alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012126EN.01001401.xml

| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2012 — Ella Valley Vineyards v OHIM — HFP (ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS)

(Case T-32/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS - Earlier national and Community trade marks ELLE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of association - Link between the signs - Reputation - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2012/C 126/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ella Valley Vineyards (Adulam) Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel) (represented by: C. de Haas and O. Vanner, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Hachette Filipacchi Presse (HFP) (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented by: C. Moyou Joly, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2009 (Case R 1293/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Hachette Filipacchi Presse (HFP) and Ella Valley Vineyards (Adulam) Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 November 2009 (Case R 1293/2008-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 November 2009 (Case R 1293/2008-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ella Valley Vineyards (Adulam) Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ella Valley Vineyards (Adulam) Ltd;

| 3. | Orders Hachette Filipacchi Presse (HFP) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Hachette Filipacchi Presse (HFP) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

1

---
September 13,2002

MEMORAI\IDTJM

Subject Owens Lake Background PM-10 Calculation Method

From: Duane Ono

To: Owens Lake Dust ID File

Background PM-10 - I got the background number from Bill Stanley and it turned out to be 19.5

ug/m3 using the lowest PM-10 concentration at any of the 6 sites on exceedance days. The

lowest concentration screens out hous when directions were from the lake bed and when we

have less than 13 hours of hourly PM-10 data for what is left. This number will be rounded to 20

for the modeling. I sent the attached insructior$ on how to do the screening to Mark Schaaf,

Kent Norville, Ken Ricbmond and John Castleberry. Copies were also give to Ellen and Shirley.
Owens Lake Background PM-10 Calculation Method

Drafted: September ll, 2002

Steps To Determine the Background PM-10 Concentration for the Owens Lake model.

Step 1: Identiff all days during the period from January l, 2000 through June 30,2002

when the 24-hour average PM-10 concentration was gteater than 150 ug/m3 at

any of the 6 PM-l0 monitor sites.

Step 2: Compile the hourly PM-10 concentrations for all six sites for exceedance days

identified in Step l. List ttre date, hour, wind speed, and wind direction for each

hotrly PM-10 value.

Step 3: Delete horus when the wind direction comes from the lakeward direction to the

monitor;

Dirty Socks Exclude WD > 270 OR WD < 40

Keeler Exclude 180 < WD < 320

Flat Rock Exclude 235 < WD < 330

Shell Cut Exclude WD > 230 OR WD < 25

Olancha Exclude WD > 350 OR WD < 30

Lone Pine Exclude 130 < WD < 160

Step 4: Calculate the average daily concenfiation for each site after step 3 using the

remaining hours. Do not replace the deleted hours with zero. Show the number

ofhours used for the daily average for each day.

Step 5: List the lowest daily value from Step 4 for any of the 6 sites that have more than

12 hours of PM-10 data.

Step 6: Calculate the average value from Step 5 for the days that are less than 50 ug/m3 to

determine the background PM-10 value.
§ 325.18 Diverting of shipments, breaking of seals, and reloading by carrier in emergency; reporting to Regional Director. ( a ) Shipments of inspected and passed product that bear the inspection legend may be diverted from the original destination without a reinspection of the articles, provided the waybills, transfer bills, running slips, conductor's card, or other papers accompanying the shipments are marked, stamped, or have attached thereto signed statements in accordance with § 325.15.
( b ) In case of wreck or similar extraordinary emergency, the Department seals on a railroad car or other means of conveyance containing any inspected and passed product may be broken by the carrier, and if necessary, the articles may be reloaded into another means of conveyance, or the shipment may be diverted from the original destination, without another shipper's certificate; but in all such cases the carrier shall immediately report the facts by telephone or telegraph to the Regional Director in the area in which the emergency occurs. Such report shall include the following information: ( 1 ) Nature of the emergency.
( 2 ) Place where seals were broken.
( 3 ) Original points of shipment and destination.
( 4 ) Number and initial of the original car or truck.
( 5 ) Number and initials of the car or truck into which the articles are reloaded.
( 6 ) New destination of the shipment.
( 7 ) Kind and amount of articles.
[35 FR 15605, Oct. 3, 1970, as amended at 42 FR 39087, Aug. 2, 1977]
### NUMBER 13

- 14

- 00093

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

HALLMARK MARKETING C OMPANY, LLC , Appellant,

v.
SUSAN COMBS, COMPTRO LLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS OF THE STAT E OF TEXAS; AND GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNE Y GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXA S , Appellee s

.

On appeal from the 126th District Court of Travis County, Texas

.



## ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza and Benavides

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Ha llmark Marketing Company, LLC, has a ttempted to appeal the trial

court’s December 4, 2013 order granting a “First Amended Traditional and No

- Evidence

Cross

- Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” filed by appellees, Susan Combs,2

Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General

of the State of Texas

. Unless an interlocutory appeal is authorized by statute, an appeal may only be

taken from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001).

“[W]hen there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an order or judgment is not

final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party

or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of a ll claims and all

parties.” Id. “ There is no presumption in a partial summary judgment proceeding that the

judgment was intended to dis pose of all parties and issues.” N.Y. Underwriters Ins. Co.

v. Sanchez

, 799 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex. 1990) ; cf. Vaughn v. Drennon , 324 S.W.3d 560,

561 (Tex. 2010) (noting that “ any judgment following a conventional trial on the merits

creates a presumption that the judgment is final for purposes of appeal ”).

The order on appeal in this case granted appellees’ pretrial motion for partial

summary judgment and denied appellant’s motion for partial summary judgment. It did

not state, clearly or otherwise, that it disposed of all claims and parties or that it was final

for purposes of appeal. Moreover, n o interlocutory appeal is permitted by statute. Under

these circumstances, we may abate the appeal to permit clar ification by the trial court

.
S ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 27.2, 44.3, 44.4; Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 206

. Accordingly, we hereby ABATE the appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial

court for clarification. Upon remand, the trial court shall address whether it intended the

December 4, 2013 order to completely dispose of all claims and all parties. The trial court

shall cause its finding s and recommendations, together with any orders it may enter, to

be included in a supplemental clerk ’ s record. Furthermore, the trial court shal l cause a3

supplemental reporter’ s record of any proceedings to be pr epared. The supplemental

clerk’ s r e cord and supplemental reporter’ s record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of

this Court on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of this order. Th e appeal

will be reinstated upon receipt of the foregoing materials and upon further ord er of this

Court.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 6 th day of August

, 201 4

.
<Page>
                                                                     Exhibit 3.3

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                              CAMBRIDGE HEART, INC.

     Pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware, Cambridge Heart, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), does
hereby certify:

     FIRST:    That the Board of Directors of the Corporation, at a meeting on
May 1, 2003, duly adopted resolutions proposing and declaring advisable the
following amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of
the Corporation:

RESOLVED:      That the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the
               Corporation be amended by deleting the first paragraph of Article
               FOURTH in its entirety and inserting the following in lieu
               thereof:

                    "FOURTH. The total number of shares of all classes of stock
               which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is 77,000,000
               shares, consisting of (i) 75,000,000 shares of Common Stock,
               $.001 par value per share ("Common Stock"), and (ii) 2,000,000
               shares of Preferred Stock, $.001 par value per share ("Preferred
               Stock")

     SECOND:   That the stockholders of the Corporation, at the 2003 Annual
Meeting of Stockholders held on June 16, 2003, duly approved said proposed
Certificate of Amendment of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation in
accordance with Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

<Page>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of
Amendment to be signed by its President on this 16th day of June, 2003.

                                   CAMBRIDGE HEART, INC.


                                   By: /s/ David A. Chazanovitz
                                      --------------------------------------
                                      David A. Chazanovitz
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

ORTHOVITA, INC.

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350

I, Antony Koblish, Chief Executive Officer of Orthovita, Inc., a
Pennsylvania corporation (the Company), hereby certify that:

(1) The Companys annual report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



/s/    ANTONY KOBLISHChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


Date: March 16, 2009
# C_2011038EN.01001503.xml

| 5.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Lebedef v Commission

(Case T-52/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Annual leave - Half-time secondment for union representation - Unauthorised absence - Deduction of days from annual leave entitlement - Article 60 of the Staff Regulations)

2011/C 38/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 in Case F-54/09 Lebedef v Commission ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, with the request that the order be set aside.

Lebedef

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | orders Mr Giorgio Lebedef to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Mr Giorgio Lebedef to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in these proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 113 of 1.5.2010.

1

---
(38 South. 902.)

No. 15,550.

#### JACKSON v. McMILLAN et al.

(June 19, 1905.)

APPEAL — AFFIRMANCE.

The court postponed action on this case to await the filing of a brief in support of the appeal, but none having been filed, and the court being now informed that none will be filed, and the judgment being founded upon authentic acts whose genuineness is not contested, the judgment is affirmed.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Second Judicial District Court, Parish of Webster; Richard Cleveland Drew, Judge.

Action by Clem H. Jackson against Milton McMillan and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant McMillan appeals.

Affirmed.

Milton Carter Elstner and Stewart & Steward; for appellant. Lynn Kyle Watkins, for appellee Clem H. Jackson. C. E. McDonald, for appellee W. H. Hinton. Daniel Webster Stewart, for appellee Milton McMillan.

PROVO STY, J.

The court postponed action on this case to await the filing of a brief in support of the appeal, but none having been filed, and the court being now informed that none will be filed, and the judgment being founded upon authentic acts whose genuineness is not contested, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
#### § 1306.4 Rent after acquisition.

If TVA rents real property acquired by it to the former owner or former tenant, the amount of rent shall not exceed the fair rental value on a short-term basis.

[38 FR 3592, Feb. 8, 1973. Redesignated at 52 FR 48019, Dec. 17, 1987]
# C_2014253EN.01002401.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (RIPASSA)

(Case T-595/10) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark RIPASSA - Earlier national word mark VINO DI RIPASSO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))

2014/C 253/33

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cantina Broglie 1 Srl (Peschiera del Garda, Italy) (represented by: A. Rizzoli, lawyer, allowed to replace A. Zenato)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Verona, Italy)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the first Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2010 (Case R 63/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between the Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona and Mr Alberto Zenato

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 September 2010 (Case R 63/2010-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 September 2010 (Case R 63/2010-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

1

---
(logo) pwc  **Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**** **To the Board of Directors, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.: We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association (“Midland” or the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for all transactions serviced onthe *Enterprise!*Loan Management System (the “Platform”), as of December31, 2015 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Companyhas determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform.Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testingof selected servicingactivities related to the Platform, and determining whetherthe Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated 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's compliance with the servicing criteria. In our opinion, management's assertion that Midland complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for the Platformis fairly stated,in all material respects.  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPFebruary 25, 2016  *PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106**T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 218 1890 www.pwc.com/us*
### §5220a. Application of GSE conforming loan limit to mortgages assisted with TARP funds

In making any assistance available to prevent and mitigate foreclosures on residential properties, including any assistance for mortgage modifications, using any amounts made available to the Secretary of the Treasury under title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 [12 U.S.C. 5211 et seq.], the Secretary shall provide that the limitation on the maximum original principal obligation of a mortgage that may be modified, refinanced, made, guaranteed, insured, or otherwise assisted, using such amounts shall not be less than the dollar amount limitation on the maximum original principal obligation of a mortgage that may be purchased by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation that is in effect, at the time that the mortgage is modified, refinanced, made, guaranteed, insured, or otherwise assisted using such amounts, for the area in which the property involved in the transaction is located.

(Pub. L. 111–22, div. A, title II, §205, May 20, 2009, 123 Stat. 1654.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, referred to in text, is div. A of Pub. L. 110–343, Oct. 3, 2008, 122 Stat. 3765. Title I of the Act is classified principally to this subchapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5201 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, and not as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which comprises this chapter.
#### INSUL-CRETE, INC., a Guam Corporation, Plaintiff v. GUAM HOUSING AND URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants

Civil No. 1458-75

Superior Court of Guam

July 6, 1976

ABBATE, *Judge*

DECISION

The bond in issue was obtained by AJB from CIC as surety for its performance of a contract with GHURA. It is CIC’s contention that since the terms of the bond run expressly only to GHURA, that Insul-Crete, as a subcontractor of AJB, lacks sufficient contractual privity to enforce its claim against itself. However, the law on this issue is fairly clear and contrary to CIC’s contention. Simply stated, it is settled that bonds of this nature not only run to the expressly named beneficiary, but as well “inure to the benefit of third parties providing materials and furnishing labor to be used in the construction of the *323building.” See *Gordy v. United Pacific Ins. Group,*243 C.A.2d 445 (1966); *C. O. Sparks, Inc. v. Pacific Coast Paving Co.,*324 P.2d 293 (1958); *Sunset Lumber Co. v. Smith,*267 P. 738 (1928); *W. P. Fuller & Co. v. Alturas School Dist.,*153 P. 743 (1915).

Therefore, Defendant CIC’s motion for summary judgment is hereby denied while Plaintiff Insul-Crete’s motion for summary judgment is hereby granted.

So ordered.
,,€o Si; 47
. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 1 .,l PROW 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 941O539O1


## APR 09 2014
Richard W. Corey Executive Officer CaliforniaAir Resources Board Post Office Bo 2815 Sacramentifornia 95812 Dear orey: On Fe ruary 10, 2014. CARB submittedrevisions to the California State ImplementationPlan (SIP). We have reviewed materials submittedwiththe following rules and found thatthey fulfill the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V.
Agency Rule # Rule Title Imperial County 101 Definitions Imperial County 206 Processing ofApplications Imperial County 400.3 Internal Combustion Engines Imperial County 400.4 Emissions ofOxides from Nitrogen from Wallboard Kilns This addresses all revisions in this submittal. Inthe coming months we will reviewthe complete revisions for action pursuantto Clean AirAct section 110(k). Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Robert Marinaro at (415) 972-3019. Sincerely,

Deborah Jorda Director, Air Division

cc: BradPoiriez, AirPollution Control Officer, Imperial CountyAirPollution Control District Monica Soucier, APC Division Manager, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District Edie Chang, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB Michael Guzzetta, Manager, Rule Evaluation Section, CARB

Printed on Recycled Paper