alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015107EN.01001702.xml

| 30.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/17

---

Appeal brought on 29 December 2014 by El Corte Inglés, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2014 in Case T-515/12 El Corte Inglés v OHIM — English Cut (The English Cut)

(Case C-603/14 P)

(2015/C 107/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: El Corte Inglés, S.A. (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2014 in Case T-515/12 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2014 in Case T-515/12 in its entirety;

| — | order the party or parties opposing this appeal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties opposing this appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | The first ground of appeal is based on distortion of the facts, in that the General Court, in its judgment of 15 October 2014, categorised the conceptual similarity between the signs as low, whereas the Board of Appeal of OHIM took the view that there is conceptual similarity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first ground of appeal is based on distortion of the facts, in that the General Court, in its judgment of 15 October 2014, categorised the conceptual similarity between the signs as low, whereas the Board of Appeal of OHIM took the view that there is conceptual similarity.

| 2. | The second ground of appeal is based on infringement of Community law, in that Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 (1) was applied incorrectly. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second ground of appeal is based on infringement of Community law, in that Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 (1) was applied incorrectly.

| 3. | The third ground of appeal is based on infringement of Community law, in that Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 was applied incorrectly. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third ground of appeal is based on infringement of Community law, in that Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 was applied incorrectly.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

---
§ 522.558 Dexmedetomidine. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of solution contains: ( 1 ) 0.1 milligrams (mg) dexmedetomidine hydrochloride; or
( 2 ) 0.5 mg dexmedetomidine hydrochloride.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See sponsors in in § 510.600(c) of this chapter for use as in paragraph (c) of this section: ( 1 ) Nos. 017033, 068504, 069043, and 086117 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
( 2 ) No. 052483 for use of products described in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Dogs* — ( i ) *Indications for use and amount.* ( A ) For use as a sedative and analgesic to facilitate clinical examinations, clinical procedures, minor surgical procedures, and minor dental procedures, administer 375 micrograms (μg) per square meter (/m2) of body surface area by intravenous injection or 500 μg/m2 of body surface area by intramuscular injection.
( B ) For use as a preanesthetic to general anesthesia, administer 125 μg/m2 of body surface area or 375 μg/m2 of body surface area by intramuscular injection.
( ii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
( 2 ) *Cats* — ( i ) *Amount.* 40 μg/killogram by intramuscular injection.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For use as a sedative and analgesic to facilitate clinical examinations, clinical procedures, minor surgical procedures, and minor dental procedures; and as a preanesthetic to general anesthesia.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[72 FR 263, Jan. 4, 2007, as amended at 72 FR 19797, Apr. 20, 2007; 72 FR 51365, Sept. 7, 2007; 75 FR 60308, Sept. 30, 2010; 78 FR 25183, Apr. 30, 2013; 78 FR 33699, June 5, 2013; 80 FR 13229, Mar. 13, 2015; 86 FR 57997, Oct. 20, 2021; 87 FR 10969, Feb. 28, 2022; 88 FR 27699, May 3, 2023; 88 FR 84701, Dec. 6, 2023]
§ 524.1200a Kanamycin ophthalmic ointment. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each gram of ointment contains 3.5 milligrams kanamycin activity as kanamycin sulfate.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Apply a thin film to the affected eye three or four times daily or more frequently if deemed advisable. Treatment should be continued for at least 48 hours after the eye appears normal.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the treatment of various eye infections (conjunctivitis, blepharitis, dacryocystitis, keratitis, and corneal ulcerations) due to bacteria sensitive to kanamycin. For prophylaxis in traumatic conditions, removal of foreign bodies, and intraocular surgery.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[79 FR 10969, Feb. 27, 2014]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1261

KARON ANN PARHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PEPSICO, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-307-5-BR) Submitted: August 25, 1998 Decided: November 23, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karon Ann Parham, Appellant Pro Se. Louis B. Meyer, III, POYNER & SPRUILL, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Karon Ann Parham appeals the district court’s orders denying her motions to accept newly discovered evidence and for entry of default judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. We affirm the denial of Parham’s motions because the motion to accept newly discovered evidence was untimely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), and the district court lacked jurisdiction to reopen default judgment proceedings after entering final judgment. We deny Parham’s motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. We deny Parham’s motions for sanctions, to produce evidence, and command attendance at hearing. We grant Pepsico’s second amended motion for sanctions under Fed. R. App. P. 38 for filing a frivolous appeal, but decline to grant Pepsico’s request for an order enjoining Parham from filing any future actions against Pepsico in federal court. Instead of particularized fees and costs, we order Parham to pay sanctions in the amount of $500. See In re Vincent , 105 F.3d 943, 945 (4th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 11, 2015

NO. 03

- 13

- 00101

- CV

Rent

- A

- Center, Inc., Appellant

v.

Glenn Hegar, in his capacity as Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas; and Ken Paxton, in his cap acity as Attorney General of t he State of Texas, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GO ODW IN, AND FIELD REVERSED AND REMANDED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on January 17, 2013 . Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in

the court’s judgment

. Therefore, th e Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and remands the

case to the trial court for a determination of the amount of refund to which appellant is entitled.

A ppellee s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
<PAGE>   1

                                  Exhibit 23.1






May 21, 1999


Columbia Bancorp
P.O. Box 1050
The Dalles, Oregon  97058

               RE:    COLUMBIA BANCORP - FORM S-8 REGISTRATION STATEMENT

To Columbia Bancorp:

               We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement of Columbia Bancorp on Form S-8 of the audited financial statements
for the years ended December 31, 1998, December 31, 1997 and December 31, 1996
incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Columbia Bancorp
for the year ended December 31, 1998.


                                                     /s/
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Moss Adams LLP
# C_2014142EN.01001002.xml

| 12.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 28 January 2014 — Jürgen Kaiser v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-46/14)

2014/C 142/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jürgen Kaiser

Applicant:

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is there an obligation on an airline company which wishes to rely on the exemption possibility in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) to set out and prove that all reasonable measures were undertaken by it to avoid the likely consequences of extraordinary circumstances in the shape of cancellation or considerable delay or that no such reasonable measures were available to it?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2015127EN.01000602.xml

| 20.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/6

---

Appeal brought on 3 July 2014 by Asos plc against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2014 in Case T-647/11: Asos plc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-320/14 P)

(2015/C 127/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Asos plc (represented by: P. Kavanagh, Solicitor, A. Lykiardopoulos QC, A. Edwards-Stuart, Barrister)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Roger Maier

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 13 January 2015 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) has dismissed the appeal and ordered Asos plc to bear its own costs.

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TAVARIS COLLINS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1274

[ January 18, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Laura Sellers Johnson

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502010CF014335B

.

Daniel J. Tibbitt, Esq., Miami, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Surber,

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for a ppellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1065

KRISTINA MERLE LARSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS, WYETH-AYERST LABORATORIES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00685-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted: June 17, 2021 Decided: August 19, 2021

Before WYNN, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kristina Merle Larson, Appellant Pro Se. Milena Radovic, Kristina H. Vaquera, 

JACKSON LEWIS PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kristina Merle Larson appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint in 

which she alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102-

12213, and related claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Larson v. Am. Home 

Prods., No. 2:19-cv-00685-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va. Dec. 28, 2020). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 570
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 88 FR 45066, July 14, 2023.

§ 570.260 Steps you may take before FDA responds to your GRAS notice. ( a ) You may submit a timely amendment to your filed GRAS notice, to update your GRAS notice or in response to a question from us, before we respond to your notice by letter in accordance with § 570.265(b)(1) or cease to evaluate your notice in accordance with § 570.265(b)(3).
( b ) At any time before we respond to your notice by letter in accordance with § 570.265(b)(1), you may request in writing that we cease to evaluate your GRAS notice. Your request does not preclude you from submitting a future GRAS notice in accordance with this subpart with respect to the notified substance.
§ 520.1367 Meloxicam. ( a ) *Specifications* — ( 1 ) Each milliliter of suspension contains 0.5 milligrams (mg) meloxicam.
( 2 ) Each milliliter of suspension contains 1.5 mg meloxicam.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See sponsors in § 510.600(c) of this chapter for uses as in paragraph (c) of this section: ( 1 ) No. 000010 for use of the products described in paragraph (a) of this section; and
( 2 ) Nos. 013744 and 055529 for use of the product described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer orally as a single dose at 0.09 mg per pound (mg/lb) body weight (0.2 mg per kilogram (mg/kg)) on the first day of treatment. For all treatment after day 1, administer 0.045 mg/lb (0.1 mg/kg) body weight once daily.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the control of pain and inflammation associated with osteoarthritis.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[68 FR 42968, July 21, 2003, as amended at 69 FR 69523, Nov. 30, 2004. Redesignated and amended at 78 FR 57058, Sept. 17, 2013; 80 FR 53459, Sept. 4, 2015]
§ 556.169 Danofloxacin. ( a ) *Acceptable daily intake (ADI).* The ADI for total residue of danofloxacin is 2.4 μg/kg of body weight per day.
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerances for danofloxacin (marker residue) are: ( 1 ) *Cattle.* ( i ) Liver (target tissue): 0.2 ppm.
( ii ) Muscle: 0.2 ppm.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See § 522.522 of this chapter.
Exhibit 32.1Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934     In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Youbet.com, Inc. (the “Company”) forthe period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles F. Champion, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I,Gary W. Sproule, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        May 10, 2006 By:  /s/ Charles F. Champion         Charles F. Champion         President and Chief Executive Officer      May 10, 2006 By:  /s/ Gary W. Sproule         Gary W. Sproule         Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentationauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been providedto the Company and will be retained by Youbet.com, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.This certification “accompanies” the quarterly report on Form 10-Q to which it relates, is notdeemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q, irrespective of an general incorporation language contained in such filing).
§ 582.5250 Choline bitartrate. ( a ) *Product.* Choline bitartrate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
§ 582.6787 Sodium pyrophosphate. ( a ) *Product.* Sodium pyrophosphate.
( b ) *Condition of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
**EXHIBIT 32.2** **CERTIFICATION    OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002     I, Hillel Moerman, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial    Officer) of American Property Investors, Inc., the General    Partner of American Real Estate Partners, L.P. (the    “Registrant”), certify that to the best of my    knowledge, based upon a review of the American Real Estate    Partners, L.P. quarterly report on    Form 10-Q    for the period ended June 30, 2006 of the Registrant (the    “Report”):     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Registrant. /s/  HILLEL    MOERMAN**Hillel Moerman**    Chief Financial Officer    American Property Investors, Inc.,    the General Partner of    American Real Estate Partners, L.P.     Date: August 9, 2006
Exhibit 32.1



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 annual report of American Cannabis Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for fiscal
year 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned
officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





| | By:                             | /s/TerryBuffalo
| | ------------------------------- | ---------------
| | Terry
    Buffalo              
| | Principal
    Executive Officer



Date: December 26, 2018





| | By:                               | /s/
                                         Michael Schwanbeck
| | --------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | J. Michael
    Schwanbeck        
| | Chief
    Financial Officer      
| | (Principal
    Financial Officer)



Date: December 26, 2018



The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of
the Report or as a separate disclosure document.





34
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0770 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-SW-057-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date