  solely  for  the  purpose  of  complying  with  the
provisions  of Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act and is not to be used for
any other purpose.  In connection  with the  accompanying  Annual Report on Form
10-KSB of Rub A Dub Soap,  Inc.  for the year  ended May 31,  2006,  I, Kevin B.
Halter,  Jr.,  hereby  certifies in my capacity as an officer of Rub A Dub Soap,
Inc. that to my knowledge:

     1.   The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Rub A Dub Soap,  Inc. for the year
          ended May 31, 2006,  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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Rub A
          Dub Soap, Inc. for the year ended May 31, 2007,  fairly  presents,  in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
          operations of Rub A Dub Soap, Inc.

Date:    July 3, 2007                /s/ Kevin B. Halter, Jr.
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Kevin B. Halter, Jr., President and Chief
                                       Executive Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DAVID S. BROXTERMAN, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-1479

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed September 12, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk

County; James A. Yancey, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and Deana K. Marshall, Special

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for

Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and David Campbell, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa,

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, VILLANTI, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001030452
<NAME> ANCHOR HOLDINGS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                          11,708
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,530
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,667)
<INVENTORY>                                     35,868
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,432
<PP&E>                                         155,643
<DEPRECIATION>                                (24,450)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 334,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,454
<BONDS>                                        230,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                    (19,525)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   334,202
<SALES>                                        101,549
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,549
<CGS>                                           90,752
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,597
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (362)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,917
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,355)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       239
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,594)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,594)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.96)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                               AHL SERVICES, INC.

                      COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER-SHARE DATA)
                                  (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED                  SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                      JUNE 30,                           JUNE 30,
                                                                --------------------               --------------------- 
                                                                1997             1996              1997             1996
                                                                ----             ----              ----             ----
<S>                                                           <C>               <C>              <C>               <C>    
Income Applicable to Common Stock
     Income before extraordinary items                        $ 1,454           $   484          $ 2,105           $   849
     Extraordinary items, net of taxes                           (385)                -             (385)                -
                                                              -------           -------          -------           -------
     Net income                                               $ 1,069           $   484          $ 1,720           $   849
                                                              =======           =======          =======           =======

Weighted Average Shares
     Common shares                                             10,853             8,353            9,679             8,353
     Common share equivalents applicable to
     stock options and warrants outstanding                       251               204              216               204
                                                              -------           -------          -------           -------
     Weighted average common and common
     equivalent shares outstanding during    
     the period                                                11,104             8,557            9,895             8,557
                                                              =======           =======          =======           =======

Per Share Amount
     Income before extraordinary items                        $   .13           $   .06          $   .21           $   .10
     Extraordinary items, net of taxes                           (.04)                -             (.04)                -
                                                              -------           -------          -------           -------
     Net income                                               $   .09           $   .06          $   .17           $   .10
                                                              =======           =======          =======           =======
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________

)

CONSUELO JORDAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 15-1536 (RMC)

)

JASPER ORMOND, )

)

Defendant. )

___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 

Complaint and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 

Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. 5.1 On October 6, 2015, the Court issued an Order advising 

Plaintiff of her obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this 

Court to respond to Defendant’s motion, and specifically warned Plaintiff that, if she did not 

respond to the motion by November 6, 2015, the Court would treat the motion as conceded. 

Order [Dkt. 8]. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion, requested more time 

to file her opposition, or advised the Court of any change of address. Accordingly, the Court will 

treat Defendants’ motion as conceded and dismiss this case. An Order is issued separately.

December 1, 2015 /s/ 

ROSEMARY M. COLLYER

United States District Judge

 1

 On October 6, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, Dkt. 8.
# C_2020175EN.01001901.xml

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA v EUIPO — Heretat Mont-Rubi (SUM011)

(Case T-296/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SUM011 - Prior figurative EU word mark Sumol and prior national word mark SUMOL - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 175/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: J.M. Pimenta and A.M. Sebastião, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite, J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Heretat Mont-Rubi, SA (Font-Rubi, Spain)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2019 (Case R 1662/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Sumol + Compal Marcas and Heretat Mont-Rubi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
**Exhibit10.1**

 

Amendment

 

20070105.006.S.007.A.003

 

EMBR Program

 

Between

 

StarTek, Inc.

 

And

 

AT&T Services, Inc.

 

----

 

**AMENDMENT NO. 3**

 

**ORDER NO. 20070105.006.S.007**

 

ThisAmendment, effective on the date when signed by the last Party (“Effective Date”),and amending Order No. 20070105.006.S.007, is by and between StarTek, Inc.,a Delaware corporation (“Supplier”), and AT&T Services, Inc., aDelaware corporation (“AT&T”), each of which may be referred to in thesingular as a “Party” or in the plural as the “Parties.”

 

**WITNESSETH**

 

**WHEREAS**, Supplier and AT&T entered into Order No. 20070105.006.S.007on July 1, 2007 (the “Order”); and

 

**WHEREAS**, Supplier and AT&T desire to amend theOrder as hereinafter set forth.

 

**NOW, THEREFORE**, in consideration of thepremises and the covenants hereinafter contained, the Parties hereto agree asfollows:

 

1.)  **Section 2Duration of Order** is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:

 

“ThisOrder shall be effective from July 1, 2007 through December 31, 2010.

 

Theterms and conditions of Order No. 20070105.006.S.007 in all other respectsremain unmodified and in full force and effect.

 

Original signaturetransmitted and received via facsimile or other electronic transmission of ascanned document, (e.g., .pdf or similar format) are true and valid signaturesfor all purposes hereunder and shall bind the Parties to the same extent asthat of an original signature.  ThisAmendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall bedeemed to constitute an original but all of which together shall constituteonly one document.

** **

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the Parties have causedthis Amendment to Order No. 20070105.006.S.007 to be executed, as of thedate the last Party signs.

 
| **StarTek, Inc.** | ** **             | ** ** | **AT&T  Services, Inc.** |
|------------------------|------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------|
| ** **             | ** **             | ** ** | ** **                        | ** ** |
| By:                    | /s/  A. Laurence Jones |       | By:                               | /s/  Kathy Holzer-Muniz |
|                   |                   |       |                              |   |
| Printed  Name:         | A.  Laurence Jones     |       | Printed  Name: Kathy Holzer-Muniz |
|                   |                   |       |                              |   |
| Title:                 | President  and CEO     |       | Title:  Sr. Contract Manager      |
|                   |                   |       |                              |   |
| Date:                  | 6/17/2010              |       | Date:                             | 6/14/2010 |

 

**Proprietaryand Confidential**

This Amendment andinformation contained therein is not for use or disclosure outside of AT&T,its Affiliates, and third party representatives, and Supplier except underwritten agreement by the contracting parties.

 

2

----
#### HOPKINS, Respondent, v. CALLESON HORSE CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Action by Clarence E. Hopkins against the Caliesen Horse Company.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 13.1

                      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

          In  connection  with this  Annual  Report of  Nordic  American  Tanker
Shipping  Limited (the  "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended  December 31,
2004 as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the "SEC") on or
about the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,  Herbjorn  Hansson,  Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company,  certify, 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; and

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

          A signed  original of this written  statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its
staff upon request.

Date: June 30, 2005

/s/ Herbjorn Hansson
---------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
#### Elaine Kaufman et al., Appellants, v 325 Tenants' Corp., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ascione, J.), entered October 29, 1984, which, upon a unanimous jury verdict, is in the sum of $16,827.50 for plaintiff-appellant Elaine Kaufman and $539.12 for plaintiff-appellant, her spouse, Alan Kaufman, is unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the action is remanded for a new trial on all of the issues, including liability, damages and apportionment, with costs to abide the event.

The jury verdict was in the sum of $300,000 for Elaine Kaufman and $10,000 for Alan Kaufman, but the jury apportioned liability 95% against the plaintiffs and only 5% against the defendants, thus arriving at the lower amounts.

The plaintiff was walking along 57th Street in January 1980, going from her apartment building to a nearby supermarket. As she walked past the front of the building at 325 East 57th Street, she slipped on a patch of colorless ice, breaking her hip. She did not see the ice until she began to fall. The temperature was below freezing.

Prior thereto, the defendant Vila, a porter at the building in question, having seen a grocery bag with scattered contents on the sidewalk in front of his building, swept up the debris but found that one of the items, a liquid detergent, had spread over the area causing it to be slippery. He hosed down the area, cleaning away the detergent, alleviating one slippery *468condition by substituting another in view of the freezing temperature. He was instructed to spread sand over the area, but when he came to do this, the plaintiff had already fallen.

The negligence of the defendants was clear. The plaintiff, on the other hand, could not reasonably be faulted for not seeing ice which, under normal circumstances, would not have been present. The jury’s determination that the plaintiff was 95% negligent was clearly against the weight of the evidence and should be set aside and a new trial directed. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Ellerin, JJ.
Case 10-00067 Doc 1 Filed 01/04/10 Entered 01/04/10 12:09:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 6
Case 10-00067 Doc 1 Filed 01/04/10 Entered 01/04/10 12:09:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 6
Case 10-00067 Doc 1 Filed 01/04/10 Entered 01/04/10 12:09:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 6
Case 10-00067 Doc 1 Filed 01/04/10 Entered 01/04/10 12:09:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 6
Case 10-00067 Doc 1 Filed 01/04/10 Entered 01/04/10 12:09:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 6
Case 10-00067 Doc 1 Filed 01/04/10 Entered 01/04/10 12:09:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 6
#### S. A. Anderson *vs.*Timothy Reardon.

May 12, 1891.

Heal Party in Interest — Assignee of Chose in Action in Trust for Assignor. — Where the owner of a chose in action executes to another an assignment of it, absolute in terms, such assignee is the party in legal interest, and may maintain an action on the demand in his own name, although there be a verbal agreement between the assignor and assignee that the latter, when he collects the money, shall hold it as trustee for the former.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the municipal court of St. Paul, refusing a new trial after a dismissal ordered at the trial in an action to recover $98 for goods sold and delivered to defendant by one Marie Scherer, the plaintiff’s assignor.

*186
      *Samuel A. Anderson, F. A. Pike,*and *M. L. Countryman,*for appellant.

*Lawler & Durment,*for respondent.

Mitchell, J.

One Mrs. Scherer executed to plaintiff a written assignment of the demand upon which this action was brought. It appeared from the evidence that, although the written assignment was unqualified and unrestricted in its terms, yet there was a verbal understanding between the assignor and assignee that out of the proceeds of the claim, when collected, the latter was to retain the amount due him for services already rendered, and to be thereafter rendered, by him to the former, and also pay certain debts owed by her to third parties, and then remit the balance, if any, to her. It also appeared that, when this action was commenced, the plaintiff had already collected on the demand enough to pay his own claim for services up to that time. When the plaintiff rested, the trial court dismissed the action, on the ground that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest. This was error. By virtue of the assignment the plaiptiff became the legal owner of the claim, and as such could maintain the action. It is no concern of the defendant whether the assignee of a claim receives the money on it in his own right or as trustee of the assignor. It is enough for him to know that the plaintiff is the party in legal interest, and that a recovery by him will be full protection against another suit by the assignor. There is no room for the distinction in this respect sought to be made by defendant between negotiable paper and other chosesin action. *Castner*v. *Austin,*2 Minn. 32, (44;) *Vanstrum*v. *Liljengren,*37 Minn. 191, (33 N. W. Rep. 555;) *Elmquist*v. *Markoe,*45 Minn. 305, (47 N. W. Rep. 970.) It is suggested that certain exhibits which were introduced in evidence áre not made a part of the settled case. This is true, but we think that their nature and contents sufficiently appear from the “case.”

Order reversed.