alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018063EN.01001902.xml

| 19.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/19

---

Action brought on 27 December 2017 — Coesia v EUIPO (Representation of a circular shape consisting of two oblique red lines)

(Case T-829/17)

(2018/C 063/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Coesia SpA (Bologna, Italy) (represented by S. Rizzo, lawyer)

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 (Representation of a circular shape consisting of two oblique red lines) — Application for registration No 13 681 151.

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2017 in Case R 1272/2017-5.

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. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302

I, Stephen P.
Hall, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of BG Medicine, Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement 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 period covered by this report.

Date: August 17, 2015



|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Stephen P. Hall                                                                          
|Stephen P. Hall                                                                              
|Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer
(principal financial officer)
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 39 Filed 01/14/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 39 Filed 01/14/2008 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF 
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Monarch Investment Properties, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, David Miller, President and Principal Executive Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to our knowledge, 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/ Philip Bloom                            | 
|                                            | 
|Principal
  Financial Officer and           | 
|Principal
  Accounting Officer              | 
|                                            | 
|/s/ David Miller                            | 
|                                            | 
|President
  and Principal Executive Officer | 

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00082-CR

IN RE James LEGATE

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 5, 2014

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED AS MOOT

On February 3, 2014, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial

court’s failure to rule on a motion pending in his underlying criminal proceeding. However, on 

February 26, 2014, the trial court signed an order dismissing relator’s motion for lack of 

jurisdiction. Because the trial court has issued a ruling and relator has obtained the relief requested 

by his petition for writ of mandamus, the petition is denied as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1998CR6480, styled The State of Texas v. James Legate, pending in the 

290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Melisa Skinner presiding.
#### CROKER v. YADKIN, INC.

No. 386P98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 64

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 December 1998.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549



---

FORM 8-K

---



CURRENT REPORT



Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): November 2, 2006



---

MINN-DAK FARMERS COOPERATIVE

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)



North Dakota
        33-94644
        23-7222188(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
        (Commission File Number)
        (I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)




7525 Red River Road
Wahpeton, North Dakota
        
        58075(Address of principal executive offices)
        
        (Zip Code)






Registrants telephone number, including area code: (701) 642-8411



---

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:



oWritten communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)



oSoliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-2 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-2)



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))





---

Item 8.01
        OTHER EVENTS.




Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative (the Company) has announced that its Board of Directors has approved an estimated sugarbeet payment for the 2006 crop of $40.21 per ton of harvested sugarbeets (13.57017 cents per pound of extractible sugar). The estimated sugarbeet payment is based upon the best information available on October 30, 2006.  The estimated sugarbeet payment may be changed, modified or amended as additional information becomes available during the companys fiscal year.

Any statements regarding future market prices, anticipated costs, agricultural results, operating results and other statements that are not historical facts contained in this 8-K report are forward-looking statements. The words expect, project, estimate, believe, anticipate, plan, intend, could, may, predict and similar expressions are also intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including, without limitation, market factors, the effect of weather and economic conditions, farm and trade policy, the available supply of sugar, available quantity and quality of sugarbeets and other factors detailed elsewhere in this and other Company filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Should one or more of these risks or
uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual outcomes may vary materially from those indicated.

---

SIGNATURE



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.





MINN-DAK FARMERS COOPERATIVEDated:  November 2, 2006
        
        By
        /s/David H. RocheDavid H. Roche
President and Chief Executive Officer


---
IB 

Union Calendar No. 221 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2427 

[Report No. 116–276] 

To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to reauthorize the 

Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2019 

Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. CONNOLLY, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. HOYER, 

Ms. WEXTON, Mr. BROWN of Maryland, Mr. RASKIN, Mr. TRONE, Mr. 

MCEACHIN, Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER, Mrs. LURIA, and Ms. NORTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

NOVEMBER 8, 2019 

Additional sponsor: Mr. CARTWRIGHT

NOVEMBER 8, 2019 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on May 1, 2019] 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2427 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to 

reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 

Watertrails Network. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2427 RH

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 ‘‘Chesapeake Bay Gate5 ways and Watertrails Network Reauthorization Act of 

6 2019’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY GATE8 WAYS AND WATERTRAILS NETWORK. 

9 Section 502(c) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act 

10 of 1998 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 105–312) is 

11 amended by striking ‘‘2019’’ and inserting ‘‘2025’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 221 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2427 

[Report No. 116–276] 

A BILL 

To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 

ways and Watertrails Network. 1998 to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay GateNOVEMBER 8, 2019 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Opinion issued November 7, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00477-CV

———————————

BETUL ONEY, Appellant

V.

MUSTAFA ONEY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 507th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2022-02021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Betul Oney, has filed a “Motion to Dismiss Appeal,” stating that 

“she d[oes] not want to pursue her appeal.” No other party has filed a notice appeal, 

and no opinion has issued. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), (c). Further, although the

motion’s certificate of conference reflects that appellant was unable to confer with 
2

appellee, Mustafa Oney, regarding the relief requested in the motion, more than ten 

days have passed, and no party has responded to the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a). 

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Hightower and Countiss.
# Delist Texas Gas SL
[923 NE2d 582, 896 NYS2d 299]

#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Andrew Luciere, Respondent.

Decided February 11, 2010

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Thomas J. Spota III, District Attorney,*Riverhead *(Thomas C. Costello*of counsel), for appellant.

*Christopher J. Cassar, P.C.,*Huntington *(Christopher J. Cassar*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed *(see People v Price,*14 NY3d 61 [2010] [decided today]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timoteo Ramirez, Appellant.

Submitted March 8, 2010;

decided April 6, 2010

Motion to vacate this Court’s February 16, 2010 dismissal order granted *[see*14 NY3d 769 (2010)].
# C_2019131EN.01001402.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Gent — Belgium) — Ronny Rohart v Federale Pensioendienst

(Case C-179/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Pension rights under the national pension scheme for employed persons - Refusal to take into account the period of compulsory military service completed by an official of the European Union after taking up his post - Principle of sincere cooperation)

(2019/C 131/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ronny Rohart

Defendant: Federale Pensioendienst

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) TEU, in conjunction with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, established by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004, must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, when determining the pension entitlement of a worker who occupied a position as an employed person in that Member State before becoming an EU official and completed, after becoming an EU official, his compulsory military service in that Member State, that worker is not entitled to have his period of military service treated as equivalent to a period of actual work as an employed person — treatment to which he would have been entitled if, at the time he was called up for military service or for at least one year during the three years following the end of his military service, he had been employed in a position covered by the national pension scheme.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre PIERRE-RENE, a.k.a. Doo-Doo, a.k.a. Rene, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-11272

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 16, 2006.

Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Andre Pierre-Rene, Miami, FL, pro se.

Before BLACK, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Joel D. Robrish, appointed counsel for Andre Pierre-Rene in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Pierre-Rene’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. We also DENY Pierre-Rene’s motion for appointment of counsel as moot in light of our grant of counsel’s motion to withdraw.
# C_2020036EN.01000801.xml

| 3.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur — Belgium) — Ordre des avocats du barreau de Dinant v JN

(Case C-421/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Article 7(1)(a) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract - Concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ - Claim for payment of annual fees payable by a lawyer to a bar association)

(2020/C 36/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ordre des avocats du barreau de Dinant

Defendant: JN

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute concerning a lawyer’s obligation to pay annual professional fees for which he or she is liable to the bar association to which he or she belongs comes within the scope of that regulation only if, in calling on that lawyer to perform that obligation, the bar association is not acting, under the national law applicable, in the exercise of public powers, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that an action by which a bar association seeks an order that one of its members pay the annual professional fees for which he or she is liable and which are essentially intended to finance services, such as insurance services, must be regarded as constituting an action in ‘matters relating to a contract’, within the meaning of that provision, provided that those fees constitute consideration for services provided by that bar association to its members and those services are freely consented to by the member concerned, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.

---
#### In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v Enrique T., Appellant.

Submitted February 14, 2012;

decided April 3, 2012

Reported below, 93 AD3d 158.

*977Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution and is not an order of the type provided for in CPLR 5602 (a) (2).
#### STATE v. WILLIAMSON

No. 312PA97

Case below: 347 N.C. 140

126 N.C.App. 349

The Superior Court, Johnston County, having ordered a new trial “on all or any of the charges pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 15A-1417(a)(1),” the order of this Court allowing defendant’s petition for discretionary review is withdrawn and this case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration and such action as may be appropriate. By order of the Court in conference this the 15th day of September 1998.
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF INVESTOOLS INC.**

 

**Direct subsidiaries of INVESTools Inc.:**

 

Telescan, Inc., a Delaware corporation (100% owned)

 

ZiaSun Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation (100% owned)

 

Service Enhancement Systems, Inc., dba 360 Group, a California corporation (100% owned)

 

**Direct subsidiaries of Telescan, Inc.:**

 

INVESTools, Inc., a California corporation (100% owned)

 

Entrepreneurs Online, a Delaware corporation (100% owned)

 

**Direct subsidiaries of ZiaSun Technologies, Inc.:**

 

Online Investors Advantage, Inc., a Utah corporation (100% owned)

 

**Direct subsidiaries of Online Investors Advantage, Inc.:**

 

Investor Education LLC, a Utah limited liability company (100% owned)

 

Memory Improvement Systems, Inc., a Utah corporation (100% owned)

 

Seminar Marketing Group, Inc., a Utah corporation (100% owned)

 

INVESTools Asia Pacific Pte., Limited, a Singapore company (100% owned)

 

INVESTools Hong Kong Ltd., a Hong Kong company (100% owned)

 

----
#### Jean Kramer et al., Appellants, v SBR & C, Doing Business as Vanderbilt at South Beach, et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 8, 2010;

decided March 30, 2010

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements *[see*13 NY3d 713 (2009)].
Exhibit 21
  Corporation Name
    
    DomicileAirgas, Inc.
    
    DEAirgas Canada, Inc.
    
    CanadaAirgas Carbonic, Inc.
    
    DECO2 Direct, Inc.
    
    DEAirgas Data, LLC
    
    DEAirgas East, Inc.
    
    DEAirgas Great Lakes, Inc.
    
    DEAirgas Gulf States, Inc.
    
    DEAirgas Intermountain, Inc.
    
    COAirgas Investments, Inc.
    
    DEAirgas Merchant Gases, LLC
    
    DEAirgas Merchant Holdings, Inc.
    
    DEAirgas Mid America, Inc.
    
    DEAirgas Mid South, Inc.
    
    DEAirgas Nor Pac, Inc.
    
    DEAirgas Northern California & Nevada, Inc.
    
    DEAirgas North Central, Inc.
    
    DEAirgas S.A. de C.V.
    
    MexicoAirgas Safety, Inc.
    
    DEAirgas South, Inc.
    
    DEAirgas Southwest, Inc.
    
    DEAirgas Specialty Gases, Inc.
    
    TXAirgas Specialty Products, Inc.
    
    DEAirgas West, Inc.
    
    CAAirgas West, S.A.de C.V.
    
    MexicoMissouri River Holdings, Inc.
    
    KSNitrous Oxide Corp.
    
    DERadnor Funding Corp.
    
    DERed-D-Arc, Inc.
    
    NVRed-D-Arc Limited
    
    CanadaRed-D-Arc S.A.de C.V.
    
    Mexico
#### In the Matter of Robert T. Stewart, a Candidate for the Public Office of Chautauqua County Legislator, Seventh Legislative District, Respondent, v Chautauqua County Board of Elections et al., Respondents, and Leon H. Beightol et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Leon H. Beightol, a Candidate for the Public Office of Chautauqua County Legislator, Seventh Legislative District, Appellant, v Chautauqua County Board of Elections et al., Respondents, and Norman P. Green, Appellant. In the Matter of Leon H. Beightol, a Candidate for the Public Office of Chautauqua County Legislator, Seventh Legislative District, Appellant, v Chautauqua County Board of Elections et al., Respondents, and Norman P. Green, Appellant.

Submitted January 25, 2010;

decided February 11, 2010

*741Motion by Leon H. Beightol for leave to appeal denied as unnecessary *(see*CPLR 5601 [a]). Motion by Leon H. Beightol for a stay granted. Motion by Norman E Green for leave to appeal denied as unnecessary *(see*CPLR 5601 [a]).