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



PLEASE NOTE:
 BY SIGNING BELOW, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE QUADRIGA SUPERFUND, L.P. PROSPECTUS
DATED M / M / D / D / Y / Y A N Y APPLICABLE SUPPLEMENT TO THE PROSPECTUS, THE CURRENT MONTHLY REPORT FOR THE FUND,
THE FUNDS SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT AND THIS SERIES EXCHANGE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT, THE TERMS OF ALL
OF WHICH GOVERN THE INVESTMENT IN THE UNITS FOR WHICH YOU ARE SUBSCRIBING.
 SERIES EXCHANGE ELECTION
 Dollar Amount $
    
    
    
    (not less than $5,000, to be rounded up to nearest whole Unit)ORNumber of Units
    
    
    
    (NAV of at least $5,000)
 o OR o
 ACCOUNT INFORMATION
  Account Name:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Telephone
    
    
    
    -
    
    
    
    -Account Number:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Fax
    
    
    
    -
    
    
    
    -Address
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    E-MailStreet, City, State, Zip Code,
 NOTICE REGARDING SERIES EXCHANGE:
 1 / 2




---



##### 



AUTHORITY TO REQUEST EXCHANGE
   SIGNATURE(S)
  Name of Investor
    
    Name of Co-Investor (or Custodian or Trustee)M / M / D / D / Y / Y
    
    
    
    M / M / D / D / Y / YSignature
    
    Date
    
    Signature
    
    Date
 Signature(s) must be identical to name(s) in which Units are registered.
 BROKER-DEALER MUST SIGN
 o o
 SIGNATURE(S)
  Broker-Dealer Firm NameName of Registered Representative
    
    
    
    Name of PrincipalM / M / D / D / Y / Y
    
    
    
    M / M / D / D / Y / YSignature
    
    Date
    
    Signature
    
    Date
 2 / 2
PEOPLES-SIDNEY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                INDEX TO EXHIBITS
                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with then Quarterly Report of Peoples-Sidney Financial Corporation
(the "Corporation") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as
furnished with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this
Certification (the "Report"), I, Douglas Stewart, the President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, 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 Corporation.





                          /s/ Douglas Stewart
                          -------------------
                          Douglas Stewart, President and Chief Executive Officer

                          Date:  November 14, 2003


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

                                  (Continued)
                                                                             28.
Case: 1:02-cv-03568 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/23/04 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:677
Case: 1:02-cv-03568 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/23/04 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:678
Case: 1:02-cv-03568 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/23/04 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:679
Case: 1:02-cv-03568 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/23/04 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:680
Case: 1:02-cv-03568 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/23/04 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:681
Case: 1:02-cv-03568 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/23/04 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:682
Case: 1:02-cv-03568 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/23/04 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:683
Case: 1:02-cv-03568 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/23/04 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:684
Case: 1:02-cv-03568 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/23/04 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:685
Case: 1:02-cv-03568 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/23/04 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:686
Case: 1:02-cv-03568 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/23/04 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:687
Case: 1:02-cv-03568 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/23/04 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:688
Case: 1:02-cv-03568 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/23/04 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:689
Case: 1:02-cv-03568 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/23/04 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:690
Case: 1:02-cv-03568 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/23/04 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:691
Case: 1:02-cv-03568 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/23/04 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:692
# C_2019238EN.01002401.xml

| 15.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/24

---

Action brought on 2 May 2019 — Wonder Line v EUIPO — De Longhi Benelux (KENWELL)

(Case T-284/19)

(2019/C 238/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wonder Line, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: De Longhi Benelux SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

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 word mark KENWELL — Application for registration No 13 532 296

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2019 in Case R 1351/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant and possible co-defendants to pay all expenses of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and possible co-defendants to pay all expenses of the proceedings.

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.

---
#### Vashty Smith, Appellant, v Thelma V. Trampe, Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 768] —

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered June 10, 2011, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, *993on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendant met her prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). However, in opposition, the plaintiff submitted competent medical evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injuries to her right shoulder constituted a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use and/or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Perl v Meher,*18 NY3d 208, 215-218 [2011]; *Livia v Atkins,*93 AD3d 766 [2012]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.E, Eng, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Francisco Bautista, Respondent, v Kysor/Warren et al., Appellants.

[947 NYS2d 162]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Kysor/Warren and Enodis PLC appeal, and the defendant Expert Mechanical Contracting Co., Inc., separately appeals, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), entered June 24, 2011, as denied their separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

On June 24, 2006, the plaintiff was working behind the deli counter in a supermarket when he allegedly slipped and fell on an accumulation of water on the floor. According to the plaintiff, the water came from two nearby refrigeration units. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries against the defendants Kysor/Warren and Enodis PLC, which designed and manufactured the refrigeration units, and Expert Mechanical Contracting Co., Inc., which installed and serviced them. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them on the ground that there was an issue of fact as to whether the water *983came from the refrigeration units. The defendants appeal and we affirm.

The defendants each failed to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them because they failed to tender sufficient evidence to eliminate all material issues of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 852 [1985]). The evidence submitted by the defendants did not establish, as a matter of law, that the water upon which the plaintiff slipped did not come from the refrigeration units. Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the plaintiffs deposition testimony was not incredible as a matter of law, and any conflict in the testimony or evidence presented merely raised an issue of fact for the factfinder to resolve *(see Ferrante v American Lung Assn.,*90 NY2d 623, 631 [1997]). Accordingly, the separate motions of the defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against each of them were properly denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposing papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d at 853). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.
# C_2021163EN.01002502.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional v EUIPO (El Clasico)

(Case T-809/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark El Clasico - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 163/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Casas Feu and C. J. Riesco Losa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and A. Crawcour, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2019 (Case R 1966/2018-2), concerning the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark El Clasico.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---
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 Franklin Street
Properties Corp. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, George J. Carter, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

Date: August 2, 2006                    /s/ George J. Carter
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        George J. Carter
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
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 Franklin Street
Properties Corp. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, John G. Demeritt and Senior Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, 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.


Date: November 2, 2005        /s/ John G. Demeritt
                              --------------------
                              John G. Demeritt

                              Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 32.2




                                  CERTIFICATION
                                     OF THE
                         ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002In connection with the Quarterly Report of Valley
National Gases Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, James P. Hart, acting 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/ James P. Hart
                                                ----------------------------
                                                James P. Hart
                                                Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                                February 18, 2005





                                     - 37 -
#### John Laramy, Executor, *vs.*Herman Ruschke.

April 27, 1891.

Evidence *held*to sustain the finding of fact.

Appeal by plaintiff, executor of William Eranldand, from a judgment of the district court for Scott county, where the action was tried by Francis Cadwell, Esq., as referee.

*R. A. é F. C. Irwin,*for appellant.

*H. J. Peck,*for respondent. .

Gilfillan, C. J.1

There was only one question in this ease, — a question of fact, to wit, the true location, according to the United States survey, of the line between sections 3 and 4, town 113 N., of range 24 W. The plaintiff claims that it ran in a straight course between the section-corner posts, and that would be the presumption if the contrary did not appear. The defendant claims that it trended *126easterly from each section-corner post, so as to form an obtuse angle .at its intersection with the east and west quarter-section line. The referee found the line to run as claimed by defendant, and the evidence sustains the finding. The action being in ejectment, a judgment in general terms for defendant would have been sufficient, but it is no objection to it that it in terms defines the line between the two sections, for that was the very matter litigated and decided.

Judgment affirmed.

1

 Mitchell, J., took no part in this decision.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Joel Boyarski, the Principal Financial Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of WorldGate Communications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, which this
certification accompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and information contained in the
June 30, 2008 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of WorldGate Communications, Inc.

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

Dated:
August 14, 2008

/s/JOEL BOYARSKIJoel Boyarski Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


---



QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Atkins, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 82]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered July 1, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree and tampering with physical evidence, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 12 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). The evidence showed that in an attempt to avoid apprehension, defendant knocked over an officer causing her injury and placed bags of heroin into his mouth while he ran away. Such evidence supported the conclusion that defendant suppressed the bags of heroin by “an act of concealment” because he believed they would be used “in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding” (Penal Law § 215.40 [2]). There is no requirement that the evidence was permanently destroyed, or that it was discarded and never recovered *(see People v Hafeez,*100 NY2d 253, 259-260 [2003]; *People v Shoga,*89 AD3d 1225, 1228-1229 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 886 [2012]).

Defendant’s argument that there was no proof that he understood that the people chasing him were police officers, lacks merit. The jury could have reasonably inferred that defendant acted to avoid arrest for a drug offense. Here, after the nonuniformed officer displayed his badge, defendant ran around him and fled, and put narcotics into his mouth which he was forced to spit out upon being apprehended. Such conduct is consistent with someone trying to avoid being arrested and conceal evidence. Furthermore, that the evidence was suppressed only for a short period of time is of no moment, as the statute does not contain a minimum requisite time period that the evidence has to be concealed *(see also People v Davis-Ivery,*59 AD3d 853, 855 [2009]).

Although the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to *732suggest the possibility that defendant may have swallowed narcotics or other unrecovered evidence, such error was harmless *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]). The undisputed evidence that defendant put some bags of heroin in his mouth while fleeing was legally sufficient to support the tampering conviction. Furthermore, the court instructed the jury against speculation, and it is presumed that the jury followed the court’s instructions *(see People v Davis,*58 NY2d 1102 [1983]). Concur — Friedman J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
# Official Journal C 145/29 M

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 145 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4729 May 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 145

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4729 May 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 145/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2004/C 145/2 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case No. COMP/M.3090 - VOLKSWAGEN / Offset / Crescent / Lease Plan / JV) (1) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 145/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2004/C 145/2

Prior notification of a concentration (Case No. COMP/M.3090 - VOLKSWAGEN / Offset / Crescent / Lease Plan / JV) (1)

2

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN