alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019230EN.01005501.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/55

---

Action brought on 20 April 2019 — gastivo portal v EUIPO — La Fourchette (Representation of a fork on a green background)

(Case T-266/19)

(2019/C 230/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: gastivo portal GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch, N. Willich and N. Achilles, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Fourchette SAS (Paris, France)

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 figurative mark (Representation of a fork on a green background) — Application for registration No 15 474 356

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2019 in Case R 1213/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas 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;

| — | Infringement of Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Rusciano Realty Service Ltd., Respondent, v Skate Realty Corporation et al., Defendants, and Cross & Brown Company, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages based on a real estate brokerage commission, defendant Cross & Brown Company appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), entered February 11, 1985, as denied that branch of its motion as sought summary judgment dismissing the second and third causes of action of the complaint as against it.

*714Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, with costs, that branch of appellant’s motion as sought summary judgment dismissing the second and third causes of action of the complaint as against it granted, and action as against the remaining defendants severed.

On the record before us, plaintiff has failed to show the existence of an enforceable contract between the prospective purchaser and defendant sellers. The correspondence between appellant and plaintiff with regard to appellant’s finding a prospective buyer specifically states that the offer is subject to preparation of a formal contract by the sellers’ attorney and approval by buyer’s attorney. Absent proof of the existence of a firm offer to purchase, plaintiff has failed to show intentional interference by appellant with its exclusive brokerage agreement. Moreover, in view of appellant’s unrebutted assertion that at no time either before or after the expiration of plaintiff’s exclusive brokerage agreement with defendant sellers was the subject property sold or a commission paid to anyone, plaintiff has failed to establish damages. Inasmuch as the requisite elements of a cause of action for tortious interference with contract have not been set forth *(see, Poughkeepsie Sav. Bank v Sloane Mfg. Co.,*84 AD2d 212, 217), Special Term erred in failing to grant appellant’s motion in its entirety dismissing all causes of action asserted against it. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.
Order entered January 8, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01456-CV

IN RE ARTIS GRANVILLE, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-05058-C

ORDER

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s November 26, 2019 

petition for writ of habeas corpus.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40216-40217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16111]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    The National Science Board's Committee on External Engagement 
hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the 
transaction of National Science Board business as follows:

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, August 3, 2021, from 11:00-11:45 a.m. p.m. EDT.

PLACE: This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National 
Science Foundation.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda of the teleconference is: Opening

[[Page 40217]]

remarks and approval of minutes; highlights of Tennessee Roundtable; 
rollout of S&E Indicators Elementary and Secondary STEM education 
report; discuss S&E Indicators 2022 engagement plan; and discuss 
Strategic Engagement Tool.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Nadine Lymn, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ff9193869291bf918c99d1989089"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80eeecf9edeec0eef3e6aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>, 703/292-7000. To listen to this 
teleconference, members of the public must send an email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c424d584543424d405f4f4549424f494e5e486c425f4a024b435a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="056b64716c6a6b646976666c606b6660677761456b76632b626a73">[email protected]</span></a> at least 24 hours prior to the 
teleconference. The National Science Board Office will send requesters 
a toll-free dial-in number. Meeting information and updates may be 
found at the National Science Board website at www.nsf.gov/nsb.

Chris Blair,
Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.
[FR Doc. 2021-16111 Filed 7-23-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.90


                             [CRAWFORD LETTERHEAD]


July 16, 1998


Mr. Tyrone Johnson
President
VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK, L.L.C.
1245 Fowler Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30318

Dear Ty:

Please accept this letter of agreement establishing a strategic alliance with
Crawford Communications, Inc., as the network originator for Video
Communications Network, L.L.C.

As discussed, the principal scope of this alliance will encompass provisions for
satellite and fiber fed signal transmission, remote control room operation
(satellite truck access) and post production support for original and licensed
content produced for the network.

The terms of the final agreement are subject to negotiation and will be more
fully described and executed in a formal written agreement.

Crawford Communications, Inc. is excited about originating such a timely
distribution channel for film and video entertainment and looks forward to the
new business potential of this alliance.

Very truly yours,



Jesse Crawford
President
CRAWFORD COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

JC:lw

cc:      Jim Schuster      Vice President, Satellite Services, CCI
Exhibit 99(.2) Certification Pursuant to
               Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by
                  Calvin E. Jenness, Chief Financial Officer



          In connection with the Annual Report of Blount International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Calvin E. Jenness, 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:

          (i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.




/s/ Calvin E. Jenness
------------------------------------
Calvin E. Jenness
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

March 10, 2003
ae

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Z d &
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS by Ay 2 £
EASTERN DIVISION Seay

JAMIE PRINCIPLE,
Plaintiff,

v.

No. 01 C7716 ‘,
Judge Leinenweber
LARRY SHERMAN,

wee rere

Defendant.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL
RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)

Now Comes the Plaintiff, Jamie Principle, by his attorney, TIMOTHY P. DONOHUE.
and as and for his Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a) states as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this matter on or about October 5, 2001 alleging a
copyright infringement by the Defendant, Larry Sherman.

2. That subsequent to the filing of this action Plaintiff's counsel has received
documentation from Defendant, namely a certified copy of a Judgment entered in the English

Courts, that refutes Plaintiff's claims for infringement. agit
%

a
yw

%
we
3. That in light of this document Plaintiff cannot continue its prosecution of this

cause.

4. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) Plaintiff hereby

moves to voluntarily dismiss all claims against the Defendant hereunder.



a

~

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court enter an order granting Plaintiff's motion
for Voluntary Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).

Timothy P. Donohue — 30706
29 South La Salle Street
Suite 828

Chicago, IL 60603

(312) 332-3116


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT & tL

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS “ay r4 &
EASTERN DIVISION Cte Mey 2 L oO
ae &, ey <p
a Us y y o P
JAMIE PRINCIPLE, ) "ny ap,
) f°
Plaintiff, ) py,
)
v. ) No. 01 C7716
y Judge Leinenweber ib
LARRY SHERMAN, dos
)
Defendant. }

TO: Patrick D. Lamb
Goldstein & Lamb
162 West Hubbard.
Chicago, IL 60610

NOTICE OF MOTION

On January 28, 2003, at 9:30 A.M., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, I shall
appear before the Honorable Judge Leinenweber in Room 1941 at the courthouse located at the
Dirksen Federal Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois and present the attached
Mofion for Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.

Aw
Attorney for Plaintiff y® TAS
Timothy P. Donohue — 30706 \Y %
29 South La Salle Street yh
Suite 828
Chicago, IL 60603

(312) 332-3116
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Notice and the attached Motion was [J mailed
DXfaxed [] delivered to the above named parties at the above described addresses on
Savas Z|, 2003

We Hnalao.
CS
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

|   | 1. | The                Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                or                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));                and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   /s/                Raymond R. Brandstrom |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Raymond                R. Brandstrom                 |
|   | Chief                Financial Officer               |
|   | March                16, 2006                        |
#### Gramercy Park Residence Corp., Appellant, v Elaine Ellman, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 307]

— Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn H. Richter, *424J.), entered November 4, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment on the first counterclaim and awarded defendant attorneys’ fees in connection with that counterclaim, and denied plaintiff’s summary judgment motion to dismiss that counterclaim, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny defendant’s cross motion and vacate the fee award, remand for further proceedings, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The appeal from the November 2005 judgment is not untimely due to the failure to serve notice of entry. To the contrary, such failure means that the 30-day time limit to notice the appeal never began to run, and thus, the appeal is timely *(see Matter of Reynolds v Dustman,*1 NY3d 559 [2003]).

With regard to the merits, there are issues of fact as to who actually erected the subject sunshade. While the proprietary lease clearly states that such costs are to be borne by the lessee if the structure was erected by the lessee or her predecessor in interest, the documentary evidence submitted by the parties fails to establish who erected the original structure. As such, the award of attorneys’ fees to defendant on this issue must be vacated and a hearing held to resolve the issue of who built the original structure. Only at that time may further proceedings be held to set the amount of attorneys’ fees to which the prevailing party is entitled. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.
RICHARD DANIEL VAUGHN

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 1 4

- 1257

____ _________________________/

Opinion filed April 14, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. William F. Stone , Judge

.

Jeffrey E. Lewis, Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Michael J. Titus, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Region One, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Giselle Denise Lylen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS

, CLARK

, and WETHERELL

, J J

. , CONCUR.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-532 and 333-25597) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan,
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Supplemental Plan, and Options Under Written
Compensation Agreements of Red Brick Systems, Inc., of our report dated
January 13, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Red Brick Systems, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1997.

                                          Ernst & Young LLP

San Jose, California
March 27, 1998
**Exhibit 12.2**

 

**Exhibit 12.2.****                         ****Certification pursuant to Section 302of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act**

 

I, Marcel Smits, certify that:

 

1.                           I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Koninklijke KPNN.V.;

 

2.                           Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.                           Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.                           The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for thecompany and have:

 

(a)                          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the company, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)                         Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)                      Disclosed in thisreport any change in the company’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.                           The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to thecompany’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)                          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and

 

(b)                         Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 

Date: March 10, 2006

 

Marcel Smits

Chief Financial Officer

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF OMEGA ORTHODONTICS, INC. FOR THE
SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                         JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                 2,406,678
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                          2,138,170
<ALLOWANCES>                             (40,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       4,730,208
<PP&E>                                   738,660
<DEPRECIATION>                            63,139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        14,161,673
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  2,464,691
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                  48,072
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          14,161,673
<SALES>                                3,382,273
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       3,382,273
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       3,584,977
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        46,217
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (164,547)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (164,547)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                            (164,547)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.03)
        


</TABLE>
#### Juana Hernandez TOLENTINO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-70949.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 25, 2011.

Robert Francis Jacobs, Esquire, Jacobs & Vega, PLC, Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Petitioner.

Jesse Matthew Bless, OIL, Ana T. Zab-lah-Monroe, Esquire, Trial, David V. Ber-*1001nal, Assistant Director, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Juana Hernandez Tolentino, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Ghahremani v. Gonzales,*498 F.3d 993, 997-99 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Tolentino’s motion to reopen because she filed her motion more than three years after the final removal order, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Tolentino did not establish that she acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, *see Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (stating that equitable tolling is available where “petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Tolentino’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.