alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 February 2007 – Indorata-Serviços e Gestão v OHIM (HAIRTRANSFER)**

**(Case T-204/04)**

Community trade mark – Application for Community trade mark HAIRTRANSFER – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 32-40)

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| APPEAL against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 April 2004 (Case R 435/2003-2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark HAIRTRANSFER as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Lda |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark HAIRTRANSFER for goods in Classes 8, 22, 41 and 44 – Application No 2619039 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Dismisses the appeal; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Lda to pay the costs. |
### SUBCHAPTER IV—SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
# C_2008197EN.01003505.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/35

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2008 — Piccinni-Leopardi v Commission

(Case T-128/04) (1)

1

(2008/C 197/64)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 30.4.2004.

1

---
#### Rose Manor Corp., Respondent, v. Town of Islip et al., Appellants.

In an action to have a zoning ordinance declared unconstitutional and void, insofar as it affects land owned by the plaintiff, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 28, 1960, denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 113). Plaintiff’s land is in a Residence A district. Plaintiff petitioned the defendant Town Board to reclassify the land to a Business 3 district, so as to permit the erection of a shopping center. After a hearing the Town Board denied the application. Plaintiff now brings this action to void the ordinance on the ground that it is confiscatory and on the ground that the defendant Planning Board (not the Town Board) encouraged plaintiff to improve adjoining land in the expectation that a shopping center would be permitted on the subject land. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion for summary judgment granted. On this motion for summary judgment defendants established that there was a factual basis for classifying the subject land as Residence A. Such classification being a legislative act it is entitled to the strongest presumption of validity *(Church*v. *Town of Islip,*8 N Y 2d 254, 258). Against such a showing on the part of defendants, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff, as a basis for denial of the motion, to show facts sufficient to require a trial of any material issue of fact (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 113). More specifically, plaintiff should have alleged facts showing a triable issue as to whether the land could or could not be reasonably adapted to *any use*permitted in a Residence A district *(Levitt*v. *Incorporated Vil. of Sands Point,*6 N Y 2d 269, 273; *Vernon Park Realty*v. *City of Mount Vernon,*307 N. Y. 493, 499). The complaint and plaintiff’s affidavit fail to set forth any *facts*sufficient to raise such issue or any other material issue. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### § 1804.18 Termination of access.

The Coordinator shall cancel any authorization whenever the security clearance of a requester (or research associate, if any) has been canceled or whenever the Director, NACIC determines that continued access would not be in compliance with one or more of the requirements of § 1804.14(a).
§ 210.2 Applicability and scope. ( a ) The provisions of this part apply to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Unified and Specified Commands, and the Defense Agencies.
( b ) The provisions encompass all persons who operate or control a motor vehicle or otherwise use the streets of a military installation over which the United States exercises exclusive or concurrent legislative jurisdiction.
( c ) The provisions govern only vehicular and traffic offenses or infractions that cannot be assimilated under 18 U.S.C. 13, thereby precluding application of state laws to traffic offenses committed on military installations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR DEFERRAL
                                        OF
                      FISCAL YEAR 2002 INCENTIVE PLAN BONUS



     Energizer  Holdings,  Inc. and             acknowledge that, of the
                                   ------------                          -------
FY2002  Bonus  awarded to Participant under the Fiscal Year 2002 Incentive Bonus
Program, shall be deferred, effective November 15, 2002, as previously requested
by  Participant,  into  the  Measurement  Fund(s)  available under the Energizer
Holdings,  Inc.  Deferred  Compenstaion  Plan  (the  "Plan").

     Pursuant to Participant's request, the following amounts have been deferred
for  Participant  in  the  manner  set  forth  below:

(1)  ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC. COMMON STOCK MEASUREMENT FUND -

     (a)               in Energizer common stock equivalents and
          ------------
     (b)               in Energizer common stock equivalents,
          ------------
          representing the Company Matching Contribution (25% of amount listed
          in 1(a) above).

(2)  OTHER MEASUREMENT FUNDS - $           in other Measurement Funds as
                                ---------
     previously selected by Participant.

     Participant's  deferral  as described hereunder is pursuant to the Plan and
is  Subject  in  all  respects  to  the  terms  and conditions of the Plan. THIS
AGREEMENT  SUPERCEDES  ANY  PREVIOUS  AGREEMENT FOR DEFERRAL OF 2002 ANNUAL CASH
BONUS.


ACKNOWLEDGED:                                       ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.


                                                    By:
----------------------------                           --------------------
                                                       Peter Conrad
                                                       Vice President
                                                       Human Resources
----------------------------
Date
### §8480. Subpoena authority

(a) In order to carry out the responsibilities specified in this subchapter and subchapter III of this chapter, the Executive Director may issue subpoenas commanding each person to whom the subpoena is directed to produce designated books, documents, records, electronically stored information, or tangible materials in the possession or control of that individual.

(b) Notwithstanding any Federal, State, or local law, any person, including officers, agents, and employees, receiving a subpoena under this section, who complies in good faith with the subpoena and thus produces the materials sought, shall not be liable in any court of any State or the United States to any individual, domestic or foreign corporation or upon a partnership or other unincorporated association for such production.

(c) When a person fails to obey a subpoena issued under this section, the district court of the United States for the district in which the investigation is conducted or in which the person failing to obey is found, shall on proper application issue an order directing that person to comply with the subpoena. The court may punish as contempt any disobedience of its order.

(d) The Executive Director shall prescribe regulations to carry out subsection (a).

(Added Pub. L. 111–31, div. B, title I, §107(a), June 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1856.)
Exhibit 23.1Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8) and relatedProspectuses pertaining to the New Era of Networks, Inc. Amended and Restated 1995 Stock OptionPlan, New Era of Networks, Inc. 1998 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan, Convoy Corporation 1997 StockOption Plan, Microscript, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan, Home Financial Network, Inc. 1995 StockPlan, Sybase, Inc. 1988 Stock Incentive Plan, Sybase, Inc. 2003 Stock Plan, Sybase, Inc. 1999Nonstatutory Stock Plan, Sybase, Inc. 1996 Stock Plan, Sybase, Inc. 2001 Director Stock OptionPlan, Sybase, Inc. 1992 Director Stock Option Plan, the Sybase, Inc. 1991 Employee Stock PurchasePlan and 1991 Foreign Subsidiary Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration Statement (FormS-3) dated as of June 26, 2000, for the issuance of 7,381,917 shares in connection with Sybase’sacquisition of Home Financial Network, and the Registration Statement (Form S-4) dated as of March15, 2001, the Registration Statement (Form S-3) dated as of July 29, 2005, for $460.0 million ofSybase’s 1.75% convertible subordinated notes due 2025 and the issuance of up to 18,239,506shares, of our reports dated March 10, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of Sybase, Inc., Sybase, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting of Sybase, Inc, included in the Annual Report (form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2005.     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP   San Jose, CA  March10, 2006
EXHIBIT 9.4
                               IRREVOCABLE PROXY

     For  good and  valuable  consideration,  the  receipt  of  which is  hereby
acknowledged,  the  undersigned  hereby  agrees to, and hereby  grants to Dennis
Vadura and Frank Wiebe,  with full power of substitution,  an irrevocable  proxy
pursuant to Section  78.355 of the Nevada  Revised  Statutes,  to represent  the
undersigned and vote, or to executed and deliver  written  consents or Statutes,
to  represent  the  undersigned  and vote,  or to execute  and  deliver  written
consents  or  otherwise  act with  respect  to, all  shares of capital  stock of
AccuPoll Holding Corp., a Nevada  Corporation (the  "Corporation")  now owned or
hereafter acquired by the undersigned (the "Proxy Shares") as fully, to the same
extent and with the same effect as the  undersigned  might or could do under any
applicable  laws or regulations  governing the rights and powers of stockholders
of a Nevada  corporation  in  connection  with the  election of directors of the
Corporation as provided in Section 6.8 of that certain Stock Exchange Agreement,
dated as of May 20,  2002,  by and  among the  Corporation,  AccuPoll,  Inc.,  A
Delaware  corporation  ("AccuPoll"),  and certain  stockholders of AccuPoll (the
"Agreement").  The  undersigned  hereby  affirms  that this  proxy is given as a
condition of said agreement and as such is coupled with an interest and,  except
as provided  below,  is irrevocable for a period (the "Proxy Period") of six (6)
years and three hundred sixty-four (364) days from the date hereof.

     This  irrevocable  proxy  shall  remain  in full  force and  effect  and be
enforceable  against any  transferee who is an Affiliate (as defined in Rule 501
promulgated  under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended) of the transferor for
the Proxy Period.  Immediately and automatically  upon any transfer of the Proxy
Shares to any person or entity  which is not an  Affiliate  of the  undersigned,
this proxy shall  terminate  and be of no force or effect  with  respect to such
     Proxy  Shares so  transferred.  Nothing  contained  herein shall in any way
operate to  restrict  or limit the  undersigned's  right to  transfer  the Proxy
Shares at any time,  subject to  compliance  with  applicable  state and federal
securities.

Dated this 22 day of May, 2002




/s/ The Glacier Trust                        No. of Shares: 1,000,000
----------------------------------                       ---------------------
Name of Stockholder (please print)




/s/
-----------------------------------
Authorized Signature



/s/
-----------------------------------
Title of Signatory (please print)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

LAVONDA OAKS, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 245 EAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 19th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED. 

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/27/2010 08:39PM -----

To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA From: Tony Robledo/R6/USEPA/US Date: 04/27/2010 06:15PM cc: Cynthia Kaleri/R6/USEPA/US@EPA Subject: Fw: RE: Engine Estimates Melanie - here's one of your requested items - I'll send the rest in another email to follow. Hope this is helpful - feel free to contact me or the state folks directly if you have questions or need additional information.

-----Forwarded by Tony Robledo/R6/USEPA/US on 04/27/2010 05:05PM ----- To: Tony Robledo/R6/USEPA/US@EPA From: Keith Jordan <Keith.Jordan@LA.GOV> Date: 04/23/2010 07:57AM Subject: RE: Engine Estimates

(See attached file: Engines in 2008 EI.xlsx) Tony,

First Tab: Our Emissions Inventory people put together the list on the first tab that was to include all Internal Combustion Engines. I tried to leave in only the ones fired by Natural Gas.

Second Tab: The question of which engines have controls such as SCR is more difficult. Air Permits picked put three reporting requirements from the TEMP requirements library: Requirement ID = 1485673 or 1485674 or 471593. I wrote a query to look for Internal Combustion engines with those requirements.

Thanks, Keith Jordan Surveillance Division 225-219-3613 From: Robledo.Tony@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Robledo.Tony@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 2:48 PM To: braun@adeq.state.ar.us; Keith Jordan; debra.mcelroy@state.nm.us; Brad_Flaming_- _brad.flaming@deq.ok.gov; stahiri@tceq.state.tx.us Cc: kimbrough@adeq.state.ar.us; Betty Brousseau; richard.groshong@deq.ok.gov; Laura_Clarke_- _lclarke@tceq.state.tx.us Subject: Engine Estimates

Do you know of an estimates of how many of these engines are controlled in your State - realize that this may take some time so if you can get back to me by Friday April 23rd.

EPA HQ's is trying to get a handle on what the current landscape is for rich burn spark ignition (gas-fired) engines in terms of how many of the existing engines that are already in use that have emission controls (non-selective catalytic reduction or NSCR) installed.

The reason is that EPA HQ's is looking at what the impacts of the NESHAP for existing spark ignition engines would be if controls were required for those engines, and it would be helpful if they had some idea of how many of them already have these controls even in the absence of the NESHAP. The engines of most concern are those that are <500 HP at major sources of HAP and any HP at area sources of HAP, since EPA already has limits on the ones that are >500 HP at major sources.

Tony Robledo U.S. EPA Region 6 Air Toxics Section 1445 Ross Ave. Dallas, TX 75202 214.665.8182
#### Mary Mc Bride et al., Respondents, v New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation, Appellant.

In an action to recover a sum of money due on a certain wager, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 30, 1977, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and defendant’s motion granted. On April 21, 1976 plaintiffs purchased a ticket from defendant, OTB, on that day’s Pick-Four, which is a pari-mutuel bet in which the better attempts to select the winning horse in four consecutive races. The plaintiffs did correctly name the four winners in the Pick-Four, but upon presentation of the ticket, they discovered that OTB had canceled all betting on the Pick-Four for that day. It seems that on April 21, 1976, OTB was under the misapprehension that a particular horse had been scratched from one of the Pick-Four races. Therefore, OTB had not sold any Pick-Four tickets which named the supposedly scratched horse. At about 5:30 p.m. on that day, OTB learned that the horse had not, in fact, been scratched. Realizing that many bettors had not been given the opportunity to bet on a potential winner, OTB canceled all betting on the Pick-Four before any races were run that evening. Under the New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation Law, OTB has the power to promulgate rules and regulations in order to carry out the purposes of the off-track betting legislation (New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation Law, § 144, as amd). These rules and regulations have the force and effect of law. Section 2.10 of the rules and regulations provides: "The Corporation reserves the right to prohibit betting on a particular horse or horses or in any or all pari-mutuel pools for any reason; when the Corporation prohibits further betting on a horse or horses in a pari-mutuel pool for which it has previously accepted bets, bets on such horse or horses shall be refunded.” Therefore, by the terms of OTB’s regulations, it had the right to cancel betting on the April 21, 1976 Pick-Four for any reason. In the absence of some specific allegation of fraud, OTB is not liable to the plaintiffs for a winner’s share in the Pick-Four (see *Ronca v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd.,*90 Misc 2d 324). There being no issue of fact remaining for trial, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(S-8 number 33-82204) and related Prospectus pertaining to the Amended and
Restated 1989 Stock Option Plan for Officers and Key Employees, as amended, and
in the Registration Statement (S-8 number 48543) and related Prospectus
pertaining to the 1992 Non-Officer Directors Stock Option Plan, of PacifiCare
Health Systems, Inc. of our report dated November 18, 1996 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of PacifiCare Health Systems,
Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30,
1996.



                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Los Angeles, California
January 13, 1997
#### § 2102.51 Penalties.

Title 18, U.S.C. section 1001, Crimes and Criminal Procedures, makes it a criminal offense, subject to a maximum fine of $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years or both, to knowingly and willfully make or cause to be made any false or fraudulent statements or representations in any matter within the jurisdiction of any agency of the United States. Section (i)(3) of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) makes it a misdemeanor, subject to a maximum fine of $5,000, to knowingly and willfully request or obtain any record concerning an individual under false pretenses. Sections (i)(1) and (2) of 5 U.S.C. 552a provide penalties for violations by agency employees, of the Privacy Act or regulations established thereunder.
EXHIBIT 32.1*




Section 1350 Certification




I, Richard M. Haddock, the chief
executive officer of LaserCard Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), certify pursuant to section 1350 of chapter 63 of title
18 of the United States Code that, to our knowledge:




(i)  the Quarterly
Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d), whichever is applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and




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




Date: August 9, 2006




/s/Richard M. Haddock Richard M.
Haddock




*  The material contained in this Exhibit 32.1 is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date
hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.




51


---
null

2012-06-13

556.99695

eng - Argued: 2012-06-13. Docket number: 2-11-0715WC
### §3912. Jurisdiction and applicability of chapter

#### (a) Jurisdiction

This chapter applies to—

(1) the United States;

(2) each of the States, including the political subdivisions thereof; and

(3) all territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

#### (b) Applicability to proceedings

This chapter applies to any judicial or administrative proceeding commenced in any court or agency in any jurisdiction subject to this chapter. This chapter does not apply to criminal proceedings.

#### (c) Court in which application may be made

When under this chapter any application is required to be made to a court in which no proceeding has already been commenced with respect to the matter, such application may be made to any court which would otherwise have jurisdiction over the matter.

(Oct. 17, 1940, ch. 888, title I, §102, as added Pub. L. 108–189, §1, Dec. 19, 2003, 117 Stat. 2837.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 512 of the former Appendix to this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 102 of act Oct. 17, 1940, ch. 888, art. I, 54 Stat. 1179; Pub. L. 102–12, §9(2), Mar. 18, 1991, 105 Stat. 39, related to territorial application, jurisdiction of courts, and form of procedure, prior to the general amendment of this Act by Pub. L. 108–189.

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to any case not final before Dec. 19, 2003, see section 3 of Pub. L. 108–189, set out as a note under section 3901 of this title.