alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jason BROOKS, petitioner, v. Lou ARCHULETA, Warden, et al.

No. 16-9434.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
N.M., Mother of A.J., C.M., and S.M., Children, petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES.

No. 17-909.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Motion of respondent Guardian and Litem Program, on behalf of S.M. for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District denied.
# C_2011063EN.01002602.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2011 — Häfele v OHIM — Topcom Europe (Topcom)

(Case T-336/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Topcom - Earlier Community and Benelux word marks TOPCOM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 63/50

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Häfele GmbH & Co. KG (Nagold, Germany) (represented by: J. Dönch and M. Eck, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Topcom Europe (Heverlee, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 June 2009 (Case R 1500/2008-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Topcom Europe NV and Häfele GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Häfele GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Topcom Europe NV for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Häfele GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Topcom Europe NV for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.

1

---
Xavier CRITTENDON, petitioner, v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, et al.

No. 17-7578.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Terry CLARK, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 16-7006.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Hamilton County denied.
Certification of Chief Executive Officer r

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), the undersigned, Darren Holm, Chief Executive Officer of Silver
Bow Antique Aviation, (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to his
knowledge, that:

The Annual Report Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 of
the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date:       May 21, 2004

By /s/Darren Holm
   ----------------------
Darren Holm
Chief Executive Officer



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), the undersigned, Dempsey Mork, Chief Financial Officer of Silver
Bow Antique Aviation, (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to his
knowledge, that:

The Annual Report Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 of
the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date:       May 21, 2004

By /s/Dempsey Mork
   ----------------------
Dempsey Mork
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

SPEEDWAY MOTORSPORTS, INC.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, O. Bruton Smith, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, 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 14, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/    O.BRUTON SMITH               
|                     |  |     |  | O. Bruton Smith                     
|                     |  |     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to, and will be retained by,
Speedway Motorsports, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Juan Manuel VALENZUELA-SANCHEZ, aka Miguel Angel Contreras, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7173.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2012039EN.01000301.xml

| 11.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH

(Case C-119/10) (1)

(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5(1)(b) - Filling of cans already bearing a sign similar to a trade mark - Service provided under an order from and on the instructions of another person - Action taken by trade-mark proprietor against the service provider)

(2012/C 39/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV

Defendant: Red Bull GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 5 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Right of the proprietor of a registered trade mark to oppose the unlawful use of its mark — Use of a sign — Filling of cans already bearing a sign as a service for and under an order from another person — Goods destined exclusively for export to countries outside the Benelux area or the European Union — Relevant public

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a service provider who, under an order from and on the instructions of another person, fills packaging which was supplied to it by the other person who, in advance, affixed to it a sign which is identical with, or similar to, a sign protected as a trade mark does not itself make use of the sign that is liable to be prohibited under that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.

---
# C_2013009EN.01000801.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012 — Éditions Odile Jacob SAS v European Commission, Lagardère SCA

(Case C-551/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Concentrations of undertakings in the book publishing market - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Nominee holding agreement - Ineffective grounds)

2013/C 9/10

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (represented by: O. Fréget, M. Struys, M. Potel and L. Eskenazi, avocats)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, O. Beynet and S. Noë, acting as Agents), Lagardère SCA (represented by: A. Winckler, F. de Bure and J. B. Pinçon, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of 13 September 2010 in Case T-279/04 Éditions Jacob v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed Odile Jacob’s action for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/422/EC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP) — Manifest error of assessment — Breach of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment

Éditions Jacob

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Éditions Odile Jacob SAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Éditions Odile Jacob SAS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.

1

---
Leon R. KOZIOL, petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR the THIRD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.

No. 17-993.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Third Judicial Department denied.
PRESS COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.

No. 17-1182.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
NEWARK ELECTRIC CORP., et al., petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

No. 17-932.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Exhibit 13(a)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 Annual Report of CDC Corporation (the Company) on Form 20-F for
the period ended December 31, 2007, as amended by this Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 20-F/A), I, Peter Yip, principal financial officer of the
Company, certify that:

(1) The Form 20-F/A 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 Form 20-F/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                           
|---------------------------
|Date: September 15, 2008   
|                           
|/s/ Peter Yip              
|Peter Yip                  
|Principal Financial Officer

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 CDC Corporation and will be retained by CDC Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
John Harry STEELE, petitioner, v. Willie THOMAS, Warden.

No. 17-8032.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.1
 
2018 Executive Officer Annualized Base Salaries
 
Effective June 25, 2018, the annualized base salaries for Omnicell’s executive officers are as follows:


	
						
	Name
	 
	Title
	 
	2018  
Annualized  
Base Salary

	Randall A. Lipps
	 
	Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
	 
	$
	700,000

	Dan S. Johnston
	 
	Executive Vice President and Chief Legal & Administrative Officer
	 
	$
	330,000

	Peter J. Kuipers
	 
	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	 
	$
	425,000

	Nhat H. Ngo
	 
	Executive Vice President, Marketing, Strategy and Business Development
	 
	$
	365,000

	Scott P. Seidelmann

	 
	Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer

	 
	$
	400,000

	Robin G. Seim

	 
	President, Global Automation and Medication Adherence

	 
	$
	445,000

	Jorge R. Taborga
	 
	Executive Vice President, Engineering and Integration Management Office
	 
	$
	312,000










1
Theodore LUCZAK, petitioner, v. Randy PFISTER, et al.

No. 17-7313.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
Open Meeting of the Commission – Wednesday, July 22, 2020

AGENDA

1. Call to Order

2. Opening Statements

Chairman Heath P. Tarbert

Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz

Commissioner Rostin Behnam

Commissioner Dawn D. Stump

Commissioner Dan M. Berkovitz

3. Final Rule: Capital Requirements of Swap Dealers and Major Swap 

Participants

Staff Presentation

Joshua B. Sterling, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (DSIO)

Thomas J. Smith, DSIO Joshua J. Beale, DSIO

Rafael Martinez, DSIO Jennifer Bauer, DSIO

Motion 

Commissioners’ Questions and Discussion

Vote

4. Proposed Rules: Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap 

Dealers and Major Swap Participants

Staff Presentation

Joshua B. Sterling, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (DSIO) 

Warren Gorlick, DSIO Carmen Moncada-Terry, DSIO

Liliya Bozhanova, DSIO 

Commissioners’ Questions

5. Closing Remarks

6. Adjournment
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Haley and Senior Judge Coleman 

TOWN OF COEBURN AND 

 VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL GROUP 

 SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0610-06-3 PER CURIAM 

 OCTOBER 17, 2006 

WESLEY R. SIGMON 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (John R. Sigmond; Penn, Stuart & Eskridge, on brief), for 

appellants. 

 (D. Allison Mullins; Lee & Phipps, P.C., on brief), for appellee. 

 The Town of Coeburn and its insurer (hereinafter referred to as “employer”) contend the 

Workers’ Compensation Commission erred when it found that (1) Wesley R. Sigmon proved his 

back injury and resulting disability were causally related to his compensable April 20, 2005 

injury by accident; (2) the evidence proved Eric Bryant was in a supervisory capacity over 

Sigmon; (3) Sigmon proved employer had actual notice of the accident thereby satisfying the 

requirements of Code § 65.2-600; and (4) employer failed to prove any prejudice associated with 

Sigmon’s failure to provide written notice of the accident within thirty days of its occurrence. 

We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and hold that this appeal is without 

merit. Accordingly, we affirm the commission’s award for the reasons stated by the commission 

in its final opinion. See Sigmon v. Coeburn (Town of), VWC File No. 224-03-48 (May 10, 

2006). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not 

aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.
BLATT, HASENMILLER, LEIBSKER & MOORE LLC, petitioner, v. Ronald OLIVA.

No. 17-736.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
---

Exhibit 10.3

THIRD AMENDMENT to  Employment
Agreement between Larry Fleming and PW Eagle, Inc.

THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is
entered into effective as of August 20, 2001, by and between Larry Fleming (the Employee) and PW Eagle, Inc., f/k/a Eagle Pacific Industries, Inc. (Eagle).

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Employee and Eagle are parties to that certain Employment Agreement executed
September 16, 1999 as amended December 15, 2000 and March 1, 2001 (the Agreement).

WHEREAS, the
parties mutually desire to amend the Agreement effective August 20, 2001 with respect to a change in the term of the Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual agreements hereinafter contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties
agree as follows:

| | 1. | The term of the Agreement as referenced in Section 1 shall be through December 31, 2004.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                         
| | 2. | Except as amended herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.          

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment to Employment Agreement effective as of the date first written above.

|PW EAGLE, INC.                |                 
|----------------------------- | ----------------
|(the Company)               |                 
|                              |                 
|                              |                 
|By:  /s/ William H.
Spell     | /s/Larry Fleming
|Its:  Chief Executive Officer | (the Employee)

|                             
|-----------------------------
|                             
|[RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS]
|
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ALEXANDRE LEMA-KENZO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D23-612

[July 13, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 2016CF001259A.

Alexandre Lema-Kenzo, Doral, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

                     The undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted by § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           the Annual Report on Form10-KSB of Oconee Financial Corporation (the “Company”) for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 (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 containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.

 

| Dated: March30, 2004 |   /s/ B. Amrey Harden                                      B. Amrey Harden Chief Executive Officer |
|----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16433]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3341]


State of Minnesota; Amendment #4

    In accordance with a notice received from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, dated June 21, 2001, the above-numbered Declaration 
is hereby amended to include Crow Wing, Kandiyohi, Lake of the Woods 
and Meeker Counties in the State of Minnesota as disaster areas caused 
by severe winter storms, flooding and tornadoes occurring between March 
23, 2001 and continuing.
    Any counties contiguous to the above named primary counties and not 
listed here have been previously declared.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for 
filing applications for physical damage is July 15, 2001 and for 
economic injury the deadline is February 15, 2002.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: June 22, 2001.
Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-16433 Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# C_2009141EN.01003201.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/32

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 6 April 2009 — Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v Simex Trading AG

(Case C-127/09)

2009/C 141/55

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Simex Trading AG

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Are goods put on the market within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) and Article 7 of Directive 89/104/EEC (2) if ‘perfume testers’ are made available to contractually-bound intermediaries without transfer of ownership and with a prohibition on the sale thereof so that those intermediaries are able to allow potential customers to use the contents of the goods for test purposes, the goods bearing a notice stating that they may not be sold, the recall of the goods by the manufacturer/trade mark proprietor at any time remaining contractually possible and the packaging of the goods being significantly different from the goods usually put on the market by the manufacturer/trade mark proprietor in that it is plainer?

1

2

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1–36.

1

(2)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1–7.

2

---