alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2008 – Mergel and Others v OHIM (Patentconsult)**

**(Case T-335/07)**

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark Patentconsult – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 22, 25)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2007 (Case R 299/2007-4) concerning the registration of the word sign Patentconsult as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicants for the Community trade mark: | Volker Mergel, Klaus Kampfenkel, Burkart Bill and Andreas Herden |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark Patentconsult for services in Classes 35, 41 and 42 – Application No 4439774 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Mr Volker Mergel, Mr Klaus Kampfenkel, Mr Burkart Bill and Mr Andreas Herden to pay the costs. |
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 04-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and 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 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 Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |        |  |                                  
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ---------------------------------
|                      |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ J. Roe Buckley               
|                      |  |  |  | Name:  |  | J. Roe Buckley                   
|Date: August 14, 2007 |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer          
|                      |  |  |  |        |  | Mewbourne Development Corporation
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATE
      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 Targeted Genetics Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities & Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H.
      Stewart Parker, Chief Executive 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, 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; and





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


/s/ H.
              Stewart ParkerH.
                Stewart Parker
              President,
                Chief Executive Officer and Director
              March
                29, 2007




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.




This
      certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      as
      Exhibit 32 to the Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and in accordance
      with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K. This certification is not being
“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      and is not and should not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into the
      Form 10-K or any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934.
Paul Edward MCLEAN, Plaintiff, v. Debra Kay KING, Defendant.

No. COA16-624

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 21, 2017

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
STATE v. Antwan ANTHONY

324A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2017

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, Jonathan E. Broun, Attorney at Law, Durham, Kathryn L. VandeBerg, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Anthony, Antwan.

Kimberly Robb, Assistant District Attorney, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the renewed motion filed on the 20th of September 2017 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Prepare Trial Transcript:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2017."

Court reporter(s) shall have up to and including the 10th day of October 2017 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel.
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 08-211-C, styled In the Matter of the Marriage of Jennifer Ann

Schexnider and Michael Keith Schexnider and In the Interest of Claire Alyse Schexnider and Nathaniel James

Schexnider, Children, in the County Court at Law, Kerr County, Texas, the Honorable Spencer W. Brown presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00659-CV

IN RE Michael SCHEXNIDER

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 15, 2008

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED

On October 8, 2008, Relator filed a motion to dismiss this mandamus petition. Prior to

the motion, on September 19, 2008, Relator filed a notice of nonsuit in this court. Accordingly,

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Our stay

order, entered August 29, 2008, is vacated.

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 23




<PAGE>






              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We have issued our report dated January 22, 1997,  accompanying the consolidated
financial statements  incorporated by reference or included in the Annual Report
of TF Financial  Corporation  and  Subsidiaries  on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1996. We hereby consent to the  incorporation  by reference of said
report  in  the  Registration   Statements  of  TF  Financial   Corproation  and
Subsidiaires on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-87176,  effective  December 7, 1994), and
File No. 33-09235, effective July 31, 1996).




/s/ Grant Thornton LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 26, 1997
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4253 

To permanently withdraw, reserve, and transfer Bureau of Land Management 

lands used for military purposes in Alaska, Nevada, and New Mexico 

to the appropriate Secretary of the military department concerned. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2014 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah (for himself, Mr. AMODEI, Mr. PEARCE, and Mr. YOUNG

of Alaska) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Armed 

Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To permanently withdraw, reserve, and transfer Bureau of 

Land Management lands used for military purposes in 

Alaska, Nevada, and New Mexico to the appropriate 

Secretary of the military department concerned. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF TERMINATION DATE. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘Bureau of Land Management Withdrawn Military Lands 

6 Efficiency and Savings Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4253 IH

1 (b) IN GENERAL.—Section 3015(a) of the Military 

2 Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999 (Public Law 106–65) is 

3 amended by striking ‘‘shall’’ the first place it appears and 

4 all that follows through the period and inserting ‘‘shall not 

5 terminate other than by an election and determination of 

6 the Secretary of the military department concerned or 

7 until such time as the Secretary of the Interior can perma8 nently transfer administrative jurisdiction of the lands 

9 withdrawn and reserved by this Act to the Secretary of 

10 the military department concerned.’’. 

11 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 3016 of the 

12 Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999 (Public Law 106– 

13 65) is repealed. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1



                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Quarter Ended                     Year Ended
                                                              December 25,                    December 25,
                                                    ------------------------------    ------------------------------
                                                         1998             1997            1998             1997
                                                         ----             ----            ----             ----
<S>                                                  <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>
Net Income                                           $ 9,224,000      $ 7,163,000      $33,692,000      $30,981,000


Shares used to compute
earnings per share - Basic                            19,283,462       19,258,042       19,279,028       19,237,909


Earnings Per Share - Basic                                 $0.48            $0.37            $1.75            $1.61



Shares used to compute
earnings per share including
common stock equivalents - Diluted                    19,401,626       19,452,556       19,405,569       19,418,277


Earnings Per Share - Diluted                               $0.48            $0.37            $1.74            $1.60
</TABLE>

<PAGE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 18, 2020

No. 04-19-00753-CR

Paul PESINA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-10-161-CRW

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant's pro se motion requesting a bench warrant is DENIED.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 18th day of November, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

25 April 2007

Case F-59/06

**Petrus Kerstens**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Officials – Appraisal – Career development report – Time-limit for complaints – Delay – Manifest inadmissibility)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Kerstens seeks annulment of his career development report for 2004,
as finalised on 11 July 2005 by the appeal assessor, and of the decision of 6 February 2006 of the appointing authority dismissing
the applicant’s complaint against his 2004 career development report.

**Held:**The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.

**Summary**

1.      *Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, 43 and 90(2))*

2.      *Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Date when lodged*

*(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))*

1.      For a decision to be duly notified, within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, it must not only have been
communicated to its addressee, but the addressee must also have been able to have effective knowledge of its content. It follows
that, in a case where an official receives information, sent electronically, that the decision making his staff report definitive
has been adopted and that it is accessible on the institution’s internal computer system, the time-limits for lodging a complaint
or appeal begin to run from the time when the person concerned accesses the system, opens the file relating to his report
and is thus able to have effective knowledge of its content.

In that respect, the reliability of the dates and times of consultation, as evidenced by the internal computer system records,
cannot be called into doubt merely on the basis of allegations of a risk of data manipulation, without those serious accusations
being based on sufficiently accurate, consistent and relevant evidence concerning the circumstances of the case.

(see paras 34-36)

See:

5/76 *Jänsch* v *Commission* [1976] ECR 1027, para. 10

T-507/04 *Bravo-Villasante* v *Commission* [2005] ECR-SC I‐A‐361 and II‐1609, para. 29; T-311/04 *Buendía Sierra* v *Commission* [2006] ECR II‐4137, para. 121

2.      Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations must be interpreted as meaning that the complaint is ‘lodged’ not when it is sent to
the institution, but when it reaches that institution.

(see para. 39)

See:

195/80 *Michel* v *Parliament* [1981] ECR 2861, paras 8 and 13

T-54/90 *Lacroix* v *Commission* [1991] ECR II‐749, paras 28 and 29

F-3/05 *Schmit* v *Commission* [2006] ECR-SC I‐A‐1‐9 and II‐A‐1‐33, para. 28
IN RE: J.A.M.

7PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 7, 2017

*669Richard Croutharmel, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Johnson, Jasmine.

Christopher C. Peace, Attorney at Law, Keith S. Smith, Attorney at Law, for Mecklenburg County DSS.

Caroline P. Mackie, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for GAL.

Jacob E. Setzer, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Moses, Travis.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of June 2017 by Guardian ad Litem to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of July 2017."
Exhibit 10.8
 MakeMusic, Inc. Board Compensation Plan  Effective February 15, 2007
Amended January 31, 2008
Amended January 28, 2009
Amended January 1, 2011
 Cash Fee:
    
    Each non-employee director who is not otherwise being compensated by MakeMusic, Inc. shall be
paid a cash fee of $40,000 per calendar year for board membership. In addition, a director
serving as a chairperson of the board of directors or one or more committees of the board of
directors shall be paid an additional $10,000 per calendar year.
 Equity:
    
    Each non-employee director who is not otherwise being compensated by MakeMusic, Inc. shall
receive a stock option grant as of the first business day of each fiscal year. The terms of the
stock option grant are as follows:
 
    
    non-qualified stock option to purchase 6,000 shares of common stock
    
    issued under the 2003 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended
    
    exercise price shall be the fair market value of common stock as of date of grant
    
    4-year term
    
    shares vest ratably over twelve months
    
    in the event the directors service as a director terminates for any reason or
the director is no longer an eligible director, as defined by this plan, vesting
shall immediately terminate but the director shall be entitled to exercise the
option for any vested shares through the remaining term of the option
Tawana F. SAMPSON, Plaintiff, v. Daryl LANIER, Individually and as Member of the Guilford County Sheriff's Department; B.J. Barnes, Sheriff of Guilford County; and The Local Government Excess Liability Fund, Inc., Defendants.

No. COA16-1135

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 5, 2017

DISMISSED.
(109 So. 400)

No. 27411.

#### FIRST NAT. BANK OF ACADIA PARISH v. LABIT.

(May 31, 1926.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1926.)

*,(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)*

Homestead <&wkey;72— Irrigation canal, pump, and machinery held “appurtenances and necessary implements” within homestead exemption (Const. 1921, art. 11, § I).

Irrigation canal and pumping plant, consisting of pump, portable boiler, and engine, necessary for raising rice on farm of less than 160 acres, *Mid*appurtenances and necessary farming implements, exempt from seizure and sale under homestead provision of Const. 1921, art: 11, § 1.

[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Appurtenance — Appurtenant.]

Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Vermilion; W. W. Bailey, Judge.

Action by the First National Bank of Acadia Parish, in liquidation, against Gran-ville Labit. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

W. J. Oarmouche, of Crowley, for appellant.

R. J. La Bauve and Edwards & Greene, all of Abbeville, for appellee.

O’NIELL, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment recognizing a homestead exemption on a rice farm and the necessary farming implements to the extent of $2,000.

Appellant contends that the canal and pump and machinery used for irrigating the farm were not a part of the farm, and were-therefore not exempt from seizure and sale, and that, by failing to demand a separate sale of this irrigation plant, the debtor forfeited his homestead exemption.

According to section 1 of article 11 of the Constitution, the homestead exemption includes, not only 160 acres of land, but also-the buildings and appurtenances, and, on a farm, the necessary farming implements. In this case the area of the farm was less than 160 acres. The irrigation canal was one of’ its appurtenances, and the pumping plant, consisting of - an 8-inch pump and a portable boiler and engine, which were necessary for-raising rice on the farm, must be included among “the necessary farming implements.”

The judgment is affirmed, at appellant’s, cost.
In a related appeal, we affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining the contest to Appellant’s affidavit of 1

indigence. See Darby v. Darby, 12-06-00340-CV, 2008 WL 2043031, at *5 (Tex. App.–Tyler May 14, 2006, no

pet.).

NO. 12-06-00095-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ELIZABETH ELENA DARBY, § APPEAL FROM THE 402ND

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

CHESTER DUANE DARBY,

APPELLEE § WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b). The

reporter’s record was due to have been filed by August 14, 2008. Although this deadline was

extended to September 15, 2008, the reporter requested additional time for filing her record. She

stated that the reason for the delay in filing the reporter’s record was that Appellant had failed to pay

for the preparation of the reporter’s record and had not made any arrangement to pay for it. On 1

August 27, 2008, this court notified Appellant that the appeal would be submitted on the clerk’s

record alone unless proof of full payment to the reporter was provided to the court no later than

September 8, 2008. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). However, Appellant failed to respond to our

August 27, 2008 notice or provide proof of payment. Consequently, on September 17, 2008, this

court ordered that the case be submitted on the clerk’s record alone and that the clerk’s record was

due on October 13, 2008. 
See n.1. 2

2

On October 10, 2008, this court notified Appellant that the district clerk had requested an

extension of time to file the clerk’s record, stating that Appellant had failed to pay for the preparation

of the clerk’s record and had not made any payment arrangement. Appellant was also warned that 2

the appeal would be dismissed unless Appellant provided this court proof of full payment to the clerk

on or before October 20, 2008. Appellant neither responded to our October 10, 2008 notice or

provided proof of full payment. Accordingly, Appellant’s appeal is dismissed for want of

prosecution pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b).

Opinion delivered October 22, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
BEIJING MED-PHARM CORPORATION
PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Beijing Med-Pharm Corporation;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 that has
materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to
materially affect, the
registrants internal control
over financial reporting.
 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
the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (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.
  /s/ DAVID GAODavid GaoChief Executive Officer
 22
Leonard CARTER, Employee, Plaintiff, v. BARNES TRANSPORTATION, Employer, National Interstate Insurance, Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA16-627

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 5, 2017

AFFIRMED.