alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.1**

WRITTEN STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350

                    The undersigned, Douglas M. Pasquale, the Chief Executive Officer, ofARV Assisted Living, Inc. the General Partner of American Retirement Villas III, L.P. (the “Partnership”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies that:

|   |                     (i)     the annual Form 11Q ofthe Partnership (the “Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|   |                     (ii)     the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.                  |

 

| Dated: May 14, 2003 |                                                                                                                              |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |                                                                                                                              |
|                | /s/    DOUGLAS  M. PASQUALE                                                                                   |   |
|                |                                                                                                                                   |   |
|                | **Douglas M. Pasquale Chief Executive Officer ARV Assisted Living, Inc. General Partner Of American Retirement Villas III, L.P.** |   |
Exhibit 10.1














Field Point Capital Management Company


One Landmark Square, Suite 1900


Stamford, CT 06901












June 13, 2018







PASSUR Aerospace, Inc.


One Landmark Square, Suite 1900


Stamford, CT 06901







As Chairman of the Board as well as the principal shareholder of PASSUR Aerospace, Inc. ("PASSUR Aerospace" or the "Company"), I make the following commitment to the Company with respect to the period from the date of this commitment through June 13, 2019.







Liquidity







I commit that if the Company at any time is unable to meet its obligations through June 13, 2019, that I will provide the necessary continuing financial support to the Company to ensure the Company's ability to operate as a going concern through the period ending June 13, 2019. Such continuing support may take the form of additional loans or advances to PASSUR Aerospace in addition to the deferral of principal and/or interest payments due on outstanding loans to PASSUR Aerospace as referred to above.







These commitments are not conditional and are irrevocable through the period ending June 13, 2019.







I, G.S. Beckwith Gilbert, having the financial wherewithal to enter into this irrevocable commitment, make the above commitments to the Company and its shareholders.






















/s/G.S. Beckwith Gilbert




G.S. Beckwith Gilbert


President
Davidson RAYMOND, petitioner, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

No. 17-8181.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         234,903
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  317,298
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,572
<INVENTORY>                                    411,727
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,013,847
<PP&E>                                         161,784
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,262
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,002,685
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          695,257
<BONDS>                                        760,530
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,115,405
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,002,685
<SALES>                                      2,205,510
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,205,510
<CGS>                                        1,274,784
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,274,784
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               698,996
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             102,377
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                130,021
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,367
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            125,535
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   125,535
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Scyrus CARTWRIGHT, petitioner, v. MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 17-5073.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2011080EN.01000701.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/7

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 October 2010 — Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Consorci de l’Espai Rural de Gallecs, established in Gallecs

(Case C-342/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) - Figurative mark Gallecs - Opposition by the proprietor of the national figurative marks GALLO, GALLO AZEITE NOVO, Azeite Novo and the Community figurative mark GALLO - Rejection of the opposition - Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

2011/C 80/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio SA (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz, advogado)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent), Consorci de l’Espai Rural de Gallecs, established in Gallecs

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 in Case T-151/08 Victor Guedes-Indústria e Comércio, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), by which that Court dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the national figurative marks ‘GALLO’, ‘GALLO AZEITE NOVO’ and ‘GALLO AZEITE’ and the Community figurative mark ‘GALLO’ for goods and services in Classes 29 and 31 against Decision R 986/2007-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2008 dismissing the appeal lodged against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the opposition brought by the appellant against the application for registration of the figurative mark ‘Gallecs’ for goods in Classes 29, 31 and 35 — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Victor Guedes-Indústria e Comércio, SA

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

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio SA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio SA shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

1

---
# C_2009282EN.01005702.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/57

---

Action brought on 25 September 2009 — Glenton España v OHIM — Polo/Lauren (POLO SANTA MARIA)

(Case T-376/09)

2009/C 282/107

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Glenton España, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. (New York, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Admit the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Admit the application;

| — | Overturn the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2009 in case R 594/2008-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Overturn the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2009 in case R 594/2008-2;

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “POLO SANTA MARIA”, for goods and services in classes 18, 25, 36, 41 and 43

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Mark or sign cited: Benelux trade mark registration of the figurative mark “device of a silhouette of a polo player” for goods in classes 18 and 25

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled partially the contested decision

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2010037EN.01005102.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/51

---

Action brought on 21 December 2009 — Canga Fano v Council

(Case F-104/09)

2010/C 37/81

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Diego Canga Fano (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodriguez and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted to Grade AD 13 under the 2009 promotion procedure.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the appointing authority’s decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted to grade AD 13 under the 2009 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appointing authority’s decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted to grade AD 13 under the 2009 promotion procedure;

| — | annul, so far as necessary, the appointing authority’s decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, so far as necessary, the appointing authority’s decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

| — | order the appointing authority to pay the applicant a sum fixed on equitable principles at EUR 150 000, in respect of compensation for the non-material harm suffered, plus default interest at the legal rate from the date on which it became payable, and a sum fixed on equitable principles at EUR 50 00, in respect of compensation for the harm to his career, plus default interest at the legal rate from the date on which it became payable; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the appointing authority to pay the applicant a sum fixed on equitable principles at EUR 150 000, in respect of compensation for the non-material harm suffered, plus default interest at the legal rate from the date on which it became payable, and a sum fixed on equitable principles at EUR 50 00, in respect of compensation for the harm to his career, plus default interest at the legal rate from the date on which it became payable;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             540
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  133,894
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,415
<INVENTORY>                                    479,226
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               607,492
<PP&E>                                       1,356,381
<DEPRECIATION>                                 522,191
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,598,930
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          402,654
<BONDS>                                      1,375,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           711
<OTHER-SE>                                    (534,770)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,598,930
<SALES>                                        447,815
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               447,815
<CGS>                                          331,385
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  331,385
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   529
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,027
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,325
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,775
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,550
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,550
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet and statements of operations found on pages 3 and 4 of the
Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             195
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   195
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,714
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,050
<OTHER-SE>                                      (7,552)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,212
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,629
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,629)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
Reynaldo Medrano AYALA, petitioner, v. Ronald DAVIS, Warden.

No. 17-5300.

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.
Frank Monaco BAZZO, petitioner, v. Debbie ASUNCION, Warden.

No. 17-7601.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

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

San Antonio, Texas

January 16, 2019

No. 04-18-00498-CV

MWM HELOTES RANCH, LTD. and Myfe Moore,

Appellants

v.

John H. WHITE Jr., Individually; John H. White III, Individually; John H. White Jr., John H. 

White III, and Molly C. White, in their capacities as Co-Trustees of the 1983 John H. White 

Long-Term Trust F/B/O John H. White Jr., and of the 1976B Partnership Trust; TCW Helotes 

Ranch Ltd; and Tuleta White,

Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI11563

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After we granted Appellees’ first motion for extension of time to file the brief, Appellees’

brief was due on January 11, 2019. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b), (d). Before the extended due 

date, Appellees filed an unopposed second motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file the

brief until February 11, 2019. See id. R. 10.5(b). 

Appellees’ motion is GRANTED. Appellees’ brief is due on February 11, 2019

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 16th day of January, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
# C_2011226EN.01000602.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővarosi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Bábolna Mezőgazdasági Termelő, Fejlesztő és Kereskedelmi Zrt. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

(Case C-115/10) (1)

1

(Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Complementary direct national aid - Conditions for grant)

2011/C 226/10

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővarosi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bábolna Mezőgazdasági Termelő, Fejlesztő és Kereskedelmi Zrt.

Applicant:

Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1), and Articles 1 and 10(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 113) — National legislation excluding producers engaged in a liquidation procedure from national complementary aid linked to the single area payment regime — Whether Member States may lay down conditions for eligibility for national complementary aid which do not apply to the grant of the Community aid in question

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Decision 2004/281/EC of 22 March 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits national legislation which excludes from the benefit of complementary national aid legal persons carrying out an agricultural activity in the territory of the Member State in question, on the ground that they are the subject of voluntary dissolution proceedings, where a condition relating to the absence of such proceedings has not been the subject of prior authorisation by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.

1

---
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS EASTLAND , TEXAS JUDGMENT

Oscar Padilla
, * From the 441st District Court of Midland County, Trial Court No. CR49532

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 020

- C V * J anuary 31 , 20 20
Grimes and Associates Consulting * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C.J. Engineers, L.P.; Victor Ramirez (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J., d/b/a F&V Steel Erectors; and Stretcher , J. , and Wright, S.C.J., Carl Woodruff, sitting by assignment ) ( Willson , J., not participating)
This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

w e modify the judgment of the trial court to delete the award of attorney fees to Grimes and Associates Consulting Engineers, L.P.
, and we affirm the judgment as
modified

. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Oscar
Padilla

.