alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006310EN.01002302.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/23

---

Action brought on 20 October 2006 — Nordmilch v OHIM (Vitality)

(Case T-294/06)

(2006/C 310/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Nordmilch eG (Zeven, Germany) (represented by R. Schneider, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2006 in Case R 746/2004-4 in so far as it dismisses the applicant's appeal |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2006 in Case R 746/2004-4 in so far as it dismisses the applicant's appeal

| — | order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant's costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Vitality’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 32, 33 and 43 (Application No 2 835 684).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal to register

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The ground for denying the mark protection which is given in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) does not preclude registration as the mark for which registration is sought makes it immediately possible for the relevant public to recognise the origin of the goods protected by that mark and to distinguish them from the goods of other enterprises.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

1

---
#### § 700.65 Farm operation.

Farm operation means any activity conducted for the production of one or more agricultural products or commodities including livestock, crops and timber for sale or home use, and customarily producing such products or commodities in sufficient quantity to be capable of contributing materially to the operator's support as determined in § 700.171(b)(3).
-  Home 
-  About 

# In This Section

                      -  Who We Are 
                      -  PHMSA Guidance 
                      -  Organization 
                      -  Leadership 
                      -  PHMSA FAQs 
                      -  Careers 
                      -  Working with PHMSA 

## Contact Us

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Phone:**202-366-4433****Fax:**202-366-3666**

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# PHMSA FAQs

## Frequently Asked Questions

The Frequently Asked Questions below have been compiled and grouped by topic. 

In some cases, the same question and answer pair may be in more than one FAQ group to help you locate the information.
                      - General FAQs
                      - Privacy Policy FAQs

## Hazardous Materials Safety

                      - Hazardous Materials Information Center (HMIC)
                      - Hazardous Materials Safety FAQs
                      - Training FAQs
                      - Security Training FAQs
                      - Approvals
                      - Cylinder Approvals: Overfilling Prevention Device (OPD)
                      - Fireworks Approvals
                      - Special Permits
                      - PHMSA's Online CFR (oCFR)
                      - Frequently Asked Questions Based on Letters of Interpretation

## Pipeline Safety

                      - Temporary Repair and Permanent Repair FAQs
                      - Gathering Pipelines FAQs
                      - General Pipeline FAQs
                      - PHMSA and Pipelines FAQs
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 666 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      November 3, 2000.
    Resolved, That any organizational caucus or conference in the House of 
Representatives for the One Hundred Seventh Congress may begin on or after 
November 13, 2000.
    Sec. 2. As used in this resolution, the term ``organizational caucus or 
conference'' means a party caucus or conference authorized to be called under 
section 202(a) of House Resolution 988, Ninety-third Congress, agreed to on 
October 8, 1974, and enacted into permanent law by chapter III of title I of the 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1975 (2 U.S.C. 29a(a)).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
|     |                                                                                                                            |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (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 result of operations of the Company. |

|                                                                                                       |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                       |  |  |
|                                                                                                  |   |   |
| /s/ ZACHARY C. PARKERZachary C. Parker Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |   | /s/ KATHRYN M. JOHNBULLKathryn M. JohnBull Chief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer) |
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

PreventionPublic HealthDrug AbuseAlcohol AbuseDepression (Psychology)Child AbuseAt Risk PersonsParent Child RelationshipProgram DescriptionsBehavior Change

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
H. Res. 546

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 12, 2000.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 4811) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. The

first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of

order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. When the reading for

amendment reaches section 587, that section shall be considered as read. Points of order against provisions in the bill for

failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except

as follows: beginning with ‘‘: Provided’’ on page 11, line 23,
2

•HRES 546 EH

through page 12, line 8; page 80, lines 18 through 24; page

121, line 1, through page 122, line 12. Where points of order

are waived against part of a paragraph, points of order

against a provision in another part of such paragraph may

be made only against such provision and not against the entire paragraph. Before consideration of any other amendment

to section 587, it shall be in order to consider, and to dispose

of, an amendment to strike that section. During consideration

of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee

of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis

of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it

to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman

of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time

during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole

a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting

on any postponed question that follows another electronic

vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum

time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. During consideration of the bill,

points of order against amendments for failure to comply

with clause 2(e) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion

of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
3

•HRES 546 EH

shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall

be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto

to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
### **CHAPTER 11A—FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION**

Sec.
1451.
Definitions.
1452.
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.
1453.
Capitalization of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.
1454.
Purchase and sale of mortgages; residential mortgages; conventional mortgages; terms and conditions of sale or other disposition; authority to enter into, perform, and carry out transactions.
1455.
Obligations and securities of the Corporation.
1456.
Immunity of Corporation; audits and reporting requirements; data collection; Housing Advisory Council.
1457.
Prohibited activities; penalties for violations by organizations, officers and members of organizations, and individuals.
1458.
Territorial applicability.
1459.
Separability.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-80 

November 28, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

4007(b) Payment of Premiums. Penalties and Interest 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter of October 3, 1975, requesting that no penalty be levied against either of the above

referenced plans as a result of late premium payments. 

We regret that we are unable to grant your request. We are sympathetic with the unfortunate circumstances which

you have described. Those circumstances might have been sufficient to grant a waiver of a late payment charge, if a

request had been made before the due date. See section 4007(b) of the Act. However, a request for a waiver of late

payment charges filed after that period is subject to a more stringent test. 

Accordingly, you will receive a billing in the near future from the PBGC for the applicable interest and late payment

charges. We have also noted that the premiums due for the plan year in progress on the date of enactment were not

timely and the appropriate charges will be included in the billing. 

Steven E. Schanes 

Executive Director
(No. 30763.

#### George Huschen, Appellee, *vs.*Mary Huschen, Appellant.

*Opinion filed November 18, 1948.*

Dwight H. Doss, of Monticello, and Leo F. Cavanaugh, of Peoria, for appellant.

Walter G. Cunningham, and Dunkelberg & Rust, both of Pekin, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Crampton

delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant appeals from an order of the circuit court of Tazewell County denying her motion to vacate a decree for divorce. The appeal is taken directly to this court on the theory that a freehold is involved.

On January 9, 1948, the court entered a decree granting a divorce to the plaintiff and providing that the parties shall hold and own all real estate free from any homestead, dower or other interest of the other party therein. No *519appeal has been taken from that decree. Within 30 days thereafter defendant filed her motion, supported by affidavits, asking that the decree be set aside, and that she be permitted to amend her answer and offer evidence. As grounds therefor the motion recites certain facts alleged to constitute a valid defense to the suit, and certain other facts alleged to entitle her to an equitable interest in plaintiff’s real estate. The motion further recites that defendant received no word of any hearing to be had or decree entered until January 27, 1948.

The affidavits are executed by her attorney and his secretary, respectively. They state in substance that on the day before the date set for the hearing defendant’s attorney, having been ill, caused his secretary to advise plaintiff’s attorney by telephone that he would be unavailable for the hearing and desired a postponement thereof; that plaintiff’s attorney replied that he would confer with the judge and report the situation the following morning; and that neither defendant’s attorney nor his secretary received any further communication with reference thereto until after the decree had been entered.

At the outset of this case we are met with the question of this court’s jurisdiction. Although neither party has questioned our jurisdiction, it is necessary that we consider this matter of our own motion. Neither the consent of the parties nor their desire to have this court pass on the cause can confer jurisdiction if we do not have it under the constitution and statute. *Williams*v. *Williams,*381 Ill. 507.

To give this court jurisdiction it is necessary that a freehold be involved in the issues to be settled on appeal. *(Rawlins*v. *Bogusiewicz,*397 Ill. 548; *Wainwright*v. *McDonough,*364 Ill. 626.) The only question involved in this appeal is whether the court erred in denying the motion to vacate the decree. The effect of vacating the decree would be to leave the cause for trial with the issues unde*520termined. Defendant would not thereby gain a freehold, nor would plaintiff lose one. The assignments of error clearly do not present a question of freehold or any other matter which would give this court jurisdiction. It is therefore our duty to decline to proceed herein, and to transfer the cause to the Appellate Court for the Third District.

, *Cause transferred.*
# C_2006310EN.01001503.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/15

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 2006 — Pessoa e Costa v Commission

(Case T-503/04) (1)

1

(Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Interinstitutional transfer to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) - Refusal - Effect on disciplinary proceedings)

(2006/C 310/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: José Pedro Pessoa e Costa (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of 9 October 2003 by which the Director General of the Commission 'Personnel and administration' Directorate General refused to transfer the applicant to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.

1

---
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

77-170 

November 30, 1977 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4041(a) Termination by Plan Administrator. Filing of Notice of Intent to Terminate

4041(b) Termination by Plan Administrator. Notice of Sufficiency

4063(a) Liability of Substantial Employer for Withdrawal. Notice of Withdrawal of Substantial Employer

4063(d) Liability of Substantial Employer for Withdrawal. Partitioning of Plan 

OPINION: 

 This responds to your request for a determination by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC")

whether a distribution of certain employee contributions upon an employer withdrawal from the above-named plan (the

"Plan") constitutes a violation of Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act"). 29

U.S.C. § § 1301-1382 (Supp. V. 1975). It is your position that a distribution of assets under the facts in this case does

not constitute a Title IV violation. 

The Pertinent facts, as we understand them, are as follows. The Plan is maintained by several participating

employers pursuant to collective bargaining agreements. Under the Plan, benefits are payable to participants without

regard to the withdrawal of their respective employer. During * * *, several employers withdrew participation from the

Plan. Because the [*2] affected employers are "substantial" employers within the meaning of § 4001(a)(1), 29 U.S.C.

§ 1301(a)(1), the plan administrator filed notices with the PBGC in accordance with § 4063(a) of the Act. 29 U.S.C.

§ 1363(a). 

Article * * * of the Plan provides for a return of all mandatoey employee contributions, plus interest, to employees

who leave covered service under the Plan. You state that the plan administrator has not made such distributions to the

participants of the withdrawn employers because of the possible applicability of § 4041(a) which prohibits distributions

from a terminating plan before the issuance of a notice of sufficiency pursuant to § 4041(b) of the Act. 29 U.S.C. §

1341. 

 The provisions of § 4041 are applicable only to plans which have terminated or will terminate subject to Title IV

of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances presented here, it appears no termination of the Plan is contemplated.

Moreover, the employer withdrawals do not constitute terminations under Title IV because no "spinoffs" of assets and

liabilities accompanied by a cessation of employer contributions have occurred. Finally, based on the information that

has been furnished, the [*3] PBGC has no present basis for invoking § 4063(d) to partition this Plan and terminate the

portions attributable to these withdrawing employers. 

Based on the foregoing, we find that the provisions of § 4041 of the Act are not applicable to the instant employer

withdrawals from the Plan. Consequently, the return of employee contributions pursuant to Article * * * of the Plan to

participants of the withdrawn employers does not constitute a violation of § 4041(a). 

We hope this is of assistance. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
# C_2006331EN.01002202.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-223/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/51/EC - Company law - Annual accounts of certain types of companies - Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 331/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings (OJ L 178, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

1

---
Exhibit 13.1

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 this annual report on Form 20-F of Manchester United plc (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended
30 June 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joel Glazer, Executive Co-Chairman of the Company and Principal Executive Officer, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



Date:
15 October 2015

By:

/s/ JOEL GLAZER Joel Glazer Executive Co-Chairman
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

INFINITE CUSTOMER SYSTEMS, LLC, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-4564

)

EMIL A. ZARCHEV; KALINKA )

ZARCHEVA; YOUNG PEST CONTROL )

OF COASTAL FLORIDA, INC.; )

BUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP )

PORTFOLIO NO. 13, LLC as )

successor in interest to WASHINGTON )

MUTUAL, )

)

Appellees. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed October 31, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota 

County; Andrea McHugh, Judge.

Jennifer Lima-Smith and Christos Pavlidis 

of Gilbert Garcia Group, P.A., Tampa, for 

Appellant.

Shawn G. Brown of Frazier & Brown, 

Tampa, for Appellees Emil A. Zarchev and 

Kalinka Zarcheva.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

PER CURIAM.
- 2 -

Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

KHOUZAM, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
§ 2.806 What must my Objection to the Statement of Performance contain? Your Objection to the Statement of Performance must be in writing and contain all of the following: ( a ) Your name, address, and telephone number;
( b ) The statement date of the specific Statement of Performance that you are challenging;
( c ) A copy of the Statement of Performance being challenged; and
( d ) The Basis of Objection.