alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018392EN.01002802.xml

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Eddy’s Snack Company v EUIPO — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Eddy’s Snackcompany)

(Case T-652/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Eddy’s Snackcompany - Earlier national word mark TEDDY - Relative ground for refusal - Principle of ne ultra petita - Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 392/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eddy’s Snack Company GmbH (Lügde, Germany) (represented by: M. Decker, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2017 (Case R 1999/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli and Eddy’s Snack Company.

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 11 July 2017 (Case R 1999/2016-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 July 2017 (Case R 1999/2016-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Eddy’s Snack Company GmbH in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Eddy’s Snack Company GmbH in the proceedings before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

---
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)

I, Pamela S. Schutz, as Chief Executive Officer of Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company (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) | the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report), filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: March 12, 2007



/S/    PAMELA S.
SCHUTZPamela S. Schutz Chairperson, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a) AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Steven Tamburo, Chief Financial Officer of Optelecom-NKF, Inc. (the "Registrant") certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Optelecom-NKF, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periods presented in this annual report.

/s/ STEVEN TAMBURO Steven Tamburo, Chief Financial OfficerDate: May 3, 2010


---



QuickLinks
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23-0189

IN THE MATTER OF: C.H., C.H., and S.H.,

Youths in Need ofCare. ORDER

# FILED OCT 312023 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana Counsel for the appellant mother ofC.H., C.H., and S.H. filed a motion and brief askingtobe allowed towithdraw from this appeal on groundsthat counsel hasbeen unable to find any nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). The mother was granted time to file a response, but no response was filed. The Court has now independently examined the record pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders. We conclude there are no arguments with potential legal merit that could be raised in the mother's appeal in this case. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord and to the appellant mother pe lly. DATED this

-

31

— day ofOctober, 2023.

ChiefJustice 10/31/2023

# /SUAla,4.&
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER BUCKREIS,

Petitioner

v.

ROBIN G. PATTON, IN THEIR OFFICIAL

CAPACITY,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 85 WM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of November , 2020, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6184
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANNY L. BLACKMON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:03-cr-00077-F-1; 7:07-cv-00126-F) Submitted: April 18, 2008 Decided: April 24, 2008 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny L. Blackmon, Appellant Pro Se. George Edward Bell Holding, United States Attorney. Anne Marg aret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Alan Fitzgerald Williams, Major, OFFICE OF THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Danny L. Blackmon seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The judgment is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Blackmon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

AMENDMENT OF RULE 201 OF THE

PENNSYLVANIA BAR ADMISSION

RULES :

:

:

:

: NO. 854

SUPREME COURT RULES

DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of October, 2020, upon the recommendation of the Board

of Law Examiners of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the proposal having been

publi shed for comment in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, 50 Pa.B. 2631 (May 23, 2020), in the

context of the corresponding amendments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary

Enforcement :

IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of

Pen nsylvania, that Rule 201 of the Pennsylvania Bar Admission Rules is amended as set

forth in the attached form.

This ORDER shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and

shall be effective in thirty (30) days.

Material to be added is bolded and underlined.

Material to be deleted is bolded and in brackets.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2185 

To amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to allow the District 

of Columbia to receive Federal funding under such Act, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 9, 2019 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to 

allow the District of Columbia to receive Federal funding 

under such Act, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘District of Columbia 

5 Flood Prevention Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2185 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR FED2 ERAL FUNDING UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE 

3 MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972. 

4 Section 304(4) of the Coastal Zone Management Act 

5 of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453(4)) is amended by inserting ‘‘the 

6 District of Columbia,’’ after ‘‘the term also includes’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Hennessy Advisors, Inc.



Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. '1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. '1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Hennessy Advisors, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|                                         
|/s/    TERESA M. NILSEN                  
|Teresa M. Nilsen, Chief Financial Officer
|Hennessy Advisors, Inc.                  



Date: December 6, 2005
Order entered January 2 1, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 01427
- CV GRACE (KATIE) CROCKE TT, Appellant V. PAT MILLIKEN, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 004
- 02160
- 2013 

### O RDER This is an appeal from the trial court’s October 10, 2013 judgment of possession. By letter filed January 14, 2014, Collin County Deputy Clerk Danielle Jackson seeks an extension of time to file the record. She asserts in her letter that appellant has failed to pay the fee despite multiple notices that the fee is due. W e note that the trial court’s online docket sheet reflects a “Suggestion of Bankruptcy” was filed October 23, 2013 and an “Order Granting Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay Against Home at 3212 Oak Vista Drive in Plano, Texas” was filed January 2, 2014

. Pursuant to Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure 8.2 and 8.3 , a bankruptcy suspends the appeal and all periods in these rules from the date when the bankru ptcy petition is filed until the appellate court , upon motion by a party, reinstates or severs the appeal inaccordance with federal law or bankruptcy court order

. See T EX
. R S
. A PP
. P. 8.2 , 8.3

. Accordingly, we take no action on the clerk’s request for e xtension of time and ABATE the appeal. For administrative purposes, this cause is treated as a closed case. It may be reinstated

on proper motion by any party. See id. 8.3.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Exhibit 99.2





May 1, 2006



ADP

6111 Bollinger Canyon Road

Suite 200

San Ramon, CA 94583

Attn: President



Dear Sir,



In light of the Sale Transaction described in your letter dated April 5, 2006 and
in accordance with the terms of the Agreement dated March 9, 2004 between the
undersigned and ADP Claims Solutions Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
(the Agreement) please be advised that eAutoclaims, Inc. is electing to
terminate all exclusivity provisions set forth in the Agreement.



At this time, based on the limited information we have received, eAutoclaims, Inc. does not consent to the Sale Transaction and any assignment or deemed assignment of the Agreement pursuant to the Sale Transaction. This letter shall not be construed as a waiver of any other rights eAutoclaims, Inc. may have under the Agreement.



Please feel free to call me at your earliest convenience to discuss how we may continue a mutually beneficial relationship.



Respectfully,



/s/ Eric Seidel



Eric Seidel

President/CEO

eAutoclaims, Inc.



|cc: | Automatic Data Processing, Inc.One ADP
BoulevardRoseland, New Jersey 07068Attn: General Counsel
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





110 East Douglas Road

Oldsmar, FL 34683

813-749-1020*800-621-1804
*813-749-1040 Facsimile

---
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 5-2 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 5-2 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 5-2 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 27174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12337]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Joint Meeting of the 
ACRS Subcommittees on Materials and Metallurgy, Thermal-Hydraulic 
Phenomena, and Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment; 
Cancellation

    The joint meeting of the ACRS Subcommittees on Materials and 
Metallurgy, Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena, and Reliability and 
Probabilistic Risk Assessment scheduled for May 25, 2001, Room T-2B3, 
11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland has been canceled. Notice of 
this meeting was previously published in the Federal Register on 
Tuesday, May 8, 2001 (66 FR 23280).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Michael T. Markley cognizant ACRS 
staff engineer, (telephone 301/415-6885) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 
p.m. (EDT).

    Dated: May 10, 2001.
James E. Lyons,
Associate Director for Technical Support, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. 01-12337 Filed 5-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-506-005]

Take notice that on May 10, 2001, Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective February 25, 2001:

2nd Substitute Eighth Revised Sheet No. 24

2nd Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 259

2nd Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 278-C

Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's order dated April 25, 2001 in Docket Nos. RP00-506-003 and RP00-506-004 directing Northwest to file revised tariff sheets to remove the proposed restrictions for reductions of maximum daily quantities (MDQs) and maximum daily delivery obligations (MDDOs) at individual receipt and delivery points in the event of a partial capacity turnback.

Northwest states that a copy of this filing has been served upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-12782  Filed 5-21-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Case 1:07-cv-05422-AKH Document 5 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05422-AKH Document 5 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 2 of 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 of Coyote Hills Golf, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mitch Powers, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Stephanie Erickson, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ Mitch S. Powers


Mitch Powers


Chief Executive Officer


August 10, 2010








/s/ Stephanie Lynn Erickson


Stephanie Lynn Erickson


Chief Financial Officer


August 10, 2010
#### Verges v. Roush.

1. *Power of court to enlarge the time within which an appeal shall be perfected.*Courts do not possess any power to enlarge tlio time within which the transcript of' the record of the District Court shall bo filed in the Supreme Court, in order to perfect- an appeal from the decree of the former court, when the legislature has limited the time within which it shall bo filed, and provided as a consequence of failure to do so, that the decree shall stand and be proceeded on, as if no appeal had been taken.

This was a suit in chancery for the foreclosure of a mortgage.- A decree of foreclosure was entered on the 1st day of November, 1866. Notice of appeal was filed the next day. The transcript of the record in the District Court was filed in the Supreme Court, on the 7th. day of September, 1867.

A motion was made to dismiss the appeal, because the transcript was not filed in this court, within six months from the filing of the notice of appeal in the District Court.

Section 774 of the Eevised Statutes requires the appealing party to file a written notice of appeal with the clerk of the District Court, within thirty days from the rendition of the decree of that court.

Section 777 requires the appellant to file in the Supreme Court a certified transcript of the proceedings in the District Court, within six months from the filing of his notice of appeal; and provides that on failure to do so, the decree of the District Court shall stand and be proceeded in as if no. appeal had been taken.

*Bediclc*and Briggs, for the motion.

*O. II.*Brown, contra.

Mason, Ch. J.

The statute required this transcript to be filed within ' six months from November 2d, 1866, and provides as a *114consequence of default in this particular, that the appeal should be entirely disregarded. The rule in respect to •matters of practice is, that the court possesses no dispensing power, when the legislature has spoken. ■ Thus where a statute declares that a judge at chambers may direct a new trial, if application is made within ten days after judgment, it has been held, that he could no more enlarge the time, than he can legislate on any other *matter.*— Seymour v. *Judd,*2 *Comst.*464 ; *Eldridge*v. *Howell,*4 *Paige, 457.*

In this case, the legislature not only limited the time within which the appeal should be perfected, by the filing .of the transcript, but also fixed the consequences of the neglect to- do so, within the time limited. We cannot enlarge the time, nor prevent the consequences.

The motion is sustained and the appeal dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH Document 29 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH Document 29 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 2 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH Document 29 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 3 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH Document 29 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 4 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH Document 29 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 5 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH Document 29 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 6 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH Document 29 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 7 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH Document 29 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 8 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH Document 29 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 9 of 9