alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007042EN.01002501.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/25

---

Action brought on 11 December 2006 — Bomba Energia Getränke v OHIM — Eckes-Granini (Bomba)

(Case T-372/06)

(2007/C 42/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Bomba Energia Getränke Vertriebs GmbH (Wiener Neudorf, Austria) (represented by: A. Kockläuner, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eckes-Granini GmbH & Co. KG (Nieder-Olm, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | annul in its entirety the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2006 in Appeal Case R 184/2005-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in its entirety the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2006 in Appeal Case R 184/2005-2;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Bomba’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 (Application No 558 874).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Eckes-Granini GmbH & Co. KG.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Various word and figurative marks ‘la bamba’, including the German word mark ‘la bamba’ for goods in Classes 29, 32 and 33.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the application.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in as much as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

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

---
# C_2006326EN.01007002.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/70

---

Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Moreira da Fonseca v OHIM — General Óptica (GENERAL OPTICA)

(Case T-319/06)

(2006/C 326/146)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alberto Jorge Moreira da Fonseca Lda (Santo Tirso, Portugal) (represented by: M. Oehen Mendes, lawyer)

Applicant:

da

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: General Óptica SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 August 2006 notified to the applicant 27 September 2006, in cancellation proceedings No 828C (Case No R 944/2005-1) and consequently declare Community trade mark No 2 436 798‘GENERAL OPTICA’ filed on 5 November 2001 and registered on 20 November 2002, as invalid, or in the alternative, revoked; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 August 2006 notified to the applicant 27 September 2006, in cancellation proceedings No 828C (Case No R 944/2005-1) and consequently declare Community trade mark No 2 436 798‘GENERAL OPTICA’ filed on 5 November 2001 and registered on 20 November 2002, as invalid, or in the alternative, revoked;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘GENERAL OPTICA’ for services in class 42 (Opticians' services) — Community trade mark No 2 436 798

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: General Óptica SA

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The earlier national trade name ‘Generalóptica’ for import and retail sale of optical, precision and photographic apparatus

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of among others Article 8(1) and (4) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the two signs and the applicant's sign is granted national protection.

Pleas in law:

Infringement of Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 as OHIM omitted its duty to ask the applicant to present evidence of the earlier use invoked.

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ANTHONY J. THOMAS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D20-1208

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 16, 2020. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge.

Anthony J. Thomas, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

VILLANTI, LUCAS, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 123

To phase out Federal funding of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19. 1999

Mr. FEINGOLD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To phase out Federal funding of the Tennessee Valley

Authority.

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

3 SECTION 1. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.

4 (a) DISCONTINUANCE OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section

5 27 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16

6 U.S.C. 831z) is amended by inserting ‘‘for fiscal years

7 through fiscal year 2000’’ before the period.

8 (b) PLAN.—Not later than June 1, 1999, the Direc9 tor of the Office of Management and Budget shall develop

10 and submit a plan to Congress that—
2

S 123 IS

1 (1) reviews the nonpower activities conducted

2 by the Tennessee Valley Authority using appro3 priated funds;

4 (2) determines whether the nonpower activities

5 performed by the Tennessee Valley Authority can be

6 adequately performed by other Federal agencies, and

7 if so, describes the resources needed by other agen8 cies to perform such activities;

9 (3) describes ongoing Federal interest in the

10 continuation of the nonpower activities currently

11 performed by the Tennessee Valley Authority; and

12 (4) recommends any legislation that may be ap13 propriate to carry out the objectives of this Act.

Æ
### §3411. Duty of financial institutions

Upon receipt of a request for financial records made by a Government authority under section 3405 or 3407 of this title, the financial institution shall, unless otherwise provided by law, proceed to assemble the records requested and must be prepared to deliver the records to the Government authority upon receipt of the certificate required under section 3403(b) of this title.

(Pub. L. 95–630, title XI, §1111, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3705.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective upon the expiration of 120 days after Nov. 10, 1978, see section 2101 of Pub. L. 95–630, set out as a note under section 375b of this title.
### §2287. Initial capital

The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to advance the funds necessary to provide initial capital to the Bank. Each such advance shall be upon such terms and conditions as to yield a return at a rate not less than a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration the current average yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable maturity. Interest payments on such advances may be deferred, at the discretion of the Secretary, but any such deferred payments shall themselves bear interest at the rate specified in this section. There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $100,000,000, which shall be available for the purposes of this section without fiscal year limitation.

(Pub. L. 93–224, §8, Dec. 29, 1973, 87 Stat. 939.)
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Academic AchievementComparative EducationCross Cultural StudiesEducational ChangeEducational EnvironmentEducational PracticesElementary Secondary EducationForeign CountriesMathematics TeachersNational StandardsScience AchievementScience CurriculumScience EducationScientific ConceptsTeaching Methods

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Identifiers - Assessments and Surveys:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6181
SHAKA MACUMBA ZULU X, a/k/a Thomas Howard, a/k/a Michael Wayne Montgomery, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-135-6-3) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 25, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shaka Macumba Zulu X, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. X v. South Carolina , No. CA-96-135-6-3 (D.S.C. Jan. 22, 1996). 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
#### § 700.49 Certified eligible head of household.

A certified eligible head of household is a person who has received notice from the Commission that he/she has been certified as eligible to receive certain relocation assistance benefits.
# C_2007082EN.01002502.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/25

---

Action brought on 19 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-91/07)

(2007/C 82/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and E. De Persio, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, or at any rate by not informing the Commission thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, or at any rate by not informing the Commission thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time for transposing Directive 2003/86/EC expired on 3 October 2005.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.

1

---
#### Harvey Walker *et al.,*Plaintiffs-Appellants, *v.*John C. Marcin, City Clerk, of Chicago, *et al.,*Defendants-Appellees. Curtis A. Shank *et al.,*Plaintiffs-Appellants, *v.*John C. Marcin, *City*Clerk, of Chicago, *et al.,*Defendants-Appellees.

(Nos. 59213-4 cons.;

First District (3rd Division)

December 5, 1974.

Morton Siegel, of Chicago (Allan Goldberg, of counsel), for appellants.

PER CURIAM.

*792Richard L. Curry, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Daniel Pascale and Lucia T. Thomas, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellee John C. Mamin.

Arthur S. Gomberg and Joel H. Greenburg, both of Chicago, for amicus curiae 8300 South May Block Club.
### §2279f–1. Merger of similar associations

#### (a) In general

Associations may voluntarily merge with other like associations if the plan of merger is approved by—

(1) the Farm Credit Administration Board;

(2) the respective Boards of Directors of the associations involved;

(3) a majority vote of the stockholders of each association voting, in person or by proxy, at a duly authorized stockholders' meeting; and

(4) the Farm Credit Banks involved.

#### (b) Procedures

The provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of section 2279c–1 of this title shall apply to associations merged under this section.

(Pub. L. 92–181, title VII, §7.13, as added Pub. L. 100–233, title IV, §416, Jan. 6, 1988, 101 Stat. 1653; amended Pub. L. 100–399, title IV, §408(s), (t), Aug. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 1003.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1988—Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 100–399, §408(s), substituted "the Farm Credit Banks involved" for "the Farm Credit Bank".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100–399, §408(t), substituted "subsections (b) and (c)" for "subsections (b), (c), and (d)".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–399 effective as if enacted immediately after enactment of Pub. L. 100–233, which was approved Jan. 6, 1988, see section 1001(a) of Pub. L. 100–399, set out as a note under section 2002 of this title.
(logo)RSM

 

**RSMUS LLP**

 

 

**Report ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To the Board of Directors 

Situs Holdings, LLC

 

 

We have examined management’s assertion,included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliancewith Applicable Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (Management’s Assertion), thatSitus Holdings, LLC (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria setforth in Items1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(vii)of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Regulation AB (the applicableservicing criteria) for services by the Company that are encompassed bycontractual obligations to perform Regulation AB reporting for the Operating orTrust Advisor Services Platform (the “Platform”), including only thoseasset-backed securities transactions defined below, as of and for the yearended December 31, 2017. Appendix B to management’s assertion identifies theindividual asset-backed transactions defined by management as constituting thePlatform. Management is responsible for Situs Holdings, LLC’s compliance withthe applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinionon management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria based on ourexamination.

 

Our examination was conducted inaccordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities relatedto the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those activities incompliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period andperforming such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activitiesperformed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly,such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed todetect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to theperiod specified above that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’scompliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertionthat Situs Holdings, LLC complied with the aforementioned applicable servicingcriteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017, for the Platform isfairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/**RSM US LLP**

 

Duluth, Minnesota 

February 28, 2018

 

 

**THE POWER OF BEING UNDERSTOOD**

AUDIT | TAX| CONSULTING

 

 

RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSMInternational, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consultingfirms. Visit rsmus.com/aboutus for more information regarding RSM US LLP andRSM International.
#### § 39.101 Does ISEF assess the actual cost of school operations?

No. ISEF does not attempt to assess the actual cost of school operations either at the local level or in the aggregate at the national level. ISEF provides a method of distribution of funds appropriated by Congress for all schools.
(logo) TORCHLIGHT

 

 

**ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

 

WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust2012-C7, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2012-C7 (the“Trust”)

 

I, Jacob Baron, on behalf ofTorchlight Loan Services, LLC, as special servicer (the “CertifyingServicer”), certify to RBS Commercial Funding Inc., the Depositor, eachOther Depositor and their respective officers, directors and affiliates, andwith the knowledge and intent that they will rely upon this certification,that:

 

1.            I (or Servicing Officers under my supervision) have reviewed the CertifyingServicer’s activities during the year ended December 31, 2016 (the“Reporting Period”) and the Certifying Servicer’s performanceunder the Pooling and Servicing Agreement; and

 

2.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement inall material respects throughout the Reporting Period.  

 

Date:       March 7, 2017

 

 

TORCHLIGHT LOAN SERVICES, LLC

 

By: /s/ Jacob Baron

Name: Jacob Baron

Title: AuthorizedSignatory 

 

 

475 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY10017

T 212.883.2800 F212.883.2560

Einfo@torchlightloanservices.com

   www.torchlightinvestors.com
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 125

To reduce the number of executive branch political appointees.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To reduce the number of executive branch political

appointees.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF POLITICAL AP4 POINTEES.

5 (a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘political

6 appointee’’ means any individual who—

7 (1) is employed in a position on the executive

8 schedule under sections 5312 through 5316 of title

9 5, United States Code;

10 (2) is a limited term appointee, limited emer11 gency appointee, or noncareer appointee in the sen-
2

•S 125 IS

1 ior executive service as defined under section

2 3132(a) (5), (6), and (7) of title 5, United States

3 Code, respectively; or

4 (3) is employed in a position in the executive

5 branch of the Government of a confidential or pol6 icy-determining character under Schedule C of sub7 part C of part 213 of title 5 of the Code of Federal

8 Regulations.

9 (b) LIMITATION.—The President, acting through the

10 Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Per11 sonnel Management, shall take such actions as necessary

12 (including reduction in force actions under procedures es13 tablished under section 3595 of title 5, United States

14 Code) to ensure that the total number of political ap15 pointees shall not exceed 2,000.

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect

17 on October 1, 1999.

Æ
### §924. List of creditors

The debtor shall file a list of creditors.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2623.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### legislative statements

Section 924 of the House amendment is derived from section 924 of the House bill with the location of the filing of the list of creditors to be determined by the rules of bankruptcy procedure. The detailed requirements of section 724 [probably should be "924"] of the Senate bill are anticipated to be incorporated in the rules of bankruptcy procedure.

#### senate report no. 95–989

This section adopts the provision presently contained in section 85(b) of Chapter IX [section 405(b) of former title 11]. A list of creditors, as complete and accurate as practicable, must be filed with the court.

#### house report no. 95–595

This section directs the debtor to file a list of creditors with the court. A comparable provision is presently contained in section 85(b) of chapter IX [section 405(b) of former title 11]. The Rules, in Rule 9–7, copy the provisions of section 85(b), with additional matter. As noted above, section 405(d) of title IV will continue those Rules in effect. Because the form, time of filing, and nature of the list, are procedural matters that may call for some flexibility, those details have been left to the Rules.
#### Prestonsburg Water Company, Appellant, v. T. E. Neeley, Appellee.

(Decided Dec. 17, 1937.)

S. S. WILLIS and ALLEN & TACKETT for appellant.

J. B. CLARKE for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

Creal, Commissioner—

Reversing.

T. E. Neeley bas recovered judgment against tbe Prestonsburg Water Company, a corporation, for dam*248ages in the sum of $800 for the destruction of his residence by fire which he alleged resulted from the failure of the water company to comply with the provisions of tbe franchise under wbicb it was operating its water plant in tbe city of Prestonsburg, and tbe water company is appealing.

Buildings of William Dingus and other persons in the vicinity were destroyed by fire at tbe same time. Tbe pleadings, evidence, instructions, etc., are in all material respects tbe same as in tbe case of Prestonsburg Water Company v. William Dingus, 271 Ky. 240, 111 S. W. (2d) 661, this day decided. Tbe cases were beard together below, tbe appeals have been considered together, and, on tbe authority of tbe opinion in tbe Dingus Case and for tbe reasons therein assigned, tbe judgment is reversed for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Whole court sitting.