alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013225EN.01006202.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/62

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Moselland v OHIM — Renta Siete (DIVINUS)

(Case T-214/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DIVINUS - Earlier national figurative mark MOSELLAND Divinum - Existence, validity and extent of the protection of the earlier right - Proof)

2013/C 225/139

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Moselland eG — Winzergenossenschaft (Bernkastel-Kues, Germany) (represented by: M. Dippelhofer, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, S. Schäffner, and subsequently by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Renta Siete, SL (Albacete, Spain)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 February 2010 (Case R 1204/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Moselland eG — Winzergenossenschaft and Renta Siete, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 February 2010 (Case R 1204/2009-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 February 2010 (Case R 1204/2009-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Moselland eG — Winzergenossenschaft for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Moselland eG — Winzergenossenschaft for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

 Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 

August 26, 2016

Order 

Clerk

August 26, 2016

153786(89)

In re HICKS/BROWN, Minors. SC: 153786

COA: 328870

Wayne CC Family Division:

12-506605-NA

_____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Department of Health 

and Human Services for a ten-day extension to the time for all parties to file their 

supplemental briefs is GRANTED. The parties’ supplemental briefs will be accepted as 

timely filed if submitted on or before September 9, 2016.
### §314. Marine industry training program

The Commandant shall, by policy, establish a program under which an officer, member, or employee of the Coast Guard may be assigned to a private entity to further the institutional interests of the Coast Guard with regard to marine safety, including for the purpose of providing training to an officer, member, or employee. Policies to carry out the program—

(1) with regard to an employee of the Coast Guard, shall include provisions, consistent with sections 3702 through 3704 of title 5, as to matters concerning—

(A) the duration and termination of assignments;

(B) reimbursements; and

(C) status, entitlements, benefits, and obligations of program participants; and

(2) shall require the Commandant, before approving the assignment of an officer, member, or employee of the Coast Guard to a private entity, to determine that the assignment is an effective use of the Coast Guard's funds, taking into account the best interests of the Coast Guard and the costs and benefits of alternative methods of achieving the same results and objectives.

(Added Pub. L. 111–281, title V, §521(a), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 2956, §59; amended Pub. L. 113–281, title II, §221(a)(1), Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 3037; renumbered §314, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §104(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4196.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 314, act Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, 63 Stat. 520, related to retiring or dropping for disabilities not incident to service, prior to repeal by act Aug. 3, 1950, ch. 536, §36, 64 Stat. 408. See section 1207 of Title 10, Armed Forces.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 59 of this title as this section.

2014—Pub. L. 113–281 struck out subsec. (a) designation and heading before "The Commandant" and struck out subsec. (b). Text of subsec. (b) read as follows: "Not later than the date of the submission each year of the President's budget request under section 1105 of title 31, the Commandant shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report that describes—

"(1) the number of officers, members, and employees of the Coast Guard assigned to private entities under this section; and

"(2) the specific benefit that accrues to the Coast Guard for each assignment."
No. 19,882.

#### Dave McNeill *v.*The City Council of Cortez, et al.

(365 P. [2d] 687)

Decided October 23, 1961.

Messrs. Armstrong *&*Thompson, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Dilts and Hancock, for defendants in error.

*In Department.*

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Moore.

*278McNeill, the plaintiff in error, applied to the city council of the city of Cortez for the issuance of a license to sell a fermented malt beverage, (3.2) beer.

It is disclosed by the record before us that only one such outlet has been authorized in the entire county of Montezuma, and that it is located at a distance of twenty-five miles from the city of Cortez. The application for the license was denied by the city council and in the district court the action of the council was upheld.

The pertinent facts in all respects are the same as those present in the case of *The KBT Corporation v. Walker,*148 Colo. 274, 365 P. (2d) 685. All that is said in the opinion in that case is fully applicable here.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to order issuance of the license.

Mr. Chief Justice Hall and Mr. Justice Frantz concur.
### §7005. Studies

#### (a) Delivery

Within 12 months after June 30, 2000, the Secretary of Commerce shall conduct an inquiry regarding the effectiveness of the delivery of electronic records to consumers using electronic mail as compared with delivery of written records via the United States Postal Service and private express mail services. The Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress regarding the results of such inquiry by the conclusion of such 12-month period.

#### (b) Study of electronic consent

Within 12 months after June 30, 2000, the Secretary of Commerce and the Federal Trade Commission shall submit a report to the Congress evaluating any benefits provided to consumers by the procedure required by section 7001(c)(1)(C)(ii) of this title; any burdens imposed on electronic commerce by that provision; whether the benefits outweigh the burdens; whether the absence of the procedure required by section 7001(c)(1)(C)(ii) of this title would increase the incidence of fraud directed against consumers; and suggesting any revisions to the provision deemed appropriate by the Secretary and the Commission. In conducting this evaluation, the Secretary and the Commission shall solicit comment from the general public, consumer representatives, and electronic commerce businesses.

(Pub. L. 106–229, title I, §105, June 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 471.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 2000, with exceptions relating to record retention and certain loans, see section 107 of Pub. L. 106–229, set out as a note under section 7001 of this title.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Dana S. Philbrook, hereby certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Service Bancorp, Inc.;



(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



(4) The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



(5) The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ DANA S. PHILBROOK  
|Dana S. Philbrook      
|Chief Financial Officer
|February 10, 2005
§ 1300.105 National origin harassment. It is TVA policy that all TVA employees are responsible for assuring that the workplace is free from national origin harassment. Accordingly, all employees must avoid any action or conduct which could be viewed as national origin harassment, including ethnic slurs and other verbal or physical conduct relating to an individual's national origin when such conduct: ( a ) Has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment;
( b ) Has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance; or
( c ) Otherwise adversely affects an individual's employment opportunities.
### §717l. Complaints

Any State, municipality, or State commission complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any natural-gas company in contravention of the provisions of this chapter may apply to the Commission by petition, which shall briefly state the facts, whereupon a statement of the complaint thus made shall be forwarded by the Commission to such natural-gas company, which shall be called upon to satisfy the complaint or to answer the same in writing within a reasonable time to be specified by the Commission.

(June 21, 1938, ch. 556, §13, 52 Stat. 827.)
# C_2013026EN.01000702.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Brain Products GmbH v BioSemi VOF, Antonius Pieter Kuiper, Robert Jan Gerard Honsbeek, Alexander Coenraad Metting van Rijn

(Case C-219/11) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medical devices - Directive 93/42/EEC - Scope - Interpretation of the concept of ‘medical device’ - Product marketed for non-medical use - Investigation of a physiological process - Free movement of goods)

2013/C 26/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Brain Products GmbH

Applicant:

Defendants: BioSemi VOF, Antonius Pieter Kuiper, Robert Jan Gerard Honsbeek, Alexander Coenraad Metting van Rijn

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of the third indent of Article 1(2)(a) of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1), as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 5 September 2007 (OJ 2007 L 247, p. 21) — Interpretation of the term ‘medical device’ — Application of the directive to an article which is intended for purposes of investigation of a physiological process and which is marketed for a non-medical purpose

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The third indent of Article 1(2)(a) of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘medical device’ covers an object conceived by its manufacturer to be used for human beings for the purpose of investigation of a physiological process only if it is intended for a medical purpose.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

1

---
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 1428 Dir ID: 2015 - NM - 026 - AD
### §5102. Definitions

As used in this chapter—

(1) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Energy;

(2) the term "domestic company" means a company which is substantially involved in the United States domestic production, processing, or use of steel, aluminum, copper, or other metals and has a substantial percentage of its operations located within the United States;

(3) the terms "management plan" and "plan" mean the Steel Initiative Management Plan issued on April 1, 1987, by the Department of Energy, which establishes the management framework for the steel research and development initiative, and updates to that plan; and

(4) the term "research plan" means the Steel Initiative Research Plan issued in April 1988 by the Department of Energy, and updates to that plan.

(Pub. L. 100–680, §3, Nov. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 4073.)
NUMBER 13-22-00044-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE MURRAY THOMPSON CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1

In this original proceeding, relator Murray Thompson Construction Co., Inc. seeks 

to compel the trial court to dismiss the underlying case for want of prosecution. See TEX.

R. CIV. P. 165a.

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem. 

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.

47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial 

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re 

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re 

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts with 

disregard for guiding rules or principles or when it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable 

manner. In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d at 840. We determine the adequacy of an appellate 

remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re 

Acad., Ltd., 625 S.W.3d 19, 25 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Essex Ins., 450 

S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of 

Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, 

the response filed by the real parties in interest, Priscilla Aguilar-Villegas and Maria Irma 

Juarez, as co-administrators of the estate of Ruben Villegas and on behalf of the estate 

of Ruben Villegas, the reply filed by relator, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that 

the relator has not established its right to the relief sought. Accordingly, we deny the 

petition for writ of mandamus.

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice 

Delivered and filed on the

24th day of February, 2022.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of August TechnologyCorporation (the “Company”), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of hisknowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Amendment No. 1 of the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q/Afor the period ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

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

 

 

Date: November 9,2005

 
|   | /s/ Jeff L. O’Dell  |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Jeff L. O’Dell      |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer |
|   |                     |
|   |                     |
|   | /s/ Stanley D.  Piekos   |   |
|   | Stanley D.  Piekos       |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer |
|        |                          |        |  |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to August Technology Corporation and will be retained by August Technology Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 367.1060 Account 106, Completed construction not classified.

At the end of the year or such other date as a balance sheet may be required by the Commission, this account must include the total of the balances of construction projects for service company property which has been completed and placed in service but have not been classified for transfer to the detailed service company property accounts.
#### § 156.9 Protests and interventions.

Notices of applications, as provided by § 156.8 will fix the time within which any person desiring to participate in the proceeding or to file a protest regarding the application, may file a petition to intervene or protest, and within which any interested regulatory agency desiring to intervene may file its notice of intervention. Failure to make timely filing will constitute ground for denial of participation, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances for good cause shown.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 744 

To amend section 175b of title 18, United States Code, to correct a scrivener’s 

error. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 12, 2019 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. CORNYN, and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 175b of title 18, United States Code, 

to correct a scrivener’s error. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Effective Prosecution 

5 of Possession of Biological Toxins and Agents Act of 

6 2019’’. 

7 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON THE POSSESSION OF BIOLOGICAL 

8 TOXINS AND AGENTS. 

9 Section 175b of title 18, United States Code, is 

10 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 744 IS

1 (1) in subsection (a)— 

2 (A) by striking ‘‘(a)(1) No restricted’’ and 

3 all that follows through the end of paragraph 

4 (1) and inserting the following: 

5 ‘‘(a) OFFENSE.— 

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for a 

7 restricted person to— 

8 ‘‘(A) ship, transport, or possess in or af9 fecting interstate or foreign commerce any bio10 logical agent or toxin described in paragraph 

11 (2); or 

12 ‘‘(B) receive any biological agent or toxin 

13 described in paragraph (2) that has been 

14 shipped or transported in interstate or foreign 

15 commerce. 

16 ‘‘(2) AGENTS AND TOXINS COVERED.—A bio17 logical agent or toxin described in this paragraph is 

18 a biological agent or toxin that— 

19 ‘‘(A) is listed as a non-overlap or overlap 

20 select biological agent or toxin under part 73 of 

21 title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, pursuant 

22 to section 351A of the Public Health Service 

23 Act (42 U.S.C. 262a); and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 744 IS

1 ‘‘(B) is not excluded or exempted under 

2 part 73 of title 42, Code of Federal Regula3 tions.’’; and 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘(2) Whoever’’ and insert5 ing ‘‘(3) PENALTY.—Whoever’’ and adjusting 

6 the margin accordingly; and 

7 (2) in subsection (d), in the matter preceding 

8 paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘DEFINITIONS.—’’ be9 fore ‘‘In this section:’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# C_2011211EN.01001101.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 April 2011 — Econord SpA v Comune di Solbiate and Comune di Varese

(Case C-183/11)

2011/C 211/20

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Econord SpA

Applicant:

Defendants: Comune di Solbiate and Comune di Varese

Defendants:

Interested party: Aspem SpA

Interested party:

Question referred

Question referred

Must the principle that the position of an individual public authority holding shares in a società strumentale [(a company set up to provide certain municipal services)] is immaterial also apply where one of the partner municipalities holds a single share in the società strumentale and the shareholders’ agreements entered into by the partner public authorities are not such as to give the shareholding municipality any effective power of control over the company, with the result that the company shareholding may be regarded merely as formal cover for a contract for the provision of services?

società strumentale

società strumentale

---