alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60227 Summary Calendar

__________________ SMART IMHANSIONAN IYANOBOR, Petitioner,

versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

A41-542-100

- - - - - - - - - - April 1, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Smart I. Iyanobor, a Nigerian citizen, asserts that the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") erred denying his application for waiver of inadmissiblity, filed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). We have reviewed the record and find that the BIA's affirmance of the Immigration Judge's decision denying the Iyanobor’s application was supported by substantial evidence andNo. 95-60227 -2- was neither arbitrary nor capricious. See Opie v. INS , 66 F.3d 737, 739 (5th Cir. 1995). The petition for review is DENIED.
Exhibit 10.2


 


September     ,
2010


 


Onex Partners III LP


712 Fifth Avenue


New York, New York 10019


Attention: Robert M. Le Blanc


 


Dear Mr. Le Blanc:


 


I understand that a new holding
company (“Purchaser”) to be formed by you and your affiliates proposes to enter
into an agreement and plan of share exchange (as it may be amended from time to
time, the “Agreement”) with Res-Care, Inc. (the “Company”) providing for
the acquisition of all of the shares of the Company’s common stock not held by
you and your affiliates.  This will
confirm my agreement to “roll over” into an equity investment in Purchaser 100%
of my existing equity investment in the Company.  I understand that my equity investment in
Purchaser will be in the same type of securities as your investment and at the
same price per share; for purposes of the “roll over”, my existing equity
investment in the Company will be valued at the price paid to public
shareholders in the acquisition.  In
order to effect the rollover, I will not tender my existing equity
investment in the Company in the tender offer that Purchaser will be making
pursuant to the Agreement.


 


I understand that this agreement,
while legally binding, will be embodied in more formal documentation (including
shareholder agreements similar to those in place at other companies in which
Onex has invested) before the closing of the acquisition.


 


This letter and my agreements herein
shall terminate if the Agreement is terminated for any reason.


 


	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,
# C_2018042EN.01004301.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/43

---

Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED)

(Case T-802/17)

(2018/C 042/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED’ — Application for registration No 15 073 398

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 525/2017-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2017249EN.01004301.xml

| 31.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/43

---

Action brought on 6 June 2017 — NCL v EUIPO (FEEL FREE)

(Case T-362/17)

(2017/C 249/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: NCL Corporation Ltd (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FEEL FREE’ — Application for registration No 15 090 533

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2017 in Case R 2094/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law relied on

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
II 

Calendar No. 300 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2151 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 17, 2019 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

NOVEMBER 7, 2019 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 7722 South Main Street in Pine Plains, New 

York, as the ‘‘Senior Chief Petty Officer Shannon M. 

Kent Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SENIOR CHIEF PETTY OFFICER SHANNON M. 

4 KENT POST OFFICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 7722 South Main Street in Pine 

7 Plains, New York, shall be known and designated as the 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2151 RS

1 ‘‘Senior Chief Petty Officer Shannon M. Kent Post Of2 fice’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Senior Chief Petty 

7 Officer Shannon M. Kent Post Office’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 300 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2151 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPetty Officer Shannon M. Kent Post Office’’. Pine Plains, New York, as the ‘‘Senior Chief al Service located at 7722 South Main Street in 

NOVEMBER 7, 2019 

Reported without amendment 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2017221EN.01003001.xml

| 10.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/30

---

Action brought on 17 April 2017 — Balti Gaas v Commission and INEA

(Case T-236/17)

(2017/C 221/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Balti Gaas OÜ (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: E. Tamm and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendants decision of 17 February 2017 Ref Ares(2017)890302 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendants decision of 17 February 2017 Ref Ares(2017)890302 (1);

1

| — | order the defendants to bear their costs and pay those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to bear their costs and pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant submits that the defendants have not ensured that the procedures followed in awarding grants would have complied with the principles of legality, transparency and sound administration and relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of an essential procedural requirement on the ground of failure to give a statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of an essential procedural requirement on the ground of failure to give a statement of reasons.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a lack of statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a lack of statement of reasons.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of material accuracy of the statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of material accuracy of the statement of reasons.

---

(1)  Decision taken in relation to Commission’s Implementing Decision C(2016)1587 final of 17/03/2016 on amending Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)2080 establishing the multiannual work programme for granting financial aid in the field of trans-European energy infrastructure under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020

1

---
<PAGE>

                        SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION (CEO)

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                         CHINA AUTOMOTIVE 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 Annual Report of China Automotive Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Hanlin Chen, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and President 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.

Date: March 31, 2005

                                           /s/ Hanlin Chen
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Hanlin Chen
                                           Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and
                                           President
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WENDI LEDERMAN,

Appellant,

v.

LIZ GRADY, as Trustee of THE PURVIS DEAN JACKSON, JR. TRUST 

OF APRIL 3, 1996,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-151

[April 29, 2021]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Betsy Benson, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 20-26217 COCE 

and 20-17848 CACE.

Wendi Lederman, North Lauderdale, pro se.

Benjamin Dishowitz of Doumar, Allsworth, Laystrom, Voigt, Wachs, 

Adair & Dishowitz, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CIKLIN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### King and others *v.*Ohio & M. R. Co. and others.

*Circuit Court, D. Indiana.*

November 10, 1885.

Negligence—Injury to Vessel Passing through I)kaw—Proximate Cause.

Former opinion, 24 Fed. Rep. 335, adhered, to on rehearing.

Motion for Rehearing.

*Fertl Winter,*for petitioner.

*Harrison, Miller é Flam,*for receivers.

Woods, J.

Tor statement of case see original opinion, 24 Fed. Rep. 335.

The motion for rehearing is predicated mainly on the proposition that the failure to open the draw' of the bridge was not the proximate cause of the injury. It is insisted that that cause was the breaking of the boat’s chain. That this wras the direct and immediate cause there can be no doubt, and unless that breaking was attributable, proximately, to the negligence or fault of the respondent the motion ought to be granted. It was held on the former hearing that the managers of the boat w'ore not bound to anticipate the breaking of the chain, and it is now insisted that the keeper of the bridge likewise had a right to suppose that the boat’s machinery was in good condition, and sufficient to carry’the boat safely to the Illinois shore. This argument tends to deny the negligence, rather than to show that it was not the proximate cause of the injury. It seems to me, however, to be fallacious in assuming that the conduct of the bridge-keeper and that of the managers of the boat must be viewed from the same stand-point, and that each w'as in this respect entitled to act on the same presumptions. It w'ill not do to say that the latter had a right, either purposely or negligently, to keep the draw' closed, on the supposition that the boat *800was staunch and manageable, and could be safely taken out of the danger to which his act was exposing it. He had no right to try, or negligently to force others to try, such experiments. He knew, or ought to have known, that the boat was approaching in the reasonable expectation that the draw would be opened seasonably; and that a sudden and unexpected necessity for turning the boat about would involve (needlessly) a severe and perhaps unwonted strain upon the boat’s machinery. It was, of course, an act of negligence, under the circumstances, to subject the boat to such a test of its powers, and the disastrous result was so plainly a natural consequence that the negligent party ought to have anticipated it, and therefore, undqr the doctrine of any of the various eases cited in argument, is responsible for the damages. No new and independent cause intervened, which, in itself, caused the injury.

Motion overruled, and matter referred to master to assess damages.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934


AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


In connection with the annual report of GameStop
Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending January 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, David W. Carlson, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and 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/ DAVID W. CARLSON                                    
| |                                                         
| | David W. Carlson                                        
| | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
    Officer
| | GameStop Corp.                                          
| | April 14, 2004                                          

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2018042EN.01002802.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/28

---

Action brought on 31 October 2017 — Asociación de Usuarios de Bancos, Cajas y Seguros de España v SRB

(Case T-735/17)

(2018/C 042/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Asociación de Usuarios de Bancos, Cajas y Seguros de España (Adicae Consumidores Críticos y Responsables) (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: J. Llanos Acuña, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should annul the contested decision and declare it null and void.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision of the Single Resolution Board adopted in its executive session of 7 June 2017 (Decision SRB/EES/2017/08) ordering the activation of the Single Resolution Mechanism and its application to the Spanish institution Banco Popular Español, S.A..

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos

Single Resolution Board

Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL

Single Resolution Board

Comercial Vascongada Recalde

Commission and Single Resolution Board

García Suárez and Others

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Fidesban and Others

Single Resolution Board

Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda

Commission and Single Resolution Board

---
Date: 

DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC 

55 Water Street 

New York, NY 10041-0099 

Attn: DDR Onboarding 

RE: Reporting Requirements for End-User Clearing Exception 

This letter (“Attestation Letter”) is being submitted on behalf of (the “Firm”), whose GMEI or LEI 

is , in connection with the End-User Bulk Swap- by- Swap Spreadsheet (the “spreadsheet”) 

submitted by the Firm from time to time containing the required reporting information for each Electing 

Counterparty1

, contained therein. This information applies to each swap entered into between the Firm 

and Electing Counterparty(s)ies that is subject to the an exception or exemption from the mandatory 

clearing requirement provided by CFTC Regulations §50.50 and §50.51, orand applicable CFTC Staff 

No-Action Letters 14-144, and is in lieu of the Electing Counterparty providing an Annual End-User 

Clearing Exception/Exemption Form as specified in CFTC Regulations §50.50(b)(2) and §50.51(c), and 

or any Reporting reporting Condition conditions (v) in CFToutlined inC applicable CFTC Letters Staff NoAction Letter 14-144. Requests for additional information about related to the spreadsheet or specific 

swaps for which the End-User Clearing Exception has been elected should be directed to: 

Name: 

Title: 

Mailing Address: 

Telephone: 

Email: 

The Firm hereby represents that it has a reasonable basis to believe, based on representations from the 

Electing Counterparty and/or through other means, that each Electing Counterparty meets the requirements 

for an exception or exemption to the mandatory clearing requirement. If the Firm determines that the 

information provided on the attached spreadsheet has changed or is determined to be incorrect, the Firm 

will promptly provide DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC (“DDR”) with an updated or corrected 

spreadsheet. prior to reporting any additional swaps for which the Electing Counterparty has elected the 

exception. Additionally, the Firm will provide to DDR an updated spreadsheet for Electing 

Counterparties and an updated Attestation Letter on at least an annual basis for Electing Counterparties 

for which it retains a reporting obligation. 

Sincerely, 

 

1

 Electing Counterparty has the meaning assigned to it in CFTC Regulation Section 50.50(a)(iii).. 
Name: 

Title:
ex10-12.htm



EXHIBIT 10.12 (1)


 





 


 




  





  











  






 





 




 


 




  





  











  






 



EXHIBIT 10.12 (2)




 


PROMISSORY NOTE


 


For value received, the undersigned, Margrit Enterprises International, Inc., 13152 Raymer, North Hollywood, CA 91605, as Maker, promises to pay to the order of Steve Minafra, 644 South Orchard Drive, Burbank, CA 91506, or any subsequent holder of this Note, the sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) upon demand. This promissory note shall bear interest at a rate of three and one-half percent (3.5%) for each thirty (30) day period the loan remains outstanding.












MARGRIT ENTERPRISES INTERNATIONAL, INC.:


 


 




	s/s Margrit Eyraud                                          	Date7/26/05	 
	Margrit Eyraud        	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	s/s Allen Weiser                                                                                    	Date 7/26/05	 	 
	Allen Weiser    	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 

















  





3











  






 


PROMISSORY NOTE


 


For value received, the undersigned, Margrit Enterprises International, Inc., 13152 Raymer, North Hollywood, CA 91605, as Maker, promises to pay to the order of Steve Minafra, 644 South Orchard Drive, Burbank, CA 91506, or any subsequent holder of this Note, the sum of Thirty Four Thousand Dollars ($34,000) upon demand. This promissory note shall bear interest at a rate of three and one-half percent (3.5%) for each thirty (30) day period the loan remains outstanding.












MARGRIT ENTERPRISES INTERNATIONAL, INC.:







 


 





	s/s Margrit Eyraud                                          	Date  8/01/05	 
	Margrit Eyraud        	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	s/s Steve Minafra                                             	Date 8/01/05	 	 
	Steve Minafra	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 












 




  





4











  






 


PROMISSORY NOTE


 


For value received, the undersigned, Margrit Enterprises International, Inc., 13152 Raymer, North Hollywood, CA 91605, as Maker, promises to pay to the order of Steve Minafra, 644 South Orchard Drive, Burbank, CA 91506, or any subsequent holder of this Note, the sum of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) upon demand. This promissory note shall bear interest at a rate of three and one-half percent (3.5%) for each thirty (30) day period the loan remains outstanding.












MARGRIT ENTERPRISES INTERNATIONAL, INC.:


 







	s/s Margrit Eyraud                                          	Date  8/26/05 	 
	Margrit Eyraud        	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	s/s Steve Minafra                                             	Date 8/26/05	 	 
	Steve Minafra	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 

















  





5