alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 15

- 00458

- CV

In the Interest of K.B., a Child

On a ppeal from the 279th District Court of Jefferson County , Texas Trial Cause No. F

- 198,952

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution . The Court
orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant although she is exempt from paymen t due to her affidavit of inability to pay costs.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. April 21, 2016
# C_2019246EN.01004001.xml

| 22.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/40

---

Action brought on 29 May 2019 — ‘Scorify’ v EUIPO — Scor (SCORIFY)

(Case T-328/19)

(2019/C 246/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scor SE (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark in colours red, white and dark blue SCORIFY — Application for registration No 16 214 521

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2019 in Case R 1639/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | carefully consider the applicant’s original pleadings and its grounds of action, and alter the Decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, stating that the applicant’s appeal submitted to the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office was justified, thus, the opposition had to be rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

carefully consider the applicant’s original pleadings and its grounds of action, and alter the Decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, stating that the applicant’s appeal submitted to the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office was justified, thus, the opposition had to be rejected;

| — | order the other party to bear all the costs paid and incurred by the applicant within the meaning of Articles 134, 139, 140, 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to bear all the costs paid and incurred by the applicant within the meaning of Articles 134, 139, 140, 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of Periodic Report**Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officerof Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the undersigned’sknowledge: (1) the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2007 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: November 5, 2007                                                     /s/ Mary T. Minch   Name:  Mary T. Minch   Title:  Senior Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officerand Secretary   THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE FILED BY THE COMPANY FOR PURPOSES OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACTOF 1934.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001031002
<NAME> MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING II, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              FEB-6-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                               363,932,704
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,204,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           371,137,072
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             371,137,072
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,204,368
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                309,278,400
<COMMON>                                    54,654,304
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               371,137,072
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,602,293
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,602,293
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         11,602,293
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,602,293
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 970 

To designate additional segments and tributaries of White Clay Creek, in 

the States of Delaware and Pennsylvania, as a component of the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2011 

Mr. COONS (for himself, Mr. CARPER, and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To designate additional segments and tributaries of White 

Clay Creek, in the States of Delaware and Pennsylvania, 

as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘White Clay Creek Wild 

5 and Scenic River Expansion Act of 2011’’. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 970 IS

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF SEGMENTS OF WHITE CLAY 

2 CREEK, AS SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIV3 ERS. 

4 Section 3(a)(163) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

5 (16 U.S. C. 1274(a)(163)) is amended— 

6 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘190 miles’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘199 miles’’; and 

9 (B) by striking ‘‘the recommended designa10 tion and classification maps (dated June 

11 2000)’’ and inserting ‘‘the map entitled ‘White 

12 Clay Creek Wild and Scenic River Designated 

13 Area Map’ and dated July 2008, the map enti14 tled ‘White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic River 

15 Classification Map’ and dated July 2008, and 

16 the map entitled ‘White Clay Creek National 

17 Wild and Scenic River Proposed Additional 

18 Designated Segments-July 2008’ ’’; 

19 (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting 

20 the following: 

21 ‘‘(B) 22.4 miles of the east branch begin22 ning at the southern boundary line of the Bor23 ough of Avondale, including Walnut Run, 

24 Broad Run, and Egypt Run, outside the bound25 aries of the White Clay Creek Preserve, as a 

26 recreational river.’’; and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 970 IS

1 (3) by striking subparagraph (H) and inserting 

2 the following: 

3 ‘‘(H) 14.3 miles of the main stem, includ4 ing Lamborn Run, that flow through the 

5 boundaries of the White Clay Creek Preserve, 

6 Pennsylvania and Delaware, and White Clay 

7 Creek State Park, Delaware beginning at the 

8 confluence of the east and middle branches in 

9 London Britain Township, Pennsylvania, down10 stream to the northern boundary line of the 

11 City of Newark, Delaware, as a scenic river.’’. 

12 SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATION OF WHITE CLAY CREEK. 

13 Sections 4 through 8 of Public Law 106–357 (16 

14 U.S.C. 1274 note; 114 Stat. 1393), shall be applicable to 

15 the additional segments of the White Clay Creek des16 ignated by the amendments made by section 2. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
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  September 30, 2006, 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
November 14, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited interim consolidated financial statements of Minera Andes Inc. for the
three-month period ended June 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             556,172
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       25,983
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   633,833
<PP&E>                                           4,459,960
<DEPRECIATION>                                     168,563
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,925,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              87,671
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        16,414,666
<OTHER-SE>                                    (11,577,057)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,925,280
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   213,238
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (213,238)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (213,238)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (213,238)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0


</TABLE>
hxl-ex102_205.htm



 

Exhibit 10.2 

 

 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE 

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT AGREEMENT 

 

This Amendment No. 2 to the Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreement (this “Amendment”) between Hexcel Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Hexcel” or the “Company”), and Nickie Lee Stanage (the “Executive”) is entered into effective as of July 26, 2021 (the “Effective Date”).  

 

WHEREAS

 

A.The Company and the Executive as authorized by Hexcel’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) entered into that certain Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreement, effective October 28, 2009, as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreement, effective December 31, 2020 (the “Agreement”).

 

B.The Executive and the Company wish to enter into this Amendment, which has been approved by the Board, to revise the calculation of Final Average Pay (as defined in the Agreement).

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the services to be rendered in the future by the Executive, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 


	
1.
	
Amendment




 

Section 2.1.1 of the Agreement shall be replaced in its entirety by the following:

 

“2.1.1FINAL AVERAGE PAY. The average monthly compensation of the Executive for the highest-paid 36 months (or the Executive’s entire period of employment with the Company and its Affiliates if such period is less than 36 months) of the Executive’s final 120 months of Continuous Service.  For this purpose (i) the Executive’s “compensation” shall mean his base salary (without regard to any salary deferral pursuant to sections 125 or 401(k) of the Code or any successor provision) and all amounts earned (whether paid or payable) under all management incentive or other bonus plans in which he participates and (ii) any incentive pay or other bonus shall be deemed to have been earned ratably over the period with respect to which it is earned.”

 


	
2.
	
Miscellaneous




 

Other than as set forth in this Amendment, all terms used in this Amendment shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement. Other than as amended by this Amendment, all other terms in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on this 26th day of July 2021.

 


	
 
	
 
	
HEXCEL CORPORATION

a Delaware corporation

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
/s/ Nickie Lee Stanage
	
 
	
 
	
By
	
 
	
/s/ Gail E. Lehman

	
Nickie Lee Stanage
	
 
	
 
	
Name
	
 
	
Gail E. Lehman

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
Its
	
 
	
Executive Vice President, General Counsel and

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
Secretary




 

1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<CIK>                            0001031003
<NAME>                           MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST II
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-27-1998
<CASH>                                                0
<SECURITIES>                                309,278,400
<RECEIVABLES>                                 6,185,568
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            315,463,968
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              315,463,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         6,185,568
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                 300,000,000
<COMMON>                                      9,278,400
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                315,463,968
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              6,185,568
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               6,185,568
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           6,185,568
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                  6,185,568
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Relly Adler, Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 892]—

*695Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered March 29, 2011, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to annul respondent’s determination dated May 5, 2010, denying petitioner succession rights, as a remaining family member to the subject apartment, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner did not sustain her burden of establishing entitlement to succession rights as a remaining family member to the apartment held by her husband, because the record demonstrates that her occupancy was not pursuant to respondent’s written permission, nor was it reflected in the affidavits of income submitted by her husband to respondent *(see Matter of Echeverria v New York City Hous. Auth.,*85 AD3d 580 [2011]; *Matter ofAbreu v New York City Hous. Auth. E. Riv. Houses,*52 AD3d 432 [2008]).

Given the fact that petitioner cannot show that her husband, as the tenant of record, received written consent for her to reside in the apartment and that she was an authorized occupant of the apartment for a one-year period before his death, respondent’s decision to deny her remaining family member status was neither arbitrary nor capricious *(see Matter of Torres v New York City Hous. Auth.,*40 AD3d 328, 330 [2007]). Even if NYCHA were aware she was residing there, the agency is not estopped from denying her remaining-family-member status *(see Rosello v Rhea,*89 AD3d 466, 466-467 [2011]). Moreover, the payment of rent did not confer legitimacy on petitioner’s occupation of the apartment *(see Matter of Barnhill v New York City Hous. Auth.,*280 AD2d 339, 339 [2001]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior Case History: 31 Misc 3d 1205(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 50499(11).]
Case: 1:00-cv-07145 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/14/00 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1
Case: 1:00-cv-07145 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/14/00 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:2
Case: 1:00-cv-07145 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/14/00 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:3
Case: 1:00-cv-07145 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/14/00 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:4
### The Honorable John B. Jones, United State s District Judge for 1 

### the District of South Dakota. ___________ No. 95-3564 No. 96-1068

___________ Edward Ronwin, * * Appellant, * * Appeals from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Dori Altman, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 26, 1996 Filed: August 12, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Edward Ronwin sued Dori Altman for p ersonal injuries alleged to have resulted from a low-speed, rear-end automobile c ollision. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Altman, and judgment was entered on that verdict . The Dist rict Court denied Ronwin's post-trial motions. Ronwin appeals , 1 seeking reversal on several grounds. Having considered all the issues Ronwin has raised in these appeals, we conclude that the District Court committed no error of law and did not abuse its discretion in denying Ronwin's post-trial motions. Because the case lacks precedential value, we affirm the

### -2-

judgment below without further discussion. AFFIRMED. See8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Order entered August 21, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00987-CV

IN RE STAFF CARE, INC., Relator

Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11-03615

ORDER

In accordance with the Court’s opinion issued this date, the petition for writ of mandamus 

is conditionally GRANTED. The Court ORDERS the trial judge, the Honorable Carlos R. 

Cortez, Judge of the 44th Judicial District Court, to RENDER an order: 1) resolving all of the 

parties’ motions to compel that were pending as of July 18, 2013; 2) ruling on relator’s appeal of 

the Associate Judge’s Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike, and 3) setting a date for trial 

not less than thirty days from the date of the last of the orders resolving these motions. 

Should the trial judge fail to comply with this order, the writ will issue. The Court 

ORDERS the trial judge to file with this Court, within thirty (30) days of the date of this 

order, a certified copy of his order issued in compliance with this order.

We ORDER that relator recover its costs of this original proceeding from real parties in 

interest.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
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 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 Executive Officer,  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
        Chief Executive 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.