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

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 12

- 01167

- CV

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEE S OF THE HOUSTON FIRE FIGHTERS' RELIE F AND RETIREMENT FUN D , Appellant

V.
THE CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS , Appellee
Appeal from the 189th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2012

- 28760 ).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on December 21, 2012. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment to Appellee and issuing a writ of mandamus. There also was reversible error in the trial court’s judgment denying summary judgment to the Appellant. Accordingly, the C ourt reverses the trial court’s judgment and renders judgment in favor of the Board of Trustees of the Houston Fire Fighters’ Relief and
Retirement Fund.

The Court orders that the appellee, The City of Houston, Texas, pay all appellate

costs.The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered January 2 7 , 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Jennings and Brown. Opinion delivered by Justice Brown.

y
# C_2019182EN.01003401.xml

| 27.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/34

---

Action brought on 22 March 2019 — Cognac Ferrand v EUIPO (Shape of braiding on a bottle)

(Case T-172/19)

(2019/C 182/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Cognac Ferrand (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Régnier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark (Shape of braiding on a bottle) — Application for registration No 17 387 564

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2019 in Case R 1640/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 13 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 13

       To require a two-fifths threshold to sustain a filibuster.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 5, 2011

 Mr. Franken submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
               the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
       To require a two-fifths threshold to sustain a filibuster.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE.

    The second undesignated paragraph of paragraph 2 of rule XXII of 
the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by striking ``And if that 
question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the 
Senators duly chosen and sworn'' and inserting ``And if that question 
is decided in the affirmative and there are not negative votes by more 
than two-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ronald Wayne LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jonathan ANDREWS, United States Probation Office Eastern District, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-6340.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.

Ronald Wayne Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Wayne Lewis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his *20complaint filed pursuant to *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Lewis that failure to file timely specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Lewis has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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.*
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  of  Bluefly,   Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Melissa
Payner-Gregor,  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.

/s/ Melissa Payner-Gregor
-------------------------
Melissa Payner-Gregor
Chief Executive Officer
August 4, 2006
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 22 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

To grant the consent of Congress to an amendment to the 

compact between the States of Missouri and Illinois providing that bonds issued by the Bi-State Development 

Agency may mature in not to exceed 40 years. 

Whereas to grant the consent of Congress to an amendment 

to the compact between the States of Missouri and Illinois providing that bonds issued by the Bi-State Development Agency may mature in not to exceed 40 years; 

Whereas the Congress in consenting to the compact between 

Missouri and Illinois creating the Bi-State Development 

Agency and the Bi-State Metropolitan District provided 

that no power shall be exercised by the Bi-State Agency 

until such power has been conferred upon the Bi-State 

Agency by the legislatures of the States to the compact 

and approved by an Act of Congress; 

Whereas such States previously enacted legislation providing 

that the Bi-State Agency had the power to issue notes, 

bonds, or other instruments in writing provided they shall 

mature in not to exceed 30 years, and Congress consented to such power; and 

Whereas such States have now enacted legislation amending 

this power: Now therefore, be it 
2 

†SJ 22 ES 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CONSENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The consent of Congress is given 

5 to the amendment of the powers conferred on the Bi-State 

6 Development Agency by Senate Bill 758, Laws of Missouri 

7 2010 and Public Act 96–1520 (Senate Bill 3342), Laws 

8 of Illinois 2010. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment to the pow10 ers conferred by the Acts consented to in subsection (a) 

11 shall take effect on December 17, 2010. 

12 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF ACT OF AUGUST 31, 1950. 

13 The provisions of the Act of August 31, 1950 (64 

14 Stat. 568) shall apply to the amendment approved under 

15 this joint resolution to the same extent as if such amend16 ment was conferred under the provisions of the compact 

17 consented to in such Act. 

18 SEC. 3. RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL. 

19 The right to alter, amend, or repeal this joint resolu20 tion is expressly reserved. 

21 SEC. 4. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. 

22 The right is reserved to Congress to require the dis23 closure and furnishings of such information or data by the 
3 

†SJ 22 ES 

1 Bi-State Development Agency as is deemed appropriate by 

2 Congress. 

Passed the Senate September 26, 2011. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 22 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

To grant the consent of Congress to an amendment 

to exceed 40 years. Bi-State Development Agency may mature in not and Illinois providing that bonds issued by the to the compact between the States of Missouri
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James M. Carroll, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The hearing court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a test which indicated there was .26% by weight of alcohol in defendant’s bloodstream. The record supports the court’s finding that defendant consented to the blood test *(see, People v Dycha,*98 AD2d 966). Results of a blood test taken with defendant’s consent are admissible in a prosecution under the Penal Law *(People v Magiera,*97 AD2d 963; *cf. People v Casadei,*66 NY2d 846). Defendant’s claim that the test results should have been *995suppressed because of the People’s failure to establish that the blood sample was kept in an unexpired container was not argued before the hearing court and is not preserved for review *(see, People v Hall,*61 NY2d 834, 835; *People v Albert,*98 AD2d 725). The record does not support this claim in any event. We have considered defendant’s remaining claims and find them without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Doyle, J.—assault, second degree, and vehicular manslaughter.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.
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

This certification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report
of UTStarcom, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report").

In
connection with the Report, we, Hong Liang Lu and Francis P. Barton, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes
Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Dated:
November 9, 2007

|By: |  | /s/HONG LIANG LUName: Hong Liang Lu
Title: Chief Executive Officer                                      |  | 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|By: |  | /s/FRANCIS P. BARTONName: Francis P. Barton
Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:2
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:3
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:4
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:5
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:6
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:7
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:8
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:9
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:10
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:11
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:12
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:13
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:14
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:15
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:16
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:17
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:18
Case: 1:00-cv-07880 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/15/00 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:19
#### Gill Companies, Respondent, v Noe Gutierrez et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, defendants Noe and Susanna Gutierrez appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings *697County (Meyerson, J.), entered July 9, 1984, which, *inter alia,*denied their motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure entered upon their default and granted plaintiffs motion for a writ of assistance to gain entry to the subject premises.

Order affirmed, with costs.

We agree with Special Term’s finding that appellants were properly served pursuant to CPLR 308 (2). Appellants’ attack upon the veracity of plaintiff’s process server is without merit in view of the hearing court’s finding that he was credible, which may be inferred from its decision and which must be considered controlling on appeal *(see, Altman v Wallach,*104 AD2d 391, 392). The other issues presented on appeal are without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### Cecil DUDGEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Henry RICHARDS, Superintendent; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-36123.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*268Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed July 7, 2011.

Cecil Dudgeon, Steilacoom, WA, pro se.

Jessica Lynn Greenwald, Assistant Attorney General, Donna J. Hamilton, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, William M. Van Hook, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Cecil Dudgeon, a Washington civil detainee, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants committed constitutional and state-law violations in responding to his public disclosure request. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Nelson v. Heiss,*271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Dudgeon’s claim for denial of access to courts because Dudgeon failed to allege facts demonstrating that he suffered an actual injury. *See Lewis v. Casey,*518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (requiring actual injury, like prejudice to contemplated or existing litigation, for claim of denial of access to courts).

The district court properly dismissed Dudgeon’s due process claim because Dudgeon failed to allege the deprivation of a constitutional or state-created liberty or property interest. *See Kildare v. Saenz,*325 F.3d 1078, 1085 (9th Cir.2003) (“Procedural due process claims require [] a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest[.]”); *cf. Sappenfield v. Dep’t of Corr.,*127 Wash.App. 83, 110 P.3d 808, 811-12 (2005) (prison policy, requiring an inmate either to pay for and obtain by mail copies of department records or to send a personal representative to inspect the records, was reasonable and did not violate Washington’s Public Records Act).

The district court properly dismissed Dudgeon’s equal protection claim because Dudgeon failed to allege facts establishing an intent or purpose to discriminate against him based upon his membership in a protected class. *See Thornton v. City of St. Helens,*425 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir.2005).

The district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Dudgeon’s state-law claims after dismissing his federal claims without leave to amend. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We construe the dismissal of the state claims as being without prejudice. *See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t,*40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir.1994).

Dudgeon’s remaining contentions, including those concerning retroactivity, are unpersuasive.

Jessica L. Greenwald’s motion to withdraw as defendants’ counsel is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# C_2019319EN.01003201.xml

| 23.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/32

---

Action brought on 13 August 2019 — Luz Saúde v EUIPO — Clínica La Luz (HOSPITAL DA LUZ LEARNING HEALTH TRAINING, RESEARCH & INNOVATION CENTER)

(Case T-558/19)

(2019/C 319/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Luz Saúde, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: G. Moreira Rato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clínica La Luz, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark HOSPITAL DA LUZ LEARNING HEALTH TRAINING, RESEARCH & INNOVATION CENTER — Application for registration No 16 433 823

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2019 in Case R 2239/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Maxwell, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Duskas, J.), rendered May 26, 1982, convicting him of attempted arson in the second degree, arson in the fourth degree and criminal *668mischief in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed. This case is remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

During the course of defendant’s trial for arson, two expert witnesses were permitted, over objection, to give opinions that the fires involved were not chemically, mechanically, electrically or naturally caused, thus eliminating all nonsuspect causes. Their testimony in that regard was not violative of the general rule stated in *People v Grutz*(212 NY 72) that an expert witness should not be allowed to testify that in his Opinion a fire was incendiary in nature, since it does not actually state a conclusion as to the ultimate issue in the case, i.e., whether or not the fires were intentionally set.

Detective Souza’s reference to a statement made by defendant regarding other fires in the area, made in response to repeated questioning by defense counsel, did not result in a violation of defendant’s right to a fair trial, particularly since prompt curative instructions were given *(see, People v Santiago,*52 NY2d 865; *People v Young,*48 NY2d 995; *People v Patterson,*83 AD2d 691). As to the propriety of the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress that and other statements on the ground that they were not voluntarily made after a knowing waiver of his *Miranda*rights, in view of the totality of the circumstances the hearing court was justified in finding that defendant understood his *Miranda*rights and made a knowing and intentional waiver thereof prior to voluntarily making the statements. There was sufficient evidence adduced at the hearing to support the court’s finding that defendant was capable of forming the requisite intent.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either without merit or unpreserved for our review. Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant to**

 

**Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

 

I, Joel Boyarski, the Principal Financial Officer of WorldGateCommunications, Inc., hereby 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 Form 10-Q/A of WorldGate Communications, Inc., for thequarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the “Form 10-Q/A”), fullycomplies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and (2) theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of WorldGateCommunications, Inc.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to WorldGate and will be retained by WorldGate and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Dated: | January 23, 2006                             | /s/ JOEL BOYARSKI |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|-------------------|--------|
|   |                                         |
|   | Joel Boyarski                                |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                      |
|   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
#### K A V A N A U G H v. COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

September 26, 1907.)

Action by Charles H. Kavanaugh, who sues in,behalf of himself, etc., against the Commonwealth Trust Company^ of New York, impleaded with others.

No opinion. Motion granted, and question certified as follows : “Does the complaint of the plaintiff state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants Charles W. Wetmore and Charles F. Brooker?” See 105 N. Y. Supp. 1124.
# C_2021028EN.01004501.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — Kerangus v EUIPO (ΑΠΛΑ!)

(Case T-882/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark ΑΠΛΑ! - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Equal treatment)

(2021/C 28/69)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Kerangus Holdings Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: A.-E. Malami, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Giannopoulos and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2019 (Case R 1035/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ΑΠΛΑ! as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kerangus Holdings Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kerangus Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---