alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:01-cv-06579 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/21/01 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:25
Case: 1:01-cv-06579 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/21/01 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:26
Case: 1:01-cv-06579 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/21/01 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:27
Case: 1:01-cv-06579 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/21/01 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:28
Case: 1:01-cv-06579 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/21/01 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:29
Case: 1:01-cv-06579 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/21/01 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:30
Case: 1:01-cv-06579 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/21/01 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:31
Case: 1:01-cv-06579 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/21/01 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:32
Case: 1:01-cv-06579 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/21/01 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:33
Case: 1:01-cv-06579 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/21/01 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:34
Case: 1:01-cv-06579 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/21/01 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:35
Case: 1:01-cv-06579 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/21/01 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:36
#### DINKINS V. THE STATE.

(Decided Jan. 16th, 1908.)

Appeal from Montgomery City Court.

Heard before Hon. W. H. Thomas.

No counsel marked for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for the ■State.

Affirmed.

Opinion by

Tyson, C. J.
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 Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust II and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding II, L.P. (the
"Partnership") for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kathleen Skero, Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General Partner of
the Partnership, 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
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING II, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ KATHLEEN SKERO
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Kathleen Skero *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: May 12, 2006
_____________________

*  Kathleen Skero functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATIN EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-QSB
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,401
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     20,927
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          15,423
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            14,914
<LOANS>                                        108,852
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,031
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 156,623
<DEPOSITS>                                     134,793
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,612
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,272
<LONG-TERM>                                        750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,324
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,872
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 156,623
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,780
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,097
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    49
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,926
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,777
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,812
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,114
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      180
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,229
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,165
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,165
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       855
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.53
<LOANS-NON>                                         48
<LOANS-PAST>                                       347
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   938
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      149
<RECOVERIES>                                        62
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1031
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              1031
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            142


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                   5
<MULTIPLIER>                1
       
<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                         DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                    63,335
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             54,535
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                               52,992
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         198,165
<PP&E>                                                 8,813,873
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (2,642,770)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         6,493,138
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  2,434,064
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                  196
<COMMON>                                                   4,959
<OTHER-SE>                                           (1,013,276)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           6,493,138
<SALES>                                                3,648,678
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       3,648,678
<CGS>                                                  1,081,893
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          1,081,893
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       2,271,741
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       439,505
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (482,336)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (482,336)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (482,336)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (.10)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2020061EN.01003302.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Amigüitos pets & life v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect)

(Case T-40/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect - Earlier EU word mark ONE - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 61/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Amigüitos pets & life, SA (Lorca, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2018 (Case R 272/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Société des produits Nestlé SA and Amigüitos pets & life.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 November 2018 (Case R 272/2018-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 November 2018 (Case R 272/2018-4);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Amigüitos pets & life, SA, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Amigüitos pets & life, SA, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| 4. | Orders Société des produits Nestlé, SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Amigüitos pets & life, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Société des produits Nestlé, SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Amigüitos pets & life, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---
1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2125

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

William Colwell McNeely, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 30, 2010

 Filed: October 5, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, William McNeely challenges the belowGuidelines-range sentence the district court1

 imposed following his guilty plea to one

count of conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371,

1341, and 1343. Counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), in which he seeks to withdraw. Counsel argues that McNeely’s sentence is

unreasonable in light of his age and medical conditions, and because the sentence is

greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 
-2-

We conclude that the district court did not commit any procedural error in

sentencing McNeely, and we further conclude that the court did not impose an

unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.

2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentence for reasonableness, this court first ensures

district court committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly

calculating Guidelines range, treating Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider

§ 3553(a) factors, sentencing based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately

explain chosen sentence, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under

abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th

Cir. 2009) (below-Guidelines-range sentence was not unreasonable where record

reflected that district court made individualized assessment based on facts presented

and specifically addressed defendant’s proffered information in its consideration of

sentencing factors), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1309 (2010); cf. United States v. Zastrow,

534 F.3d 854, 856 (8th Cir. 2008) (within-Guidelines-range sentence of 240 months

was not unreasonable where record indicated that court considered defendant’s age

of 73 and medical conditions of high blood pressure and arthritis).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave

to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
#### MARKHAM, Appellant, v. WALSH, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Homer C. Markham against John W. Walsh.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of County Court and Justice Court reversed, with costs in this court and the courts below. Held, that the defense of untenantableness of the premises was entirely unproved, and the jury having been permitted to consider the evidence as to the condition of the premises in question, which evidence was admitted over the plaintiff’s objection ‘ and exception, we are unable to determine that the verdict rendered in favor of the defendant was not influenced or controlled thereby.
China Interactive Education, Inc. - Exhibit 10.2 - Prepared By TNT
Filings Inc.




  




Exhibit 10.2


(English Translation)


Supplementary
Agreement 


Party A: MenQ
Technology Limited

Party B: Zhuhai Campus of Beijing Normal University 


Party A and Party B, on the basis of complementary advantage, mutual
benefit and common development, entered into this supplementary agreement,
pursuant to article 8 set forth in executed Joint Establishment of Information
Applied in Education Institute of Zhuhai Research College of BNU Agreement
(collectively, “Original Agreement”). The articles hereof are as following:


1.“Products formed during co-operation period” (collectively,
“Products”) specified in Article 8 of “Original Agreement” refers to all
products researched and developed jointly by Party A and Party B, which shall
be included in scope of co-operation set forth in Article 3 of “Original
Agreement”.


2. Intellectual property of “Products” shall be determined by Party A
and Party B pursuant to Article 7 of “Original Agreement”. However, either
party shall possess usage right to product of the other party during the period
of “Original Agreement”.


3. Party B exclusively authorizes Party A promote and distribute
“Products” researched and developed by Party B during the period set forth in
Article 2 of “Original Agreement”. Party B shall not authorize any other third
party to use “Products” researched and developed by itself during such period.


4. Party B shall share 50% percentage of profits (net profits) from
“Products” sold by Party A, respectively.


5. Party B shall be in charge of improvement, upgrade and maintenance
in usage of software; the expenditure arouse out of which shall be borne by
Party A and Party B equally, respectively.


6. This supplementary agreement shall be supplementary agreement of
“Original Agreement” and be deemed equal effectiveness to “Original Agreement”.
In the event of discrepancy between this supplementary agreement and “Original
Agreement”, this supplementary agreement shall be deemed prevail and valid.


7. This supplementary agreement shall be made in quadruplicate and
effective upon execution of such from both parties. Both parties shall hold two
copies of such which are equally effective.


Party A: MenQ Technology Limited
Artificial person or Authorized trustee:


Date: 08/02/2009


Party B:
Zhuhai Campus of Beijing Normal University 

Artificial person or Authorized trustee:


Date: 08/02/2009
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         July 29, 2021.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 21, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 200 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2021-115, CP2021-117.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2021-16101 Filed 7-28-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
NUMBER 13-13-00581-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

MARY FOWLER, Appellants,

v.

GUS MONTIS, ARGIRO INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., Appellee.

 

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas.

 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

Appellant Mary Fowler appeals the trial court’s judgment of eviction signed by the 

trial court on October 18, 2013. The judgment states that appellees Gus Montis and 

Argiro Investments, L.L.C. were entitled to a writ of possession. On October 28, 2013, 

appellant filed a notice of appeal in the county court. On the same date, appellant filed a 
2

“Personal Surety Bond,” in which appellant bound to pay the sum of $5000 and on which 

appellant’s attorney serves as a surety. 

On January 13, 2014, appellees Gus Montis and Argiro Investments, L.L.C. filed a 

“Motion to Enforce Judgment and Issuance of a Writ of Possession for Failure to File 

Proper Supersedeas Bond”. Appellees argue the writ of possession was never served

and appellant failed to file the appropriate supersedeas bond to stay the writ as required 

by Texas Property Code 24.007. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007 (West Supp. 

2012) (“A judgment of the county court may not under any circumstances be stayed 

pending appeal unless, within 10 days of the signing of the judgment, the appellant files a 

supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court.”). 

Appellant and appellees both state the trial court entered an order modifying its 

judgment of eviction on December 11, 2013. Our record on appeal does not include this

order. Appellee contends the order was entered after the trial court’s plenary power had 

expired. 

Having reviewed this record, we conclude findings of fact and conclusions of law 

are necessary to proper presentation of this appeal. As such, we ABATE the appeal and 

REMAND the cause to the county court for a hearing to determine whether its writ of 

possession was stayed, whether appellant timely and sufficiently filed a supersedeas 

bond, and its jurisdiction to modify the supersedeas bond. The county court shall 

prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing these issues and any other 

findings and conclusions that it deems relevant and appropriate pursuant to Texas Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 24. See TEX. R. APP. P. 24. The county court’s findings and 
3

conclusions shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record. The supplemental clerk’s 

record and the reporter’s record from the abatement hearing shall be filed with this Court 

no later than March 6, 2014. If the county court requires additional time to comply, the 

county court should so notify the Clerk of this Court. This appeal will be reinstated after 

the supplemental clerk’s record and the reporter’s record is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

10th day of February, 2014.
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 Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust II (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding II, L.P. for
the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haig J. Nargesian, Regular
Trustee of the Trust, 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 Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST II


                              By:  /s/ HAIG J. NARGESIAN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Haig J. Nargesian *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: November 9, 2005
_______________________

* Haig J. Nargesian functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.