alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009102EN.01002701.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/27

---

Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Mundipharma v OHIM — Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI)

(Case T-76/09)

2009/C 102/41

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mundipharma GmbH (Limburg (Lahn), Germany) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (Alfafar (Valencia), Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Revoke the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2008 in case R 852/2008-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Revoke the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2008 in case R 852/2008-2; and

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI”, for goods and services in classes 5, 35 and 39 — application No 4 841 136

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 4 304 622 of the trade mark “mundi pharma” for goods and services in classes 5 and 44

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was no similarity of the goods and/or services covered by the trade marks in question

Pleas in law:

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

OP 21-0377

MONTANA SHOOTING SPORTS

ASSOCIATION,

Petitioner,

v.

MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT, LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY, THE

HONORABLE MICHAEL F. McMAHON,

DISTRICT JUDGE,

Respondent.

ORDER

FILLED

AUG 0 9 2021

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana

Petitioner Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA), via counsel, seeks a

writ of supervisory control over the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County,

to reverse its July 16, 2021 Order Denying Intervention Motions and Briefing Schedule in

its Cause No. BDV-2021-598. In the underlying case, the Board of Regents of Higher

Education of the State of Montana petitioned for declaratory judgment regarding the

constitutionality of portions of House Bill 102 that regulate firearms within the

Montana University System on the basis that these provisions unconstitutionally infringe

on the Board of Regents' authority under Article X, Section 9(2), of the

Montana Constitution. MSSA sought intervention of right under M. R. Civ. P. 24(a) and

the District Court denied its motion.

Having reviewed the Petition and the challenged Order, this Court deems it

appropriate to obtain a summary response. Therefore, in accordance with

M. R. App. P. 14(7),

IT IS ORDERED that the First Judicial District Court, the Montana Board of

Regents of Higher Education, and the State of Montana, are each granted 30 days from the

08/09/2021

Case Number: OP 21-0377
date of this Order to prepare, file, and serve a response(s) to the petition for writ of

supervisory control.

The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to all counsel of

record in the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, Cause

No. BDV-2021-598, and the Honorable Michael F. McMahon, presiding.

DATED this 9th day of August, 2021.

For the Court,

By

2

ustice
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-11127

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Leos Jaimes Perez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CR-122-1

Before Davis, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Leos Jaimes 

Perez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Perez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 1, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-11127 Document: 00515881411 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2021
No. 20-11127

2

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 20-11127 Document: 00515881411 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2021
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 19, 2014

No. 04

- 14

- 00247

- CV

IN RE Jerry Alex CORONA and Sonia Luna Corona

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On April 10, 2014

, relator s filed a petition for writ of mandamus. On November 13

, 2104, relators advised that the underlying personal injury suit has been settled and dismissed, and

requested that this original proceeding also be dismissed.

Relators’ request is GRANTE D. This original mandamus proceeding is DISMISSED AS

MOOT.

It is so ORDERED on November 19, 2014

.

___________ ______________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of November, 2014

.

_______ ____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011

- CI

- 08286, styled Alice Heugel v. Jerry Alex Corona and Sonia Luna

Corona , pending in the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Laura Salinas presiding.
In Re Rosendo RODRIGUEZ, III, petitioner.

No. 17-8228 (17A1030).

Supreme Court of the United States

March 27, 2018.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice ALITO and by him referred to the Court denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Elijah BURKE, petitioner, v. George Williams G. FURTADO.

No. 17-7680.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Colin HAWKINS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7429.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                COMMUNITY FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
             STATEMENT REGARDING: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Three Months Ended          Nine Months Ended
                                                     September 30,               September 30,
                                               ------------------------    ------------------------
                                                  1999          1998          1999          1998
                                               ----------   -----------    ----------  ------------
<S>                                            <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Basic Income Per Common Share (1)

Net income (in thousands)                      $      811    $      644    $    2,426    $    1,873
                                               ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========
Net income per share                           $      .20    $      .26    $      .59    $      .80
                                               ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========
Weighted average common shares outstanding      3,995,843     2,457,131     4,113,469     2,344,596
                                               ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========
Diluted Income Per Common Share (2)

Net income (in thousands)                      $      811    $      644    $    2,426    $    1,873
                                               ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========
Net income per share                           $      .20    $      .23    $      .58    $      .62
                                               ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========
Weighted average common shares outstanding      4,096,048     2,753,786     4,175,165     3,011,615
                                               ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========
</TABLE>

(1)      Basic net income per share has been computed using the weighted average
         number of common shares outstanding during each period presented.

(2)      Diluted net income per share has been computed using the weighted
         average number of common share outstanding and the dilutive effect of
         stock options and warrants outstanding during the periods presented.
EXHIBIT
32.2
  WRITTEN
STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  In
connection with the Annual Report of China 3C Group and its subsidiaries (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, Jian Zhang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies,
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 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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.
 
 Dated:
      April 15, 2010
              By:
              /s/
      Jian ZhangName:
              Jian
      ZhangTitle:
              Chief
      Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and Financial
    Officer)
Sergio MIRANDA, et al., petitioners, v. Allan Huber SELIG, Bud, et al.

No. 17-453.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Donald R. Walsh, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Avatech Solutions, Inc.;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

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

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Registrants other certifying officer
and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 14, 2006 |  | /s/ Donald R. Walsh    
|                        |  | Donald R. Walsh        
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
Jerardo RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, v. Judy LARABEE, et al.

No. 16-9698.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2009297EN.01003001.xml

| 5.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/30

---

Action brought on 5 October 2009 — Marcuccio v Court of Justice of the European Communities

(Case T-401/09)

2009/C 297/44

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision, however framed, which constituted rejection by the defendant of the request of 24 May 2009 submitted by the applicant to the defendant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision, however framed, which constituted rejection by the defendant of the request of 24 May 2009 submitted by the applicant to the defendant;

| — | annul the note dated 15 June 2009 from the Registry of the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the note dated 15 June 2009 from the Registry of the Court of Justice;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000,00 (ten thousand Euro), or such greater or lesser sum as the Court may consider just and fair, by way of compensation for the damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000,00 (ten thousand Euro), or such greater or lesser sum as the Court may consider just and fair, by way of compensation for the damage suffered;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs, disbursements and fees incurred in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs, disbursements and fees incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns the defendant’s refusal to accede to the request for compensation for the alleged damage arising from the fact that a lawyer who was no longer authorised to receive it was notified of the Commission’s appeal against a decision of the Civil Service Tribunal granting in part the form of order sought by the applicant.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges a total failure to state reasons, breach of the duty of sound administration, infringement of provisions of law and a manifest error of assessment.

---
Stuart T. SEUGASALA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6674.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2009 – Dover v Parliament**

**(Case T-149/09 R)**

Application for interim measures – Recovery of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Inadmissibility – No urgency

1.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima
facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved – Order of examination and method of verification
– Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the
Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 12-13)*

2.                     *Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas
in law establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 43, 44 and 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 14,
18-19, 21)*

3.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency
– Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court
of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25-29)*

4.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and
irreparable damage – Decision of the European Parliament to recover allowances unduly paid to one of its Members – Need for
the Parliament to bring proceedings before a national court having jurisdiction where voluntary payment refused – Possibility
of the national court suspending operation of the said decision until resolution of the matter on the substance before the
Court of Justice or the Court of First Instance – No urgency (Arts 230 EC, 234 CE and 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court
of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 30-32)*

5.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency
– Non-material damage not capable of being better compensated for in interim proceedings than in the main proceedings (Arts
242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 37)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Decision D(2009) 4639 of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2009 concerning the recovery of allowances unduly paid to the applicant by way of reimbursement of his parliamentary assistance expenses, of the debit note based on that decision and of any decision taken with a view to offsetting the amount claimed against payment of other parliamentary allowances due to the applicant. |

**Operative part**

1.The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2.Costs are reserved.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 accompanying Annual Report of Sierra Resource Group,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2004, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Paul W.  Andre,  Treasurer  and Chief  Financial  Officer  of the
Company,  hereby  certifies for the purpose of complying  with Rule 13a-14(b) or
Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange  Act") and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

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




Dated: June 30, 2005                      By: /s/ PAUL W. ANDRE
                                          _____________________________________
                                          Paul W. Andre
                                          Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer
                                          and Director


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 SIERRA RESOURCE  GROUP,  INC., AND
WILL BE RETAINED BY SIERRA RESOURCE GROUP, INC., AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.