alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013178EN.01000801.xml

| 22.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2013 — macros consult v OHIM — MIP Metro (makro)

(Case T-579/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark makro - Company name macros consult GmbH - Right acquired prior to the application for registration of a Community trade mark and entitling its holder to prohibit the use of the Community trade mark applied for - Non-registered signs protected under German law - Article 5 of the Markengesetz - Article 8(4), Article 53(1)(c), and Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 178/13

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: macros consult GmbH — Unternehmensberatung für Wirtschafts- und Finanztechnologie (Ottobrunn, Germany) (represented initially by T. Raible, and subsequently by M. Daubenmerkl, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by R. Manea, and subsequently by G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2010 (Case R 339/2009-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between macros consult GmbH — Unternehmensberatung für Wirtschafts- und Finanztechnologie and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders macros consult GmbH — Unternehmensberatung für Wirtschafts- und Finanztechnologie to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders macros consult GmbH — Unternehmensberatung für Wirtschafts- und Finanztechnologie to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.

1

---
# C_2010346EN.01004202.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/42

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2010 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-18/10 R II)

(Applications for interim measures - Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 - Trade in seal products - Ban on import and sale - Exception in favour of Inuit communities - Second application for suspension of operation of a measure - New facts - No urgency)

2010/C 346/85

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (Ottawa, Canada), Nativak Hunters and Trappers Association (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada), Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association (Pangnirtung, Canada), Jaypootie Moesesie (Qikiqtarjuaq), Allen Kooneeliusie (Qikiqtarjuaq), Toomasie Newkingnak (Qikiqtarjuaq), David Kuptana (Ulukhaktok, Canada), Karliin Aariak (Iqaluit, Canada), Canadian Seal Marketing Group (Quebec, Canada), Ta Ma Su Seal Products (Cap-aux-Meules, Canada), Fur Institute of Canada (Ottawa), NuTan Furs, Inc. (Catalina, Canada), GC Rieber Skinn AS (Bergen, Norway), Inuit Circumpolar Conference Greenland (ICC) (Nuuk, Greenland, Denmark), Johannes Egede (Nuuk), Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) (Nuuk) (represented by: J. Bouckaert and H. Viaene, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: I. Anagnostopoulou and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

Defendants:

Interveners in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: É. White, P. Oliver and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents); and Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, Y. de Vries, J. Langer and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products (OJ 2009 L 286, p. 36).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of the President of the General Court of 19 August 2010 in Case T-18/10 R II Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, not published in the ECR, is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of the President of the General Court of 19 August 2010 in Case T-18/10 R II Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, not published in the ECR, is cancelled.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-1583

___________________________

Rex Gard

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Bob Dooley, Chief Warden; Jenifer Stanwick, Deputy Warden; Rebecca Schieffer,

Associate Warden; Susan Jacobs, Associate Warden; Other DOC Staff, unknown

at this time, in their individual and official capacities

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls

____________

 Submitted: April 16, 2018

Filed: April 30, 2018 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
South Dakota inmate Rex Gard appeals after the district court adversely

1

granted summary judgment on his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint asserting claims

under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the Free Exercise

Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause.

After careful de novo review, see Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024

(8th Cir. 2012), we conclude that the district court appropriately granted summary

judgment for the reasons outlined in the Report and Recommendation of the

magistrate judge. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the

1

District of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Veronica L. Duffy, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota.

-2-
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Seeks Applications for Technical Assistance and Training Grants

 WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2020 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Deputy Under Secretary for Rural 

Development Donald “DJ” LaVoy today announced that USDA is accepting Fiscal Year 2020 applications for 

grants to help rural communities expand their capacity to access financial resources for economic development.

 USDA is making grants available under the Community Facilities Technical Assistance and Training Grant 

Program. These grants help rural communities with limited resources and staff access USDA funding for 

essential community facilities.

 Eligible recipients are public entities, private nonprofit organizations and federally recognized tribes. Funding 

priority will be made to organizations that have experience providing technical assistance and training to rural 

entities. 

 Funds may be used to help rural communities identify financial resources, improve community facilities 

management functions, and prepare reports, surveys and applications. 

 Electronic applications must be submitted to grants.gov by April 30, 2020, at midnight Eastern Standard Time. 

Paper applications must be submitted to the applicant’s nearest USDA office by May 5, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. local 

time. Additional information is available on page 9730 of the Feb. 20, 2020, Federal Register.

 USDA encourages applications that will support recommendations made in the Report to the President of the 

United States from the Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity (PDF, 5.4 MB) to help improve the 

quality of life in rural America. Applicants are encouraged to consider projects that provide measurable results 

in helping rural communities build robust and sustainable economies through strategic investments in 

infrastructure, partnerships and innovation. Key strategies include:

• Achieving e-Connectivity for Rural America

• Developing the Rural Economy

• Harnessing Technological Innovation

• Supporting a Rural Workforce

• Improving Quality of Life 

USDA also encourages applications that will support the Administration’s goal to combat substance use 

disorder, including opioid misuse, in high-risk rural communities by strengthening the capacity to address 

prevention, treatment and/or recovery.

# 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Offers Temporary Payment Deferrals for the Community Facilities Direct Loan Program

WASHINGTON, April 21, 2020 – USDA Rural Development Deputy Under Secretary Bette Brand today 

announced that USDA is temporarily deferring payment for borrowers participating in the USDA Community 

Facilities Direct Loan program due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Effective May 12, 2020, through September 30, 2020, the USDA Community Facilities Direct Loan Program

will temporarily allow borrowers with direct loans to request payment deferrals to assist those that are

experiencing temporary cash flow issues due to the pandemic. 

On a case-by-case basis, USDA will provide the option of principal and interest payment deferrals to borrowers 

impacted by COVID-19 for up to one year due to hardship. The borrower must request any payment deferments 

from the Agency in writing.

For additional information, please see page 22009 of the April 21, 2020, Federal Register.

Questions regarding this announcement may be directed to your USDA Rural Development (RD) State Office. 

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
# C_2011113EN.01002102.xml

| 9.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/21

---

Order of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — HIM v Commission

(Case T-316/10) (1)

1

2011/C 113/44

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.

1

---
### §3202. Dual service of management official as management official of unaffiliated institution or holding company in same area, town, or village prohibited

A management official of a depository institution or a depository holding company may not serve as a management official of any other depository institution or depository holding company not affiliated therewith if an office of one of the institutions or any depository institution that is an affiliate of such institutions is located within either—

(1) the same primary metropolitan statistical area, the same metropolitan statistical area, or the same consolidated metropolitan statistical area that is not comprised of designated primary metropolitan statistical areas as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, except in the case of depository institutions with less than $50,000,000 in assets in which case the provision of paragraph (2) shall apply, as that in which an office of the other institution or any depository institution that is an affiliate of such other institution is located, or

(2) the same city, town, or village as that in which an office of the other institution or any depository institution that is an affiliate of such other institution is located, or in any city, town, or village contiguous or adjacent thereto.

(Pub. L. 95–630, title II, §203, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3673; Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title VII, §701(c)], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1267; Pub. L. 109–351, title VI, §610, Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 1984.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2006—Par. (1). Pub. L. 109–351 substituted "$50,000,000" for "$20,000,000".

1983—Par. (1). Pub. L. 98–181 substituted "primary metropolitan statistical area, the same metropolitan statistical area, or the same consolidated metropolitan statistical area that is not comprised of designated primary metropolitan statistical areas" for "standard metropolitan statistical area".

#### **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.
£
a
3
ee]
3
FS
s
z
&
z
5
5
é
=
SCWC-14-0001016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

MICKEY A. MADDOX, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

MAUI POLICE DEPARTMENT; CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND

CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-14-0001016; CIV. NO. 13-1-0900(1))

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the application for writ of

certiorari, filed on April 6, 2015, and the record, it appears

that the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”) did not gravely

err in entering its March 5, 2015 order dismissing Petitioner’s

appeal inasmuch as the circuit court did not reduce the June 12,

2014 order of dismissal and the June 30, 2014 order denying the

motion to set aside the order of dismissal and reinstate the

action to a judgment on a separate document. As noted by the

ICA, and consistent with Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming &

Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 869 P.2d 1334 (1994) and HRCP Rule 58,

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-14-0001016

14-MAY-2015

08:12 AM
the circuit court’s June 12, 2014 and June 30, 2014 orders are

required to be reduced by the circuit court to a separate

judgment in order to, inter alia, permit an appeal from these

orders. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application for writ of

certiorari is rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 14, 2015.

Mickey A. Maddox, 

petitioner pro se

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
#### § 73.1b Quarantine policy.

Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 *et seq.*), the Secretary may promulgate regulations and may prohibit or restrict the movement in interstate commerce of any animal, article, or means of conveyance as the Secretary determines necessary to prevent the introduction or dissemination of any pest or disease of livestock. Pursuant to this authority, the Department has quarantined various areas because of cattle scabies and has issued the regulations in this part governing the interstate movement of cattle from such areas. It is the policy of the Department to quarantine those portions of any State that are clearly identifiable, and in which exist animals affected with cattle scabies, or mites which are the contagion of said disease and not to quarantine an entire State for cattle scabies if the State adopts and enforces requirements for the intrastate movement of cattle that are at least as stringent as the requirements in the regulations in this part for interstate movements of cattle. Further, it is the policy of the Department to remove the quarantine from any quarantined area when it is determined that scabies-affected animals and the mites which are the contagion of scabies no longer exist in such areas.

[38 FR 31671, Nov. 16, 1973, as amended at 68 FR 6343, Feb. 7, 2003]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           9,757                  29,720
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,613                   1,324
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                       1,507,613                 683,515
<DEPRECIATION>                                  74,584                  41,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,469,472                 689,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                         57                      58
<COMMON>                                           180                     169
<OTHER-SE>                                     394,978                 396,308
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,469,472                 689,714
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               169,537                 109,475
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,288                  47,560
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,447                  20,573
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,058                  17,188
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,058                  17,188
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (422)                 (1,848)
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,396                  13,182
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .53                     .90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53                     .89


</TABLE>
#### William Harvey, Respondent, v Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

[827 NYS2d 6]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered April 20, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs cause of action based on General Business Law § 349, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 19, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff purchased from defendant a term life insurance policy that included coverage for his listed children up to their respective 25th birthdays. He alleged a deceptive practice for the manner in which this “Child Rider” endorsement was marketed, in violation of General Business Law § 349, in that consumers could reasonably believe their children might still be covered, even after age 25, as long as premiums continued to be paid *(see Sherry v Citibank,*5 AD3d 335, 336 [2004]).

Defendant contends the lawsuit is untimely because plaintiffs youngest child turned 25 in 1999, four years prior to commencement of this suit. However, plaintiff claims to have continued to pay premiums for this Child Rider into 2003, by which time the rider was no longer providing coverage for his children. What is alleged is a “continuing wrong,” which—for purposes of our statute of limitations (CPLR 203)—is “deemed to have accrued on the date of the last wrongful act” *(Leonhard v United States,*633 F2d 599, 613 [2d Cir 1980], *cert denied*451 US 908 [1981]). Accordingly, the commencement of this action in 2004 was timely. We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Friedman, J.R, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
#### Myer *v.*First National Bank of Rensselaer.

[No. 12,320.

Filed June 24, 1925.

Rehearing denied December 15, 1925.]

From Newton Circuit Court; *Burton B. Berry,*Special Judge.

Action between W. LeRoy Myer and the First National Bank of Rensselaer. From the judgment rendered, the former appeals. *Affirmed.*By the court in banc.

*William Darrooh, John A. Dunlap*and *Hume L. Sammons,*for appellant.

*Hanley & Hanley*and *Emory B. Sellers,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause was argued orally, and, upon such argument, the counsel for appellant conceded that the controlling question in this case was the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain certain specified special findings, and that if the evidence was sufficient, this cause must be affirmed. The entire evidence has been carefully read; we hold it sufficient to sustain the finding questioned.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund XV, Ltd. at December 31, 1997, and its statement of
income for the year then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
the Form 10K of CNL Income Fund XV, Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,614,708
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,888
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      22,946,739
<DEPRECIATION>                                 801,601
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,045,723
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,223,403
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,045,723
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,668,765
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  473,109
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,434,905
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,434,905
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,434,905
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund XV, Ltd. has an
unclassified balance sheet; therefore, no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        



</TABLE>