alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 9, 1975

The Honorable Bevington Reed Commissioner of Higher Education Coordinating Board Texas College and University System P. 0. Box 12788, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dear Dr. Reed: Opinion No. H- 685 Re: Whether Senate Bill 360 applies to students from Mexico who are attending Texas Junior Colleges adjacent to the Mexican border.

You have requested our opinion concerning the scope ofSenate Bill 360 ofthe 64th Legislature found at Acts 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 122, p. 280. Senate Bill 360 amends section 54.060 ofthe Education Code and provides an exemption from normal non-resident tuition rates for a student: v,hois a resident ofa state situated adjacent to Texas and who registers inany Texas public junior college situated ina county immediately adjacent to the state inwhich the nonresident student resides. You have asked whether a student who is a resident of Mexico would be entitled to the reduced tuition rat,es provided in section 54. 060. The meariing of the word “&ate” ina particular statute depends upon its context. Houston East &West Texas Railway Co.“
. Inman, Akers &Inman, 134 S.W. 275 (Tex. Civ. App. 1911, nowrit). Thus in some cases “state” has been construed to mean-one ofthe United States. Eidman Y. Martinez, 184 U.S. 578 (1901); Employers’ Liability Assurance Co. V. Commissioner ofInsurance 31 N.W. 542 (Mich. 1887); Houston East & West Texas Railwav Co. v. Inman. :ases “state” h; Akers, &Inman, supra. Inother c 2sbeen held to include foreign countries. Mlsslssippi Beneficial Association v. Majure, 29 So. 2d 110 (Miss. 1947): Fessenden V. Radio Corporat.ion of America, 10 F. Supp. 394 (D. Del. 1935); tioissevainv, Boissevain, 231 N.Y.S. 529 (Sup. Ct. App. Div. N.Y. 1928). Section 54. 060 applies to “nonresident” students. The Legislature has treated nonresident students and students of foreign countries as constituting different classes for purposes oftuition ina related statute. Education Code $54. 051 (c).(h). See Attorney General Opinion H-61A (1973); H-103 (1973). -

p. 2983.

1
. The Honorable Bevington Reed - Page 2 (H-685)

Additionally, in other statutes the Legislature has used the words “any county bordering on the International Boundary ofthe United States” to denote an application to counties adjacent to the Mexican border. V. T. C.S. arts. 3737d-1, 331f, 331f-1. We have discovered no indication ofany legislative intent to make section 54. 060 applicable to counties adjacent to the Mexican border. Since the Legislature has expressly included these counties in other statutes, inour view the absence ofany similar language in section 54. 060 indicates that this section is not applicable to those counties. Accordingly, inour opinion, the word “state” as contained in section 54.060 ofthe Education Code does not include Mexico. SUMMARY The word “state” as contained in section 54.060 ofthe Education Code does not include Mexico.

c/ JOHN L. HILL Attorney General of Texas
PPROVED:

Opinion Committee jad:

p. 2984
# C_2020320EN.01001603.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/16

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Via Lattea Scrl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

(Case C-337/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/24)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

---
#### Fraim *v.*Keen.1

*Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.*

November 3, 1885.

1. Patents for Inventions—Improvements in Scandinavian Padlocks—Invention.

Beissued letters patent No. 10,373, granted to Edward T. Fraim (inventor) jointly with Miller W. Fraim, (assignee,) January 16, 1883, for an improvement 'in Scandinavian padlocks, *held*not void for want of novelty and invention.

3. Same—Infringement.

Where one party stands by and permits another to take out a patent, and then takes out á patent for a different invention, he cannot set up that he is the inventor of the first improvement.

3. Same—Noveltt.

Although the question of patentable invention may be open to doubt, the court will not reverse the decision of the patent-office except upon clear evidence,

In Equity.

The facts are as follows: Both parties claimed priority of invention. Complainant obtained a patent January 16,1883. Defendant claimed that he made the invention at a time when he was employed by complainant in his shop, and it appears that he stood by while ■complainant made application for a patent without making any claim, and subsequently took out letters himself for another and a different invention.

*Joseph G. Fraley,*for complainant.

*Grady é Gendell,*for defendant.

1

Reported by C. B. Taylor, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.

Butler, J.

While the question of patentable invention, respecting complainant’s improved lock, may be open to debate and doubt, we do not feel justified in reversing the decision of the patent-office, by anything appearing in the case.

Nor do we think the evidence would justify a conclusion that Fraim was not the first inventor. While the direct evidence in favor of Shallass’ claim is not satisfactory, the inferences arising from his conduct are strongly against him. He not only stood by and saw Fraim assert his right to the patent, without objection, but directly after took out letters for a different improvement.

The infringement of the second claim is clearly proved; and the infringement of the third is virtually admitted.

The bill is sustained, and a decree must be entered accordingly, and for costs.
# C_2020271EN.01000601.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Kiel — Germany) — KH v Sparkasse Südholstein

(Case C-639/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Distance marketing of financial services - Directive 2002/65/EC - Article 1 - Scope - Contracts concerning financial services consisting of an initial agreement followed by successive operations - Application of Directive 2002/65/EC to the first agreement alone - Article 2(a) - Concept of ‘contract concerning financial services’ - Amendment to a loan agreement altering the interest rate initially set)

(2020/C 271/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Kiel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KH

Defendant: Sparkasse Südholstein

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC must be interpreted as meaning that an agreed amendment to a loan agreement cannot be categorised as a ‘contract concerning financial services’, within the meaning of that provision, where the amendment does no more than alter the originally agreed rate of interest, but does not extend the term of the loan or alter its amount, and where the original clauses of the loan agreement provided for the agreement of such an amendment or, failing such agreement, the application of a variable interest rate.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---
CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





I, David
Natan, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, in connection with
the Report on Form 10-Q of SunSi Energies Inc. for the quarterly period
ended February 28, 2011 (the “Report”), hereby certify in accordance with 18
U.S.C. 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 SunSi Energies
Inc.




/s/ DAVID
      NATANDavid
      NatanChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer





Dated: April
18, 2011
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-9 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-9 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-9 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 3 of 3
# C_2017213EN.01003601.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/36

---

Action brought on 10 may 2017 — Bank of New York Mellon v EUIPO — Nixen Partners (NEXEN)

(Case T-278/17)

(2017/C 213/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Klett and K. Schlüter, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nixen Partners (Paris, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘NEXEN’ — Application for registration No 13 374 152

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2017 in Case R 1570/2016-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of February 23, 2017 in case R 1570/2016-2 and reject the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of February 23, 2017 in case R 1570/2016-2 and reject the opposition;

| — | order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings as well as of the proceeding in front of the Board of Appeal and at the Opposition Division, including all necessary expenses of the Applicant in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings as well as of the proceeding in front of the Board of Appeal and at the Opposition Division, including all necessary expenses of the Applicant in these proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA RCH 26, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00745

- CV

Richard L. Spradley, Appellant

v.

Delia Spradley, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICE S PEMBERTON AND ROSE

REVERSED AND REMANDED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the order signed by the district court on November 7, 2013. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in

the district court’s order. Therefore, the Court reverses the district court’s order and remands the

case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinio n. The appellee shall

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO




18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bonfire Productions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




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:  May 11, 2010





/s/ David J. Johnson

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

David J. Johnson

Chief Financial Officer, principal accounting officer
Exhibit 10.12


 


JOHN
E. HERZOG


824
HARBOR ROAD


SOUTHPORT,
CT 06890


 


December
10, 2019


 


Re:
The OLB Group Financial Support


 


As
a significant shareholder of The OLB Group, Inc. (the “Company”), I have reviewed the Company's financial projections,
current financial position, debt arrangements and other financial obligations for the upcoming twelve months. I have also reviewed
the Company’s registration statement in connection with a potential public offering of the Company’s common stock
and warrants (the “Offering”).


 


On
November 15, 2018, I confirmed a commitment and ability to continue to support the Company by providing financial assistance to
enable the Company to continue its business operations as a going concern for at least the following twelve months. In May 2019,
I agreed to extend the commitment until November 30, 2020. In November 2019, I clarified such commitment whereby I would provide
support for working capital needs, other than capital required to satisfy the obligations of the Company with respect to the Loan
and Security Agreement, dated as of November 2, 2016, by and among GACP, the lenders thereunder and the Debtors, and related loan
documents, as amended (the “Excel Loan”).


 


Accordingly,
I hereby confirm my commitment and ability to continue to support the Company’s working capital needs (other than obligations
of the Company to pay principal or interest with respect to the Excel Loan) by providing adequate financial assistance to enable
the Company to continue its business operations as a going concern until the earlier of (a) the closing of the Offering (the “Closing”)
and (b) November 30, 2020. I further covenant and agree to negotiate in good faith with the Company regarding the repayment of
any financial assistance that I provide to the Company in connection with my commitment.


 


	 	Sincerely,
	 	 
	 	/s/
    John E. Herzog
	 	John E. Herzog
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13394]



[[Page 29100]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-2415-002]


Entergy Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

May 22, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 11, 2001, Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf 
of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy 
Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, 
Inc., (collectively, the Entergy Operating Companies) tendered for 
filing a compliance refund report in accordance with the Commission's 
letter order in Docket Nos. ER00-2415-000, ER00-2415-001, and EL00-106-
000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before June 1, 2001. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet 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.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-13394 Filed 5-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
154 So. 918

#### J. H. HUDDLESTON v. G. R. FULLER.

5 Div. 177.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 12, 1934.

H. T. Burns, of Wedowee, for appellant.

D. T. Ware, of Roanoke, for appellee.

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed on certificate.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2138 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2138

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the eligibility of 
              low-income veterans to receive dental care.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 8, 2019

  Mr. Tipton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the eligibility of 
              low-income veterans to receive dental care.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Dental Care for Low-Income Veterans 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF DENTAL CARE TO LOW-INCOME VETERANS.

    Section 1712(a)(1) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``or'';
            (2) by redesignating subparagraph (H) as subparagraph (I); 
        and
            (3) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following new 
        subparagraph (H):
            ``(H) beginning on the date that is two years after the 
        date of the enactment of this subparagraph, from which a 
        veteran whose attributable income is not greater than the 
        amount set forth in section 1722(b) of this title is suffering; 
        or''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Cayuga Indian Nation of New York, Respondent, v David S. Gould, as Cayuga County Sheriff, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Submitted February 16, 2010;

decided February 18, 2010

Motion by Seneca Nation of Indians for leave to file a brief *755amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13061]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License; Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for licenses as 
Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean 
Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 515).
    Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should 
not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
DC 20573.

Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation 
Intermediary Applicants

AIF Services, Inc., 8500 NW 30th Terrace, Miami, FL 33122, Officer: 
Roberto Lores, Jr. President (Qualifying Individual).

Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean Transportation Intermediary 
Applicants

Agency International Forwarding, Inc., 8500 NW., 30th Terrace, Miami, 
FL 33122, Officer: Roberto Lores, Jr. President (Qualifying 
Individual).

    Dated: May 18, 2001.
Bryant L. VanBrakle, Jr.,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-13061 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
| (1)   | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Fairytale Ventures, Inc. for the                quarter ended October 31, 2007 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                quarter ended October 31, 2007, fairly presents in all material respects,                the financial condition and results of operations of Fairytale Ventures,                Inc.. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                  Anusha Kumar                                                                   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                |
| Name:  | Anusha                Kumar                                                                         |
|   |                                                                                                |
| Title: | Principal                Executive Officer, Principal                Financial Officer and Director |
|   |                                                                                                |
| Date:  | December                17, 2007                                                                    |
#### PARKER v. BAREFOOT

No. 408A98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 18

Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 December 1998. Justice Wynn recused.