alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021053EN.01003901.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIX ELIXIR)

(Case T-883/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark HELIX ELIXIR - Earlier EU word mark HELIXOR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 53/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López and J. Mora Cortés, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Helixor Heilmittel GmbH (Rosenfeld, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2019 (Case R 100/2019-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Helixor Heilmittel and Gustopharma Consumer Health.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

       In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bionutrics,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  for the for the quarterly  period ended January 31, 2006 filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, Ronald Howard
Lane, Principal Financial 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) of the
       Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)    The information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
       respects,  the consolidated  financial condition of the Company as of the
       dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for
       the periods presented.

Dated: March 16, 2006


By: /s/ Ronald Howard Lane
        -----------------------
        Ronald Howard Lane
        Principal Financial Officer



This  certification  has been  furnished  solely  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Clean Water  Technologies,  Inc. and will be retained by Clean Water
Technologies,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### Jeronimo Ibarra GUERRERO; Marcela Ibarra, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-74681.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2011.*

Filed July 13, 2011.

John Ayala, Alma Cobos-Ayala, Cobos & Ayala, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

Vanessa O. Lefort, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of *322Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jeronimo Ibarra Guerrero and Marcela Ibarra petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen. We deny the petition.

To the extent we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of the Ibarras’ motion to reopen, *Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 601-602 (9th Cir.2006); *accord Garcia v. Holder,*621 F.3d 906, 910-11 (9th Cir.2010), we conclude the BIA did not abuse its discretion. *Singh v. I.N.S.,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (reversal warranted only if BIA denial was “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”). The BIA considered the evidence proffered by the Ibarras and acted within its broad discretion to determine it was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. *See I.N.S. v. Doherty,*502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992) (“The granting of a motion to reopen is ... discretionary, ... the Attorney General has ‘broad discretion’ to grant or deny such motions.” (citations omitted)).

Because the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for relief, the Ibarras failed to demonstrate the prejudice necessary to support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. *Ortiz v. I.N.S.,*179 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir.1999) (“Due process challenges to deportation proceedings require a showing of prejudice to succeed.”).

Finally, even assuming the Ibarras’ 60-day voluntary departure period was stayed or tolled during the pendency of their motion to reopen, *compare Nevarez Nevarez v. Holder,*572 F.3d 605, 610 (9th Cir.2009), *with Dada v. Mukasey,*554 U.S. 1, 21, 128 S.Ct. 2307, 171 L.Ed.2d 178 (2008), it began to run again after their motion was denied. *Azarte v. Ashcroft,*394 F.3d 1278, 1289 (9th Cir.2005). It therefore expired before the Ibarras filed their petition for review and motion to stay with this court.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit 12 (a)****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Arthur Hood, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Lihir Gold Limited (the “company”);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich suchstatements 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 inthis report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of thecompany as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for thecompany and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating tothe company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonableassuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation offinancial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting thatoccurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected,or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe company’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controlover financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’sability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave asignificant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting./s/  Arthur Hood
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET OF ADVANCED  GAMING  TECHNOLOGY,  INC. AS OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND THE
RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS,  EQUITY AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE SIX MONTHS THEN
ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         326
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    20
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               348
<PP&E>                                         110
<DEPRECIATION>                                 32
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          205
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       125
<OTHER-SE>                                     (623)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   614
<SALES>                                        15
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               15
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               201
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (186)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (228)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (228)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.01)


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DAVID PAUL NAVARRO,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00207-CR

Appeal from the

409th District Court of 

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20140D03126)

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 jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We 

further order this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2019.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### CHARLES PAXTON, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. HENRY MISIUK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

June 10, 1960.

*Messrs. Marcus & Levy*and *Mr. Harry Chashin*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Samuel Doan*for the respondent.

Granted.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ariel PELIER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-13629

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 23, 2011.

Anne R. Schultz, Roger Cruz, Wifredo A. Ferrer, U.S. Attorney, Karen E. Moore, Kathleen M. Salyer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ariel Pelier, Salters, SC, pro se.

Before EDMONDSON, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

J. Rafael Rodriguez, appointed counsel for Ariel Pelier, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Pelier, in response, has filed a motion for appointment of new counsel. Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Pelier’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

*650Pelier’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot.
#### HORSTKOTTER, Respondent, v. SYRACUSE & SUBURBAN R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 19, 1907.)

Action by Louise Horstkotter against the Syracuse & Suburban Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order of County Court affirmed, with costs. McLENNAN, P. J., dissents.
Case: 1:03-cv-00252 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/27/03 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:38
Case: 1:03-cv-00252 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/27/03 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:39
Case: 1:03-cv-00252 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/27/03 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:40
Case: 1:03-cv-00252 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/27/03 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:41
Case: 1:03-cv-00252 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/27/03 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:42
Case: 1:03-cv-00252 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/27/03 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:43
Case: 1:03-cv-00252 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/27/03 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:44
Case: 1:03-cv-00252 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/27/03 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:45
Case: 1:03-cv-00252 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/27/03 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:46
Case: 1:03-cv-00252 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/27/03 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:47
Case: 1:03-cv-00252 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/27/03 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:48
Case: 1:03-cv-00252 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/27/03 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:49
Case: 1:03-cv-00252 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/27/03 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:50
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15471]


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

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Notice of Board Meeting

DATES: July 27, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Telephonic. Dial-in (listen only) information: Number: 1-
415-527-5035, Code: 199 692 9177; or via web: https://tspmeet.webex.com/tspmeet/onstage/g.php?MTID=e7c1325195f4c80b0f92bbfae0aab8be6.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of 
External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Board Meeting Agenda

Open Session

1. Approval of the June 29, 2021 Board Meeting Minutes
2. Monthly Reports
    (a) Participant Activity Report
    (b) Legislative Report
3. Quarterly Reports
    (c) Investment Performance
    (d) Budget Review
    (e) Audit Status
4. Internal Audit Update
5. Converge Update

Closed Session

6. Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B).
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(1).

    Dated: July 15, 2021.
Dharmesh Vashee,
General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-15471 Filed 7-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick C. Barry,
Chief Financial 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/ Patrick C. Barry
--------------------

Patrick C. Barry
Chief Financial Officer
May 3, 2005
# C_2019255EN.01005401.xml

| 29.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/54

---

Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Gamma-A v EUIPO — Piejūra (Packing for foodstuffs)

(Case T-353/19)

(2019/C 255/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gamma-A SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: M. Liguts, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Piejūra SIA (Nīcas novads, Latvia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: European Union design No 1819 558-0002 (Packing for foodstuffs)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2019 in Case R 2543/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and declare the design valid; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and declare the design valid;

| — | order EUIPO and the invalidity applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the invalidity applicant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Quarterly Report of Premier Holding Corp.(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jasmine Gregory, the Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:



1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending  March 30, 2011, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 30, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|Date:  April 28, 2011 | Jasmine Gregory
Chief Financial Officer
|--------------------- | ---------------------------------------
#### Clifford J. Hunt, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 64458.)

—Order and judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: In 1974 the State appropriated the fee to a portion of claimant’s property as well as a temporary easement upon which it built an access road for use as a highway detour and driveway. The temporary easement was abandoned on January 23, 1976. In considering the damage claim for the temporary easement, the Court of Claims found that the access road destroyed the utility of the temporary easement area and rendered the land worthless and that the diminution in market value was less than the cost to restore the property to its former state. Damages were computed in the same manner as the damages for the direct taking and the usual measure of damages for a temporary taking was not employed, i.e., the reasonable rental value of the land area utilized, plus the lesser of the diminution of land value or the cost of cure since the court considered "the taking of the temporary easement * * * equivalent to a *de facto*taking.” In August 1979, after the State appropriated in fee the portion of claimant’s property that had been previously subject to the temporary easement, claimant again sought damages which he particularized in the sum of $125,000. The State moved for an order for summary judgment dismissing the claim or, in the alternative, for an award of nominal damages. The court found that the claimant had been paid the full market value of the property in connection with the temporary taking and awarded nominal damages in the sum of $1 for the de jure appropriation. We reverse.

Nominal damages imply the existence of actual damages. However, claimant was denied the opportunity to prove the value of the parcel at the time of the State’s appropriation. Moreover, summary judgment is unwarranted since full title to the property was vested in claimant until 1979 and a triable issue of fact exists as to the value of the premises and whether claimant was damaged by the fee appropriation at that time. (Appeal from order and judgment of Court of Claims, McMahon, J.—appropriation.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.