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

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4595-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4595-DR), dated April 23, 2021, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued June 23, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 23, 2021.

Ballard County for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2021-15635 Filed 7-21-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
# C_2021252EN.01002301.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/23

---

Order of the General Court of 8 April 2021 — Target Ventures Group v EUIPO — Target Partners (TARGET VENTURES)

(Case T-274/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Declaration of surrender of the contested trade mark - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 252/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Target Ventures Group Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: T. Dolde and P. Homann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Target Partners GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Klett and C. Mikyska, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 (Case R 1685/2017-2), relating to cancellation proceedings between Target Ventures Group and Target Partners.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Target Ventures Group Ltd and Target Partners GmbH shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Target Ventures Group Ltd and Target Partners GmbH shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 June 30, 2004 (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: August 4, 2004 |  | /s/ F. William Conner
|                     |  | Name:                 |  | F. William Conner      
|                     |  | Title:                |  | Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited interim consolidated financial statements of Rose Hills Company and
subsidiaries, for the nine months ended September 30, 1998 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,882
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,995
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        979
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,123
<PP&E>                                          66,066
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 319,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,308
<BONDS>                                         80,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     129,554
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   319,279
<SALES>                                         61,453
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,453
<CGS>                                            9,803
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,803
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,359
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,089
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,487
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,602
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Linda Nacey, Respondent, v James E. Nacey, II, Appellant.

— Casey, J.

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Family Court of Greene County (Battisti, Jr., J.), entered February 15, 1985, which denied respondent’s application for blood grouping tests.

Petitioner filed a support petition dated September 21, 1984. Contending that he is not the father of the child named in the support petition, respondent requested an order for blood grouping tests. Family Court denied the request and an order of support was thereafter entered. Respondent appeals by permission.

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 418, blood grouping tests may be ordered in a support proceeding at the discretion of Family Court *(see, Matter of Department of Social Servs. v Thomas J. S.,*100 AD2d 119, 126, *appeal dismissed*63 NY2d 675). We find the record insufficiently developed to provide an adequate basis for Family Court to exercise its discretion.

The child was born February 8, 1970, and the birth certificate lists the parties as the natural parents. The parties were *934married seven days later, on February 15, 1970. The marriage was annulled in October 1972 by a judgment which awarded petitioner custody of "the infant child of the parties hereto”. Petitioner commenced a support proceeding in 1984 and respondent sought and obtained an order for blood grouping tests. The proceeding was dismissed as a result of petitioner’s failure to comply with the order.

Family Court denied respondent’s application for blood grouping tests in this subsequent support proceeding on the grounds that respondent was collaterally estopped from contesting paternity by the judgment of annulment and that an order directing blood tests at this time, 15 years after the child’s birth, would violate public policy and work irreparable harm on the child. As to the collateral estoppel issue, it does not appear that a finding as to respondent’s paternity was necessary in determining the award of custody. To be contrasted are those cases where the prior order or judgment contains an award of support against the parent who thereafter raises the issue of paternity *(see, Jeanne M. v Richard G.,*96 AD2d 549, *appeal dismissed*61 NY2d 637; *Matter of Sandra I v Harold I,*54 AD2d 1040). Turning to the second ground for Family Court’s decision, the record contains no proof as to whether respondent, during the 15-year period since the child’s birth, engaged in any conduct inconsistent with his current claim that he is not the father; nor is there any proof concerning the child or the potential impact on her emotional well-being. In these circumstances, we think the appropriate remedy is to remit the matter to Family Court for further development of the record for the purpose of establishing an adequate factual basis for the exercise of its discretion.

Decision withheld, and matter remitted to the Family Court of Greene County for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Harvey, JJ., concur.
sino_ex10-1.htm


    Purchase
Agreement

     

    


    This
Purchase Agreement (the
“Agreement”) is made effective as of December 18, 2009 by and between
DongYing (Jiangsu) Pharmaceutical Limited Company, the 100% owned subsidiary of
Sinobiopharma, Inc. (“DongYing”), located at No.
2 Zhongtian Road, Nantong, Jiangsu, 226009, P. R. China and
Meisu Jining Secience and Technology (Nanjing) Limited Company (“ Meisu Jining”), located at
Hubing Xincun, Jiangning Economic and
Technology Development District, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210000, P. R. China,
to transfer the right of the Approval Certificate of Eplerenone Drug (the “Certificate”) owned by Meisu
Jining to DongYing.

    


    In
reliance upon and in consideration of the following undertakings, the parties
agree as followings:

     

    
      	
              1.

            	
              Meisu
      Jining owns the Approval Certificate of Eplerenone Drug issued by China
      National Food And Drug Administration, the certificate number is
      2007L01275, DongYing, within 5 days after this Agreement being signed,
      issue 3,500,000 common shares to Meisu Jining to buy this
      Certificate.

            


    

     

     

    
      
         


      

      
        1

        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    


    
      	
              2.

            	
              Meisu
      Jining should transfer all related technical documents and materials to
      DongYing within 5 days after this Agreement being signed.

               

            


    

    
      	
              3.

            	
              After
      this Agreement become effective, DongYing has the sole ownership to the
      Certificate. Meisu Jining can not transfer this Certificate to any third
      party.

               

            


    

    
      	
              4.

            	
              If
      any dispute arises between the parties with respect to the matters covered
      by this Agreement, the lawsuit will file to the jurisdiction at the
      plaintiff’s location.

               

            


    

    
      	
              5.

            	
              This
      Agreement becomes effective when both party sign or stamp. Both parties
      have a copy of this Agreement and both copy has equal
      effectiveness

               

            


    

    


    



    
      
         


      

      
        2

        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


     

     

     

    
 

    


    


    /s/ Meisu Jining
Secience and Technology (Nanjing) Ltd.

     

    Meisu
Jining Secience and Technology (Nanjing) Ltd.

     

    Date:  12/18/09

     

     

    
 

    /s/ DongYing (Jiangsu) Pharmaceutical Ltd.

     

    DongYing
(Jiangsu) Pharmaceutical Ltd.

    


    Date:  12/18/09

    


     

     

    
 

    


    



    
      
         


      

      
        3
# C_2020390EN.01003202.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Aldi v EUIPO (BBQ BARBECUE SEASON)

(Case T-522/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark BBQ BARBECUE SEASON - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 390/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and M. Minkner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 May 2019 (Case R 1359/2018-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BBQ BARBECUE SEASON as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.

---
#### German Zacarías VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-2948.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 1, 2008.

Filed: Jan. 7, 2009.

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen German Zacarías Vasquez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Having carefully reviewed the record, we deny the petition. *See Carmenatte-Lopez v. Mukasey,*518 F.3d 540, 541 (8th Cir.2008) (standard of review).

We conclude that, given Vasquez’s asserted bases for asylum and the record below, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Vasquez did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 479-80, 482-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (upholding denial of asylum to Guatemalan citizen who claimed to have fled guerilla forces attempting to recruit him, as record did not show guerillas sought to recruit him based on his political opinion; it is not sufficient that guerillas were attempting to fill their ranks); *Gomez v. Gonzales,*425 F.3d 543, 545-47 (8th Cir.2005) (to reverse finding that alleged persecution was not based on protected ground, record must compel finding that protected ground motivated persecutors’ actions; asylum applicants presented only conclusory allegation that soldiers’ motivation in beating them was related to imputed political opinion, where soldiers said nothing about applicants’ political opinions and no other event supported such an imputation). Vasquez’s claim for withholding of removal — which carries a more rigorous burden of proof— necessarily fails as well. *See Makatengkeng v. Gonzales,*495 F.3d 876, 885 (8th Cir .2007).

Vasquez’s remaining arguments provide no basis for granting his petition for review, and accordingly we deny it.
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT




We, Ben E. Traub and Ellen M. Luthy certify that:


1. We have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-KSB of Xerion  EcoSolutions
Group Inc. (the "Registrant") for the period ended December 31, 2003.

2. Based on our  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.  Based on our  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;


4. We are responsible for establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and
procedures  (as  defined  in  Exchange  Act Rules  13a-14  and  15d-14)  for the
registrant and we have:

a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. We have disclosed,  based on our most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's  board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.  We have  indicated  in this  quarterly  report  whether  or not  there  were
significant  changes  in  internal  controls  or in  other  factors  that  could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation,   including  any  corrective  actions  with  regard  to  significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Dated: March 25, 2004




By Ben Traub

/s/ "Ben Traub"
----------------------------------------
Ben Traub, Chief Executive Officer



By  Ellen Luthy

/s/ "Ellen Luthy"
----------------------------------------
Ellen Luthy, Principal Financial Officer

                                       31
#### Etta LOWERY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-60113

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 24, 2011.

Etta Lowery, Grapevine, TX, pro se.

Sara Ann Ketchum, John Dicicco, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esq., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Clarissa C. Potter, William J. Wilkins, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Etta M. Lowery, proceeding pro se challenges the judgment of the tax court sustaining the deficiencies and penalties sought by the Commissioner. We affirm.

The appellant taxpayer presented a number of familiar “tax protestor” arguments (characterized as “shopworn” by the tax court) such as she was not subject to the Internal Revenue Code. On appeal she raises different-equally frivolous arguments that compensation paid to her for services (which she did not request) is not taxable income because she is not a government employee; that because she lives in one of the 50 states rather than in a federal territory she is not subject to federal income taxes and that a tax on compensation for services would be an unconditional direct tax.

Appellant’s brief on appeal consists primarily of citations to irrelevant federal case law and other legal authorities. Her principal argument that remuneration for services received by private employees residing in one of the 50 states is not subject to federal income tax is patently frivolous.

The judgment of the tax court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Rodney Carnell Mays v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-13-00805-CR

Trial court case number: 1875634

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 7 of Harris County

The appellate record was due in this case on November 4, 2013. On November 20, 2013, 

the court reporter informed us that the reporter’s record has not been filed as a result of 

appellant’s failure to pay or make payment arrangements for preparation of the record. The court 

reporter also filed a motion for extension, which the Court granted, extending the deadline for 

the reporter’s record to December 23, 2013. Appellant has now filed a “motion for extension of 

time to pay for court reporter[’]s record,” requesting an extension of time until March 23, 2013 

to make complete payment for the reporter’s record.

Appellant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. Appellant is ordered to provide 

written evidence from the court reporter showing that appellant has either paid or made 

arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee no later than January 22, 2014. If appellant fails to 

provide said evidence by January 22, 2014, appellant’s brief will be due no later than February 

21, 2014, and the Court may consider and decide only those issues or points that do not require a 

reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c), 38.6(a).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 16, 2014