alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008107EN.01002303.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/23

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — Sebirán v OHIM — El Coto de Rioja (Coto D'Arcis)

(Case T-332/04) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Coto D'Arcis - Earlier Community word marks EL COTO and COTO DE IMAZ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - No damage to reputation - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 107/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sebirán SL (Requena, Spain) (represented by: A. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Laporta Insa, agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: El Coto de Rioja SA (Oyón, Spain) (represented initially by M.E. López Camba, then by M.E. López Camba and J. Grimau Muñoz, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 (Case R 550/2003-2) concerning opposition proceedings between El Coto de Rioja SA and Sebirán SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | dismisses the application of El Coto de Rioja SA for the partial annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) of 15 June 2004 (Case R 550/2003-2); |
| --- | --- |

2.

dismisses the application of El Coto de Rioja SA for the partial annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) of 15 June 2004 (Case R 550/2003-2);

| 3. | orders Sebirán SL to pay its own costs and those of OHIM and one half of the costs of El Coto de Rioja SA; |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders Sebirán SL to pay its own costs and those of OHIM and one half of the costs of El Coto de Rioja SA;

| 4. | orders El Coto de Rioja SA to bear one half of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

orders El Coto de Rioja SA to bear one half of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.

1

---
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 8, 2012 

# Order

February 8, 2012

140147(73)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 140147 v COA: 274148 St. Clair CC: 03-000881-FH JAMES EUGENE GRISSOM, Defendant-Appellant.

_____________ _______________ _____________

On order of the Chief Jus tice, the motion by the Inno cence Network for leave to
file a brief amicus curiae in this case is considered and it is granted.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Oxygen Biotherapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael B. Jebsen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and 

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

Date: December 9, 2010 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
# State-by-State

Other

Indian Set-Aside

Freely Associated States

Virgin Islands

Puerto Rico

Northern Mariana Islands

Guam

American Samoa

Wyoming

Wisconsin

West Virginia

Washington

Virginia

Vermont

Texas

Tennessee

South Dakota

South Carolina

Rhode Island

Pennsylvania

Oregon

Oklahoma

Ohio

North Dakota

North Carolina

New York

New Mexico

New Jersey

New Hampshire

Nevada

Nebraska

Montana

Missouri

Mississippi

Minnesota

Michigan

Massachusetts

Maryland

Maine

Louisiana

Kentucky

Kansas

Iowa

Indiana

Illinois

Idaho

Hawaii

Georgia

Florida

District of Columbia

Delaware

Connecticut

Colorado

California

Arkansas

Arizona

Alaska

Alabama

Utah

GRAND TOTAL
#### 14.202-6 Final review of invitations for bids.

Each invitation for bids shall be thoroughly reviewed before issuance to detect and correct discrepancies or ambiguities that could limit competition or result in the receipt of nonresponsive bids. Contracting officers are responsible for the reviews.
Case: 1:12-cv-00163 Document #: 1-11 Filed: 01/10/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:61
Case: 1:12-cv-00163 Document #: 1-11 Filed: 01/10/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:62
Case: 1:12-cv-00163 Document #: 1-11 Filed: 01/10/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:63
Case: 1:12-cv-00163 Document #: 1-11 Filed: 01/10/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:64
Case: 1:12-cv-00163 Document #: 1-11 Filed: 01/10/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:65
Case: 1:12-cv-00163 Document #: 1-11 Filed: 01/10/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:66
Case: 1:12-cv-00163 Document #: 1-11 Filed: 01/10/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:67
Case: 1:12-cv-00163 Document #: 1-11 Filed: 01/10/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:68
Case: 1:12-cv-00163 Document #: 1-11 Filed: 01/10/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:69
### §7259. Study and report regarding potential impact of Uruguay Round on prices, income, and government purchases

#### (a) Study

The Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct a study, on a variety by variety of cheese basis, to determine the potential impact on milk prices in the United States, dairy producer income, and Federal dairy program costs, of the allocation of additional cheese granted access to the United States as a result of the obligations of the United States as a member of the World Trade Organization.

#### (b) Report

Not later than June 30, 1997, the Secretary shall report to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives the results of the study conducted under this section.

#### (c) Rule of construction

Any limitation imposed by Act of Congress on the conduct or completion of studies or reports to Congress shall not apply to the study and report required under this section, unless the limitation specifically refers to this section.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title I, §151, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 922.)
### Appeal No. 2020AP1750

- CR Cir. Ct. No. 2013CF5083



### STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT I

S TATE OF 

### W ISCONSIN



### ,

P LAINTIFF



### - R ESPONDENT



### ,

V



### .

R ONALD 

### H ENRY 

### G RIFFIN



### ,

D EFENDANT



### - A PPELLANT



### . 

### FILED

March 28, 2022

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals



### ERRATA SHEET

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 1688

Madison, WI 53701

- 1688

Court of Appeals District I

330 East Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 1020

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202

- 3161

Court of Appeals District III

2100 Stewart Ave., Suite 310

Wausau, WI 54401

Christina Plum

, Sarah Motiff

Court of Appeals

2921 Landmark Place , Suite 415

Madison, WI 537 1 3

- 4248

Court of Appeals District II

2727 N. Grandview Blvd.

Waukesha, WI 53188

- 1672 Court of Appeals District IV

2921 Landmark Place, Suite 415

Madison, WI 537 1 3

- 4248

Hon. Stephanie Rothstein

Circuit Court Judge

Electronic Notice

George Christenson

Clerk of Circuit Court

Safety Building

Electronic Notice

John D. Flynn

Electronic Notice

Christine A. Remington

Electronic Notice

Ronald Henry Griffin 420720

New Lisbon Correctional Inst.

P.O. Box 4000

New Lisbon, WI 53950

- 4000No. 2020AP1750

- CR

2 

### PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that corrections were made to paragraph

forty

- two in the above

- captioned opinion which was released on February 22, 2022

.

A corrected electronic version in its entirety is available on the court' s website at

www.wicourts.gov.
### §613. Termination date; investigations and reports

This chapter shall cease to be in effect whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency in relation to agriculture has been ended; and pending such time the President shall by proclamation terminate with respect to any basic agricultural commodity such provisions of this chapter as he finds are not requisite to carrying out the declared policy with respect to such commodity. In the case of sugar beets and sugarcane, the taxes provided by this chapter shall cease to be in effect, and the powers vested in the President or in the Secretary of Agriculture shall terminate on December 31, 1937 unless this chapter ceases to be in effect at an earlier date, as hereinabove provided. The Secretary of Agriculture shall make such investigations and reports thereon to the President as may be necessary to aid him in executing this section.

(May 12, 1933, ch. 25, title I, §13, 48 Stat. 39; May 9, 1934, ch. 263, §15, 48 Stat. 677; Aug. 24, 1935, ch. 641, §20(a), 49 Stat. 768.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1935—Act Aug. 24, 1935, substituted "on December 31, 1937" for "at the end of three years after the adoption of this amendment".

1934—Act May 9, 1934, inserted second sentence relating to taxes on sugar beets and sugarcane.
Exhibit 32.1
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION*
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/ Steven A. DavisSteven A. DavisChairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) 
 *
    
    This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section. This certification
shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.
### §2277. Contracts by Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for services to be performed abroad

Funds available to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) under this and subsequent appropriations shall be available for contracting with individuals for services to be performed outside of the United States, as determined by APHIS to be necessary or appropriate for carrying out programs and activities abroad. Such individuals shall not be regarded as officers or employees of the United States under any law administered by the Office of Personnel Management.

(Pub. L. 102–142, title VII, §737, Oct. 28, 1991, 105 Stat. 915.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in the following prior appropriation act:

Pub. L. 101–506, title VI, §641, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1350.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 December 13, 2013

Order 

Clerk

December 13, 2013

147932(19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 147932

v COA: 316819

Jackson CC: 09-005026-FC

WILFRED MARTIN HADLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time 

for filing a brief in support of the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The 

supporting brief will be accepted for filing if filed on or before December 31, 2013.
Appeal No. 74-271.

#### Ernest Pratt *v.*William A. Woolley *et al.*

*Joan M. Montalbano,*for appellee, Ernest Pratt. *Taft & McSally, James J. McKenna,*for appellees, William A. Woolley and Jeanette H. Woolley. *Beals, Jerue & DiFiore, David K. Duffell,*for appellant, Suburban Land Company.

Motions of appellees to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court under Rule 16(g), as amended, are denied.

Paolino, J. not participating.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Partnership's audited financial
statements for the year ended September 30, 1995 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           296
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 296
<PP&E>                                         8,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                (1,287)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,151
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             44
<BONDS>                                        1,549
<COMMON>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,151
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,002
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    572
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               166
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  264
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              264
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     264
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     12.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     12.14
        


</TABLE>
1219.705-6 Postaward responsibilities of the contracting officer. ( f ) The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (S-40) is responsible for acknowledging receipt of, or rejecting, the Summary Subcontract Report (SSR) in the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS).
#### Iva A. Wilkinson, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 30980.)

— Judgment unanimously modified on the law and facts by increasing the amount of the award to $5,000 and interest, and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. New findings of fact made. Memorandum: We find from the record that the findings of liability upon the part of the State of New York were justified but that considering the extent of the injuries the amount of the award was inadequate and we increase the amount of the award to $5,000. (Resubmission of appeal from judgment of Court of Claims awarding claimant the sum of $3,800 and interest.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
### §1375. Repealed. Pub. L. 109–162, title VIII, §833(g), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3077

Section, Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title VI, §652, Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–712, related to mail-order bride business.
---

EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
  with this Amendment No. 1
  to the Annual Report of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd. (the "Company")
  on Form 20-F for the year ended January 31, 2007
  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
  "Report"). I, David Wolfin, Principal Executive Officer
  of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best
  of my knowledge and belief:

| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of
      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.



|Date: August
      20, 2008 | /s/
      David Wolfin                   
|--------------------------- | -----------------------------------------
|                            | David Wolfin, Principal Executive Officer

---
### §206. Order to compel arbitration; appointment of arbitrators

A court having jurisdiction under this chapter may direct that arbitration be held in accordance with the agreement at any place therein provided for, whether that place is within or without the United States. Such court may also appoint arbitrators in accordance with the provisions of the agreement.

(Added Pub. L. 91–368, §1, July 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 693.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective upon the entry into force of the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards with respect to the United States (Dec. 29, 1970), see section 4 of Pub. L. 91–368, set out as a note under section 201 of this title.
SCR on Eastern Wall-Fired EGUs

Here is a look at real-world hourly CAM emissi on data for wall-fired eastern EGUs retrofitted with SCR and operated during the summer ozone season:

[attachment “2006 Wall-fired Dry-bottom Ea stern EGUs with SCR charts.xls "]

We see a consistent pattern of reductions from 0.3 - 0.6 lb/mmBtu down to 0.05 lb/mmBtu when the SCR is operating on these wall-fired EGUs. If we take a closer look at the period when the SCR was actually operating, we find th e following operating statistics:

[attachment "2006 wall-fired EGU Ozone Season summary data sheet.xls"]

The summary table indicates that there is litt le variation in average emissions depending upon averaging time. For example, the average ozon e-season average NOx emission rate was 0.041 lb/mmBtu, the average 30-day average was 0.041 lb/mmBtu, and the average 24-hour average

was 0.042 lb/mmBtu. Because most cost-effectivene ss calculations should be based upon annual averages, it seems appropriate to assume an annual average emission rate of 0.04 lb/mmBtu for

that task.

The median values showed a little more variati on than the average values, and lower than the average values, indicating that the distribution is skewed slightly by some of the higher emission

rates.

Because the BART Guidelines recommend a maxi mum 30-day rolling average, we also have data for this parameter and it indicates much more variation, as one might expect for this extreme

value.

The bottom section of the table is most important in that it attempts to relate the ozone-season average emission used in the cost calculations the 30-day average emission typically used in establishing permit limits. This data appear s to support a 30-day limit of 0.06 lb/mmBtu.

However, because these EGUs are only required to meet mass emission limits--lb/hr instead of lb/mmBtu, the SCRs may be “tuned” to meet a lb /hr target instead of lb/mmBtu. So, as load drops, there is no reason to main tain the SCR efficiency (and the lb/mmBtu rises), as long as the lb/hr target is met. If that is the case, then it is probably more useful to look a the ratios of the

mass emission rates to determine the true ratio of maximum 30-day aver age to annual average emissions if the SCR were always operated to ma ximize its effectiveness; the tabulated results

indicate that this ratio is 1.4:1 for these EGUs.

If we can assume that a modern SCR retrofit ca n achieve 0.04 lb/mmBtu on an annual average, and that an SCR that is operated to achieve its maximum effectiveness would typically result in maximum 30-day average emissions no more than 1.4 times the annual aver age, then we could assume that a 30-day rolling average limit of 0.06 lb/mmBtu would provide more than an adequate margin of safety for the EGU to operate.
Fiscal Year 2018 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FY 2018 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

1100030 District of Columbia Public Schools 50,946,172

1199999 PART D SUBPART 2 0

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 7 percent of their allocations for school improvement. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.
#### 1405.403 Requests from Members of Congress.

For purposes of this subpart, the agency head is the HCA with the power of redelegation to the BPC.
#### 1313.302-3 Obtaining contractor acceptance and modifying purchase orders.

A contractor's written acceptance of a purchase order modification is required, unless the contracting officer determines otherwise.