alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2010 – Storck v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate mouse)**

**(Case T-13/09)**

Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark – Shape of a chocolate mouse – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Rights of the defence

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Three-dimensional mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 44)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2008 (Case R 185/2006-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate mouse. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | August Storck KG |
| Community trade mark sought: | Three-dimensional mark, which represents a mouse made out of chocolate, for goods in Class 30 – Application No 4490447 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs. |
Cory Michael DEMERS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8671.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Billy CANNON, petitioner, v. Dean NEWPORT, et al.

No. 17-5433.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
ASSOCIATION DES ELEVEURS DE CANARDS ET D'OIES DU QUEBEC, et al., petitioners, v. Xavier BECERRA, Attorney General of California.

No. 17-1285.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
James J. BRADDOCK, petitioner, v. Angelina JOLIE, et al.

No. 17-1489.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Release:#3947-96 (CIV 3-96CV2734-T)

For Release:October 1, 1996

CFTC FILES COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT
    INJUNCTIONS IN ACTION AGAINST EUGENE M. WALTER OF DALLAS, TEXAS

CFTC Civil Action Charging Walter with Defrauding Customers While
    Acting

as an Unregistered Futures Commission Merchant and Commodity Trading
    Advisor,

Among Other Violations of Federal Commodities Law

WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today
    announced the filing on September 30, 1996, of a civil injunctive complaint
    in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas
    Division) against Eugene M. Walter of Dallas, Texas.

The six-count civil complaint alleges that from at least March 1994 to
    April 1995, Walter engaged in fraudulent misconduct and other activities
    involving commodity futures and options trading, all in violation of the
    Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. Specifically, the
    complaint alleges that, among other things, Walter engaged in a scheme
    whereby he:

--fraudulently solicited customers by misrepresenting to them the
    anticipated profits and potential risks of trading commodity futures and
    options;

--misrepresented his track record as a futures and options trader;

--misapplied customer funds intended for customer futures and options
    trading;

--deliberately misled his futures and options customers, through false
    oral and written statements, into believing their accounts were profitable
    when they were actually losing money;

--failed to register with the CFTC as a commodity trading advisor and
    futures commission merchant, as required;

--failed to provide to customers required (i) risk disclosure
    statements, (ii) transaction confirmations, and (iii) account information;
    and,

--unlawfully commingled customers' funds with his own.

In addition to preliminary and permanent civil injunctions against
    activities by Walter that violate the Commodity Exchange Act or CFTC
    regulations, the CFTC is seeking other remedial relief, including an
    accounting, disgorgement of profits, restitution to customers of Walter's
    ill-gotten gains, and civil monetary penalties.

Walter was formerly registered with the Commission as a commodity
    trading advisor, but that registration was withdrawn in 1984. He has not
    been registered with the Commission in any capacity since 1987. Walter was
    convicted of criminal securities violations under the Texas state
    securities laws in August 1987.

The CFTC received assistance from the United States Attorney's Office
    for the Northern District of Texas and the Texas State Securities
    Commission in filing this case.

# # #

---
Robert Michael McHALE, petitioner, v. Brad CAIN, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution.

No. 17-7804.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1013

BANK OF AMERICA NA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHNSON D. KOOLA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (2:16-cv-01634-RMG)

Submitted: May 30, 2017 Decided: June 6, 2017

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnson D. Koola, Appellant Pro Se. Theodore von Keller, CRAWFORD & VON 

KELLER, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnson D. Koola seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding this case to the South Carolina 

Court of Appeals, from which it was removed. Bank of America has moved to dismiss 

the appeal.

Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was 

removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012). The 

Supreme Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 

U.S.C.] § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are 

immune from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 

124, 127 (1995). Thus, § 1447(d)

is tightly circumscribed to cover only remand orders within the scope of

. . . § 1447(c), based on (1) a district court’s lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other than lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction that was raised by the motion of a party within 30 days after the 

notice of removal was filed.

Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“Whether a district court’s remand order is reviewable under § 1447(d) is not determined 

by whether the order explicitly cites § 1447(c) or not.” Borneman v. United States, 213 

F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir. 2000).

Bank of America moved to remand within 30 days of Koola’s notice of removal, 

and the district court remanded on the basis that removal was untimely. The district court 

also concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Under the cited authorities, we 

are without jurisdiction to review the remand order. We therefore grant Bank of 
3

America’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Donnell JACKSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9042.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT 

ORDER ~ 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CODY EASTERDAY, EASTERDAY 

RANCHES, INC., 

Defendants. 

No. 4:21-CV-05050-SAB

ORDER GRANTING JOINT 

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF 

CONSENT ORDER 

Before the Court isthe parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Order, 

ECF No. 24. The motion was heard without oral argument. Plaintiff is represented 

by Benjamin E. Sedrish, Ashley J. Burden, and Allison V. Passman. Defendant 

Easterday Ranches is represented by Thomas Buford.

Plaintiff and Defendant Easterday Ranches, Inc. indicate they have settled 

the above-captioned matter and have agreed to a Proposed Consent Order, see Ex. 

A. They indicate the Bankruptcy Court approved the Consent Order on November

17, 2021. Good cause exists to grant the Joint Motion and to also enter the Consent

Order.

//

//

FILED IN THE

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 

Dec 16, 2021

Case 4:21-cv-05050-SAB ECF No. 25 filed 12/16/21 PageID.111 Page 1 of 2
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT 

ORDER ~ 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The parties’Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Order, ECF No. 24, is 

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order

and forward copies to counsel.

DATED this 16th day of December 2021.

Stanley A. Bastian

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:21-cv-05050-SAB ECF No. 25 filed 12/16/21 PageID.112 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                              Consent of KPMG LLP

                            And Report on Schedule


The Board of Directors
Blue Martini Software, Inc.:

The audits referred to in our report dated January 24, 2001, included the
related financial statement schedule as of December 31, 1999 and 2000, and for
the years then ended, included in Item 14(a)2 of the Form 10-K. This financial
statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statement schedule
based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when
considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a
whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth
therein.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.s
333-42388 and 333-55374) on Form S-8 of Blue Martini Software, Inc. of our
report dated January 24, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Blue Martini Software, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999, and 2000,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and
comprehensive loss and cash flows for the period from June 5, 1998 (Inception)
to December 31, 1998, and for the years ended December 31, 1999 and 2000, which
report appears elsewhere herein.

                                             /s/ KPMG LLP

Mountain View, California
March 20, 2001
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of DRI
Corporation; and2.
    
    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.
 /s/ Kathleen B. OherKathleen B. OherChief Financial OfficerDecember 6, 2010
Abdul Salam BADMUS, petitioner, v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 17-7884.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Corry D. SEARLES, petitioner, v. LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, et al.

No. 16-9729.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 32.1****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 DRI Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, David L. Turney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ David L. Turney David L. Turney  Chief Executive Officer  August 14, 2007       A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Bobby Carl Lennox aka Bobby Carl Leanox , Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 00164

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 6th District Court of Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 28256 )

. O pinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss
, Justice Burgess and Justice Stevens participating

. Concurring Opi nion by Justice Burgess.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of
the court below. Therefore, we reform the judgment o f the trial court to reflect that the appellant
was convicted of three class B misdemeanor offenses u nder Section 32.21(e

- 1)(2) of the Texas
Penal Code

. Because the appellant received sentences outside the punishment range for class B
misdemeanors , w e rev erse the sentences only and remand the cause to the trial court to conduct a

new tr ial on punishment for the class B misdemeanors.
We further order tha t the appell ee, t he State of Texas , pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 23, 2020 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MOR RISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATT EST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
Albert NEDD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7542.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Kimberly CARGILL, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-5356.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
Exhibit 10.22.4
 CONSENT AND AMENDMENT NO. 5  TO REVOLVING CREDIT AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
  BACKGROUND
    Definitions
 Consent
 provided




---



##### 



Exhibit A
 Amendment
  Contribution Amount
 Contribution Excess Amount
 Fifth Amendment
 Fifth Amendment Effective Date
 Prepayment Amount
 Prepayment Excess Amount
 Series K Preferred Stock provided
 2




---



##### 



provided
  provided
 3




---



##### 



Conditions of Effectiveness
 Representations, Warranties and Covenants
      Effect on the Loan Agreement
   Release
 4




---



##### 



Governing Law
 Cost and Expenses
 Headings
 Counterparts; Facsimile Signatures
  5




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Lender and as AgentBy:
    /s/  John TrieuName:
    John TrieuTitle:
    Vice PresidentDRI CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/  Stephen P. SlayName:
    Stephen P. SlayTitle:
    Chief Financial OfficerDIGITAL RECORDERS, INC.By:
    /s/  Stephen P. SlayName:
    Stephen P. SlayTitle:
    Chief Financial OfficerTWINVISION OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.By:
    /s/  Stephen P. SlayName:
    Stephen P. SlayTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
II-00921

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Anna K <tfeline77@hotmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:02 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Anna K

48210 Pontiac Tr

Wixom, MI 48393
Exhibit 32.2



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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Hooker Furniture Corporation (the
Company) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending November 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, E. Larry Ryder, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: February 22, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ E. Larry Ryder     
|                        |  |     |  | E. Larry Ryder         
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INPRISE INCORPORATED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         175,803
<SECURITIES>                                     3,084
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,745
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (11,253)
<INVENTORY>                                        894
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               225,656
<PP&E>                                         230,836
<DEPRECIATION>                                 122,235
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 339,303
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,685
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       448,144
<OTHER-SE>                                    (211,236)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   339,303
<SALES>                                         72,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,654
<CGS>                                           10,318
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,620
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                99,345
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 507
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 71,184
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,253
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             61,831
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    61,931
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10


</TABLE>
H. Res. 214 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 21, 2009. 

Whereas the Commonwealth of Kentucky suffered a devastating ice storm on January 26, 2009, that left more 

than 700,000 homes and businesses without electricity; 

Whereas the ice storm is considered the worst natural disaster in Kentucky history; 

Whereas State and local officials acted quickly to coordinate 

relief efforts and enlisted volunteer agencies, faith-based 

groups, and community organizations; 

Whereas volunteers from 25 organizations in 15 States came 

to the Commonwealth of Kentucky to provide help and 

support to those affected by the ice storm; 

Whereas volunteers operated 192 shelters for victims of the 

ice storm, providing 7,884 Kentuckians with shelter, 

food, and water; 

Whereas more than 378,160 meals and snacks were provided 

to victims of the ice storm by volunteers; 

Whereas these volunteers played a key role in Kentucky’s recovery efforts and gave their valuable time and resources 

to offer support; 
2 

•HRES 214 EH 

Whereas 4,600 members of the Kentucky National Guard 

were activated to assist the citizens of the Commonwealth; and 

Whereas the resolve, courage, and determination shown by 

the citizens of the Commonwealth was commendable: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes 

the efforts of the countless volunteers who helped the Commonwealth of Kentucky recover from the ice storm of January 2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
REPUBLIC OF SUDAN, petitioner, v. Rick HARRISON, et al.

No. 16-1094.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.