alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011194EN.01001202.xml

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2011 — IIC-Intersport International v OHIM — McKenzie (McKENZIE)

(Case T-502/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative trade mark McKENZIE - Earlier Community figurative and word marks McKINLEY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 194/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: IIC-Intersport International Corp. GmbH (Ostermundigen, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Steinhauser, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: The McKenzie Corporation Ltd (Ponteland Village, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Alexander QC, R. Kempner and O.M. Delafaille, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 October 2007 (Case R 1425/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between The McKenzie Corporation Ltd and IIC — Intersport International Corp. GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders IIC-Intersport International Corp. GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders IIC-Intersport International Corp. GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

1

---
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 Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Tidwell, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.  Date: December 19, 2011  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
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 Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Tidwell, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.  Date: June 14, 2016  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Lamar Rashad LINEBERGER

No. COA17-201

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 15, 2017

REVERSED. REMANDED.
Roskin v Northern Adult Day Health Care Ctr. 2023 NY Slip Op 34548(U) December 28, 2023 Supreme Court, Kings County
Docket Number: Index No. 504323/2017 Judge: Genine D. Edwards Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001 (U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

This decision has been published at 2023 NY Slip Op 51 4 41(U).
March20, 2013

**CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

Referenceis made to the Annual Information Form to be included in the Annual Report onForm 40-F (collectively, the “40-F”) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. to be filed withthe United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934.

Ihereby consent to (i) the references to my name in the 40-F as an author of thereport entitled “Bisha Polymetallic Operation, Eritrea, Africa, NI 43-101Technical Report” dated August 31, 2012, and (ii) to the use of the reports inthe 40-F.

***/s/ Mike Waldegger***_________________________Mike Waldegger, P. Geo. AGP  Mining Consultants, Inc.

----
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Donald R. Kiepert,
Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Point Therapeutics, Inc. on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report of Point Therapeutics, Inc. on Form 10-K, as amended, fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Point Therapeutics, Inc.



By:

/s/    DONALD R. KIEPERT, JR.Name: Title: Date:

Donald R. Kiepert, Jr. President and Chief Executive
Officer April 29, 2004




I, Richard N.
Small, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Point Therapeutics, Inc. on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 2003 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report Point Therapeutics, Inc. on Form 10-K, as amended, fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Point Therapeutics, Inc.



By:

/s/    RICHARD N. SMALLName: Title:

Richard N. Small Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial OfficerDate:

April 29, 2004




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Point Therapeutics, Inc. and will be retained by Point Therapeutics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jerome HARRIS

No. 174P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

John Keating Wiles, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Harris, Jerome.

Marc X. Sneed, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th of June 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."

Morgan, J. recused
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED APRIL 30, 1996 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1996
<CASH>                                             676
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      558
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     30,246
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          21,324
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,336
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,518
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,135<F1>
<BONDS>                                            548
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,518
<SALES>                                          3,421
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,504
<CGS>                                            1,880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,999
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (548)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 232
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,821
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,193
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,628
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,628
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
<FN>
<F1>The Company utilizes an unclassified balance sheet presentation. This format
was followed based on the premise that the videocassette rental inventory
represents assets used by the Company to generate current operating income,
and management believes that to classify all of these costs as noncurrent would
be misleading to the readers of the financial statements because it would not
indicate the level of assets expected to be converted into cash in the next
year as a result of the rentals of the videocassettes.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Hall v. Sison

433P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Steven James Hall, For Hall, Steven James.

*371The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of November 2016 by Plaintiff for Court Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 1, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136575 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136575 

 COA: 275688 

Wayne CC: 06-003170-01

CORY LEE DONALD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 10, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0924 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 1, 2008 

 Clerk
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00294-CV

SUNSET INVESTMENTS, INC. d/b/a Rainbow Play Systems of San Antonio, 

and Darren L. Patrick,

Appellants

v.

PLAYLAND ADVENTURES, INC.,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CVF-000402D4

Honorable O.J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 1, 2008

DISMISSED AS MOOT

Appellants Sunset Investments, Inc. d/b/a Rainbow Play Systems of San Antonio and Darren

L. Patrick appeal from the trial court’s temporary injunction, signed on April 11, 2008. However,

because that order has now expired, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

The temporary injunction states that it “shall be effective immediately and binding on

Defendants Sunset Investments, Inc. d/b/a Rainbow Play Systems of San Antonio and Darren L.

Patrick and shall continue in full force and effect until August 11, 2008, at 8:30 a.m., the day of the
04-08-00294-CV

1

... We note that if an appeal involves the same record as a previous appeal, any appellant can move to transfer

the appellate record from one appeal to another.

-2-

trial on the merits or until further order of this Court [the trial court].” (emphasis added).

Therefore, the trial court’s temporary injunction expired on August 11, 2008.

“It is well settled that a controversy must exist between the parties at every stage of the legal

proceedings, including the appeal.” Bd. of Adjustment v. Wende, 92 S.W.3d 424, 427 (Tex. 2002)

(quotations omitted). “If a controversy ceases to exist - the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or

the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome - the case becomes moot.” Id.

(quotations omitted).

Here, because the temporary injunction has expired, any controversy regarding the temporary

injunction has ceased to exist and is now moot. We have no jurisdiction to review an appeal that has

become moot. See id. Therefore, on September 8, 2008, we issued an order demanding the parties

to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. In response, appellants have filed

a motion requesting that we “stay issuance of an order dismissing the appeal as moot until the trial”

of the underlying case. Appellants worry that once we dismiss this appeal as moot and lose plenary

power over the appeal, appellee will seek an extension of the temporary injunction based on the

same record before this Court, requiring appellants to re-file an identical appeal.1

 We deny

appellants’ motion. 

We dismiss this appeal as moot.

Karen Angelini, Justice
CVI Q2 2014 Exhibit 10.2


Exhibit 10.2


SECOND AMENDMENT TO 
SERVICES AGREEMENT




THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO SERVICES AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is entered into as of June 27, 2014 by and between CVR Refining, LP, a Delaware limited partnership ("MLP"), CVR Refining GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("GP"), and CVR Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("CVR", and collectively with MLP and GP, the "Parties" and each, a "Party").


RECITALS


The Parties entered into a Services Agreement effective as of December 31, 2012, as amended February 17, 2014 (the "Agreement"), pursuant to which CVR agreed to provide the Services to the Services Recipients.  The Parties desire to amend the Agreement in the manner set forth in this Amendment.


The parties agree as follows:


1.Capitalized Terms.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.


2.The definition of “Share-Based Compensation” contained in Section 1.01 of the Agreement is amended and restated to read as follows:


"Share-Based Compensation" means any compensation accruing or payable under any incentive or other compensation plan or program of an employer based upon changes in the equity value of such employer or any of its Affiliates (but excluding the MLP, CVR Partners, LP and their respective subsidiaries).


3.Effective Date.  Each of the amendments contemplated by this Amendment is effective as of April 1, 2014 (the "Effective Date").


4.Ratify Agreement.  Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement will remain unamended and in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.  The amendments provided herein will be limited precisely as drafted and will not constitute an amendment of any other term, condition or provision of the Agreement.  References in the Agreement to "Agreement", "hereof", "herein", and words of similar import are deemed to be a reference to the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.


5.Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original and all of which constitute one agreement that is binding upon each of the parties, notwithstanding that all parties are not signatories to the same counterpart.















The parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above, but effective as of the Effective Date.


	
				
	CVR Refining, LP
By: CVR Refining GP, LLC, its general partner




	CVR Refining GP, LLC

	By:
	/s/ Susan M. Ball
	By:
	/s/ Susan M. Ball

	Name:
	Susan M. Ball
	Name:
	Susan M. Ball

	Title:
	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
	Title:
	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer








	
		
	CVR Energy, Inc.







	By:
	/s/ John J. Lipinski

	Name:
	John J. Lipinski

	Title:
	Chief Executive Officer and President
EASTERN CAROLINA REGIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. LOFTON.

No. 32PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 14, 2015.

Thomas E. Stroud, Raleigh, for Eastern Carolina Regional Housing Authority.

E. Bradley Evans, Winterville, for Eastern Carolina Regional Housing Authority.

John R. Keller, for Lofton, Sherbreda.

Andrew Cogdell, Morganton, for Lofton, Sherbreda.

Theodore O. Fillette, III, Charlotte, for Lofton, Sherbreda.

*312Cheryl A. Marteney, for Eastern Carolina Regional Housing Authority.

Michael J. Parrish, New Bern, for Eastern Carolina Regional Housing Authority.

Peter Gilbert, for Lofton, Sherbreda.

Charles Francis, for Raleigh Housing Authority.

Celia Pistolis, Raleigh, for Lofton, Sherbreda.

William K. Brownlee, Raleigh, for Apartment Association of North Carolina.

Ruth Sheeham, for Raleigh Housing Authority.

Alan D. Woodlief, Jr., Raleigh, for Raleigh Housing Authority.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of July 2015 by Apartment Association of NC for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of July 2015."

ERVIN, J. recused.

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
State of North Carolina v. Twyan Kenneth Coleman, Defendant.

No. COA16-305

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 1, 2016

NO ERROR.
**Exhibit 21.1**SUBSIDIARIES OF WINSTON HOTELS, INC.The following is a list of certain direct and indirect subsidiaries of WinstonHotels, Inc., and their respective states of incorporation:   Name Jurisdiction of Incorporation WINN Limited Partnership ** North CarolinaBarclay Holding, Inc. DelawareBarclay Hospitality Services, Inc. North CarolinaMarsh Landing Lessee, LLC North CarolinaChapel Hill Lessee, LLC North CarolinaNew Stanley Associates Lessee, LLC DelawareGateway Hotel Lessee, LLC Delaware131 East Redwood (Tenant), LLC MarylandMarsh Landing Hotel Associates, LLC DelawareChapel Hill Hotel Associates, LLC North CarolinaNew Stanley Associates, LLLP ColoradoGateway Hotel Associates, LLC Delaware131 East Redwood (Landlord), LLC MarylandEvanston Hotel Associates, LLC DelawareWinston Kansas City, LP DelawareWinston Manager Corporation VirginiaWinston SPE, LLC VirginiaWinston Manager II, LLC DelawareWinston SPE II, LLC DelawareWinston Finance Partners, LLC DelawareWinston Finance Partners II, LLC DelawareWinston Finance, LLC DelawareWinston Finance Charlotte, LLC DelawareWinston Opportunity Management, LLC North CarolinaWinston Hotels Opportunity Venture, LLC DelawareWCC Project Company, LLC DelawareWNC Project Company, LLC Delaware  ** As of December 31, 2005, Winston Hotels, Inc. was the solegeneral partner and owned 95.33% of WINN Limited Partnership (alsodoes business under: WINN Limited Partnership of North Carolina(Florida), WINN Operating Limited Partnership (Texas) and NorthCarolina WINN Limited Partnership (Arizona)).
92
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Steven R. Vigliotti, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Investment Technology Group, Inc.; and

 

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.

 
| Date: June 19, 2014 |                                          |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                     | /s/ STEVEN R. VIGLIOTTI                       |
|                     |                                          |
|                     | Steven R. Vigliotti *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.2**
I, Richard Pyle, Chief Financial Officer of Town Sports International Holdings, Inc., certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Town Sports International Holdings,Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information includedin this quarterly report fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report isbeing prepared;
          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and presented inthis 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 overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting;
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;
Date: May 3, 2005     By: /s/ Richard Pyle        Richard Pyle   *Chief Financial Officer*   *Office of the President*