alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-21-00572-CV

Shiela PIAZZA, Agent & Attorney-in-Fact for Phyllis Masterson,

Appellant

v.

CITY OF WINDCREST, and Selena Breland, in her official capacity as Code Compliance & 

Enforcement Officer,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-CI-17091

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE 

VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION. Costs of appeal are assessed against appellant.

SIGNED February 16, 2022.

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K COMMUNICATIONS & POWER INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR YEAR
ENDED SEPTEMBER 29, 2000
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001000564
<NAME> COMMUNICATIONS & POWER INDUSTRIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-2000
<CASH>                                           4,766
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,434
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     63,949
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               119,724
<PP&E>                                          68,656
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 226,985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,843
<BONDS>                                        110,895
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           28,265
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,020)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   226,985
<SALES>                                        243,054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               243,054
<CGS>                                          188,748
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  188,748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,690
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,663
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,360)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,232
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,592)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,592)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2019328EN.01007101.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/71

---

Action brought on 9 August 2019 — Republic of Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)

(Case T-556/19)

(2019/C 328/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GRILLOUMI — Application for registration No 15 963 291

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 May 2019 in Case R 1284/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Art 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Art 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Art 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Art 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2020313EN.01002602.xml

| 21.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Scorify v EUIPO — Scor (SCORIFY)

(Case T-328/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark SCORIFY - Earlier EU word mark SCOR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 313/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Scorify UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: V. Viešūnaitė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Botis and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Scor SE (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and C. de Callataÿ, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2019 (Case R 1639/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Scor and Scorisk.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Scorify UAB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Scorify UAB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---
#### Isis Rosa, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Jouchabelle Rosa, et al., Appellants, v Bronx Mall, Inc., et al., Defendants. General Cinema Corp. of New York, Individually and Doing Business as General Cinema’s Bay Plaza Cinema, AMC-GCT, Inc., Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 881]—

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann BriganttiHughes, J.), entered March 18, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendant General Cinema Corp. of New York, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Although defendant met its prima facie burden, plaintiffs’ submissions are sufficient to raise questions of fact. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, Richter and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.
Amendment No. 2 to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement is made effective this 30th day of December 2009, by and between Fiserv, Inc., a Wisconsin Corporation (the “Company”), and
Jeffery W. Yabuki (the “Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company entered into an Amended and Restated
Employment Agreement effective as of December 22, 2008 (the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to
amend the Agreement to comply with the requirements of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and subject to the terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. Effective on the date hereof, Section 6.3.5(b) of the
Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
 subject to the Executive’s execution of a Separation Agreement
and Release of all claims related to the Executive’s employment or the termination thereof, in the form annexed hereto, other than any modifications which may be required to effectuate such release based upon any changes in law or Company
practice: (i) a lump sum payment in an amount equal to four and one-half times the Executive’s then current annual base salary (the “Termination Payment”); (ii) full vesting of all equity and long-term grants and awards, as
well as the right to exercise the stock options granted under Paragraph 3.3.1. for (2) two years, and all other stock options granted for not less than one (1) year, following the date of termination of his employment, but in no event
longer than ten (10) years from the date of grant, or if earlier, the latest date the option could have been exercised had Executive remained in employment; (iii) reimbursement by the Company to the Executive for any expenses incurred by
the Executive for payment of COBRA premiums or other health insurance premiums for two (2) years following the date of termination of his employment, or until the Executive obtains health care coverage through subsequent employment, whichever
is earlier; and 
 2. In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 3. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which shall together constitute one and the same
instrument. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the date and year first above written. 
  

					
	Fiserv, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Charles W. Sprague

		 	Name:	 	Charles W. Sprague
		 	Title:	 	Executive Vice President
	
	 /s/ Jeffery W. Yabuki

	Jeffery W. Yabuki
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clinton Lee RUMLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6303.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 26, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 12, 2011.

*847Clinton Lee Rumley, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Clinton Lee Rumley seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rumley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Rumley’s motion for a certificate of appeal-ability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 32.2

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), the
undersigned officer of Entrust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |        |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 6, 2008 |  |        |  | /s/ David J. Wagner    
|                       |  | Name:  |  | David J. Wagner        
|                       |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
----

            DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE         

No 2/2005

of 8 February 2005         

amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Chapter II of Annex I to the Agreement shall be amended as specified in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

The texts of Regulations (EC) Nos 355/2003, 1334/2003, as corrected by OJ L 14, 21.1.2004, p. 54, 1831/2003, 1852/2003 and 2112/2003 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of theEuropean Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 9 February 2005, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 8 February 2005.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Richard WRIGHT            

----

(1)OJ L 102, 21.4.2005, p. 4.

(2)OJ L 53, 28.2.2003, p. 1.

(3)OJ L 187, 26.7.2003, p. 11.

(4)OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 29.

(5)OJ L 271, 22.10.2003, p. 13.

(6)OJ L 317, 2.12.2003, p. 22.

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated

----

ANNEX

to Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 2/2005

----
#### Victor BRISENO-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-73121.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 21, 2011.

Raul Ernesto Godinez, Esquire, Law Office of Raul E. Godinez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Steven Frank Day, Esquire, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Victor Briseno-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Briseno-Hernandez’s motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final removal order, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to establish that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the filing deadline, *see Iturribarria,*321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled where a petitioner acts with due diligence).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Briseno-Hernandez’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 9 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the reappointment of Robert P. Kogod as a 

citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents 

5 of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than 

6 Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the expira7 tion of the term of Robert P. Kogod of the District of 

8 Columbia, is filled by reappointment of the incumbent for 

9 a term of 6 years, effective May 6, 2011. 

Passed the Senate March 15, 2011. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 9 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the reappointment of Robert P. 

gents of the Smithsonian Institution. Kogod as a citizen regent of the Board of Re-
# C_2019295EN.01005202.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/52

---

Action brought on 2 July 2019 — Iacono v Parliament

(Case T-429/19)

(2019/C 295/68)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Francesco Iacono (Forio, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wonder Williams, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 713]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from judgments of the Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obús, J.), rendered on or about December 21, 2009, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive,

It is unanimously ordered that the judgments so appealed from be and the same are hereby affirmed.

Counsel for appellant is referred to Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR) § 606.5. Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; P41 NCBIB Review F-SEP.                    

*Date:*                         October 25-26, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         09:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Democracy II, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dennis Hlasta, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-3398,                         *dennis.hlasta@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 23, 2021.

David W. Freeman,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-16161 Filed 7-28-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P