alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019230EN.01006301.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/63

---

Action brought on 21 May 2019 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — Golden Frog (CHAMELEON)

(Case T-312/19)

(2019/C 230/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG (Niefern-Öschelbronn, Germany) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Golden Frog GmbH (Meggen, Suisse)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark CHAMELEON — Application for registration No 12 567 269

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2019 in Case R 1551/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG;

| — | order Golden Frog GmbH to bear its own costs in case of an intervention. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Golden Frog GmbH to bear its own costs in case of an intervention.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | 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.

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Vegetable Crops Research: Madison, WI
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    ScientistsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Madison, Wisconsin Vegetable Crops Research People David Spooner





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- John Bamberg
- Paul Bethke
- Johanne Brunet
- Dennis Halterman
- Michael Havey
- Shelley Jansky
- Philipp Simon
- David Spooner
- Shawn Steffan
- Yiqun Weng
- David Willis
- Juan Zalapa

Complete Publication Listheadline bar A complete publication list is located at https://horticulture.wisc.edu/faculty-profiles/spooner_cv/


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Exhibit 32

                            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 American Soil Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carl P.
Ranno, Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ Carl P. Ranno
-----------------------------------
Carl P. Ranno
Chief Executive Officer, President,
and Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2008
#### In the Matter of Will Reese, Jr., Appellant, v John B. Rhea et al., Respondents.

[944 NYS2d 882]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered May 11, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the petition seeking to annul the determination of respondents, dated March 3, 2010, insofar as it terminates petitioner’s tenancy, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner does not challenge respondents’ determination that he violated its occupancy rules by refusing to transfer to an appropriately sized apartment, that he permitted his daughters to reside in the apartment without complying with its occupancy rules, and that he violated a stipulation that was part of the settlement of two prior charges against him. Rather, his sole contention is that the penalty imposed by respondents constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Judicial review of a penalty imposed by an administrative agency is limited to the question of whether the punishment constitutes an abuse of discretion. The sanction must be upheld unless it shocks the judicial conscience *(see Matter of Featherstone v Franco,*95 NY2d 550, 554 [2000]; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 232-234 [1974]).

*431The penalty imposed here does not shock the conscience because petitioner agreed to accept a smaller apartment to settle prior charges and then reneged on his promise. The stipulation also included terms of probation, which petitioner violated. Moreover, it was unreasonable for him to believe that he could retain a three-bedroom apartment and that his wife, from whom he is separated, could retain a four-bedroom apartment so that his daughters could reside in whichever apartment they chose, in light of respondents’ obligation to attempt to accommodate larger families *(see Matter of March u Rhea,*82 AD3d 487, 488 [2011]; *Matter of Kotoff v Franco,*223 AD2d 373 [1996]). Concur — Mazzarelli, *J.P.,*Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Richter, JJ.
**Exhibit 21.1**

**Subsidiaries of**

**OYO Geospace Corporation**

Geospace Technologies, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

GeospaceTechnologies Corporation, a Delaware corporation 

Geospace Engineering Resources International, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

Geospace Finance Corp., a Texas corporation 

Concord Technologies, LP, aTexas limited partnership 

OYOG, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

OYOG Limited Partner, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company 

OYOG Operations, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

OYO Geospace China, a Chinese company 

OYO Geo Space Canada, Inc., anAlberta corporation 

OYO Instruments, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

OYO Instruments Europe Limited, a United Kingdom company 

OYO Geospace J.V., LP, a Texas limited partnership 

OYO-GEO Impulse International, LLC, a Russian limited liability company
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ARBOR
SOFTWARE CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,647
<SECURITIES>                                    23,204
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,660
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (783)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,982
<PP&E>                                          15,423
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,999
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,589
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,738
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,589
<SALES>                                         47,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,383
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,584
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,277
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (242)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,963
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,137)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,522
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,826
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 89 Filed: 03/27/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:546
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 89 Filed: 03/27/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:547
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 89 Filed: 03/27/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:548
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Quarterly Report of Premier Holding Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack Gregory, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.   The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|Date: October 1, 2010 | Jack Gregory
Chief Executive Officer and Director
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 99.2





BEA SYSTEMS, INC.





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 periodic report of BEA Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, William M. Klein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





| | (1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates
and for the periods indicated.
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Date:    December 13, 2002



/s/    WILLIAM M. KLEINWilliam M. Klein Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Arthur Thomas, Respondent.

[941 NYS2d 524]

Appeal by the People from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), dated March 10, 2011, as, after a hearing, granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress a weapon.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress a weapon is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

After a traffic stop, the defendant was arrested when he exclaimed that he was in possession of drugs and then handed the drugs to the arresting police officers. At the time of the ar*915rest, a crowd of over 20 people gathered at the scene. Before removing the defendant to the police station, the police officers locked the defendant’s vehicle and left it at the location of the stop. The police officers returned less than one hour later to impound the vehicle, at which time they saw a weapon protruding from underneath the driver’s seat. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the weapon on the ground that the warrantless search of the vehicle approximately one hour after the defendant’s arrest was improper.

The automobile exception, which permits the warrantless search of vehicles, “is equally applicable whether the search is conducted at the time and place where the automobile was stopped or whether, instead, the vehicle is impounded and searched after removal to the police station .... [WJhere the search was reasonably close in time and place to the point of arrest . . . there was no requirement that the police further delay the search to obtain a warrant” *(People v Blasich,*73 NY2d 673, 681 [1989] [citations omitted]; *see People v Paragas,*58 AD3d 874 [2009]). Here, since the circumstances did not dissipate the justification for a warrantless search conducted upon probable cause pursuant to the automobile exception, the Supreme Court erred in suppressing the weapon found in the vehicle *(see People v Henderson,*57 AD3d 562 [2008]; *People v Williams,*173 AD2d 663 [1991]; *cf. People v Martin,*141 AD2d 854 [1988]). Skelos, J.P., Belen, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1Certifications:I, Merlin Bingham, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Metalline Mining Company;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) [Intentionally omitted]c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd) disclosed in this report any changes in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.       Dated: March 17, 2008 By /s/ Merlin Bingham             Merlin Bingham, President
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

The undersigned, Randall Letcavage, herebycertifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Premier Holding Corporation for the period ended June 30, 2016 fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of Premier Holding Corporation.

 

By: */s/ Randall Letcavage	*

Randall Letcavage

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

Date: November 14, 2016
Document

Exhibit 10.2





ADDENDUM TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This ADDENDUM TO the AMENDED AND RESTATED EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Addendum”) is made as of June 25, 2021 by and between Citizens Financial Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries and any and all successor entities (the “Company”) and Bruce Van Saun (“Executive”).


This Addendum shall modify the herein specified provisions of Executive’s Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement dated May 5, 2016 (the “Current Agreement”), which in turn modified the Executive Employment Agreement, dated October 1, 2013 and letter from Elaine Arden to Executive dated November 6, 2013 (collectively, the “Original Agreement”).  


The primary purpose of this Addendum is to formalize the intent of the Company and the Executive to continue the existing employment relationship beyond the May 5, 2023 expiry date (the “Current Expiry Date”) found in the Current Agreement and, unless otherwise specified herein, allow for all terms and conditions of the Current Agreement to automatically extend beyond the Current Expiry Date in an evergreen fashion.  Additionally, in order to ensure a smooth and orderly transition at such time following the Current Expiry Date as Executive or the Company may deem a change sensible, Executive and the Company wish to put in place a reciprocal 6-month notice obligation.


As such, it is hereby agreed by and between the undersigned that effective as of the Current Expiry Date:


1.The language found in Section 1(a) of the Current Agreement pertaining to the Initial Term, any renewal thereof, and/or any other language found in Section 1(a) or elsewhere in the Current Agreement relating to a date-certain expiration will automatically become null and void and the Current Agreement shall be evergreen subject to the provisions of Sections 1(b) through 1(h) of the Current Agreement.


2.The language found in Section 1(d) of the Current Agreement shall be amended to provide Executive with a right to 6 months’ notice in the event that the Company chooses to terminate Executive’s employment without Cause at some point following the Current Expiry Date.  


3.The language found in Section 1(e) of the Current Agreement pertaining to Executive’s obligation to provide 6-months’ notice in the event Executive chooses to terminate the employment relationship without Good Reason shall remain in effect.


Executive and the Company understand and acknowledge that no statement, whether written or verbal, by the Company or any of its officers, employees or representatives may in any way modify, alter or change the strictly “at-will” nature of Executive’s employment relationship with the Company, and both Executive and the Company retain the right to terminate Executive’s employment at any time, for any reason or no reason, subject to the provisions of Sections 1(b) through (h) of the Current Agreement.
    
AGREED BY AND BETWEEN:


									
	/s/ Bruce Van Saun		/s/ Susan LaMonica
	BRUCE VAN SAUN		CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
			By: Susan LaMonica, Chief Human Resources Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0494. HENDERSON v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. 

This appeal was docketed November 10, 2015, such that pro se appellant

Timothy Henderson’s initial brief was due on November 30, 2015. Rule 23 (a) (an

appellant’s brief “shall be filed within 20 days after the appeal is docketed. Failure

to file within that time, unless extended upon motion for good cause shown, may

result in the dismissal of the appeal”). As of December 31, 2015, however, Henderson

had neither filed an initial brief nor asked for an extension to time for doing so. We

therefore DISMISS this appeal. Id.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/07/2016

January 07, 2016