alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014093EN.01002702.xml

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/27

---

Action brought on 27 January 2014 — BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft v OHIM — Delek Europe (GO)

(Case T-60/14)

2014/C 93/48

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft mbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Von Fuchs and I. Czernik, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delek Europe BV (Breda, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 November 2013 in Case R 382/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 November 2013 in Case R 382/2013-4;

| — | order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings;

| — | in the alternative, if the intervener does not declare its participation in the proceedings, order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, if the intervener does not declare its participation in the proceedings, order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Delek Europe BV

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, containing the word element ‘GO’, for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 36 (Community trade mark application No 9 995 201)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark, containing the word element ‘GO’, for goods and services in Classes 4, 19, 35, 39 and 42

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially dismissed

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
§ 640.92 Tests on final product. Tests shall be performed on the final product to determine that it meets the following standards: ( a ) *Protein concentration.* The final product shall be a 5.0 ±0.30 percent solution of protein.
( b ) *Protein composition.* The total protein in the final product shall consist of at least 83 percent albumin, and no more than 17 percent globulins. No more than 1 percent of the total protein shall be gamma globulin. The protein composition shall be determined by a method that has been approved for each manufacturer by the Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration.
( c ) *pH.* The pH shall be 7.0 ±0.3 when measured in a solution of the final product diluted to a concentration of 1 percent protein with 0.15 molar sodium chloride.
( d ) *Sodium concentration.* The sodium concentration of the final product shall be 130 to 160 milliequivalents per liter.
( e ) *Potassium concentration.* The potassium concentration of the final product shall not exceed 2 milliequivalents per liter.
( f ) *Heat stability.* A final container sample of Plasma Protein Fraction (Human) shall remain unchanged, as determined by visual inspection, after heating at 57 °C for 50 hours, when compared to its control consisting of a sample, from the same lot, which has not undergone this heating.
[42 FR 27583, May 31, 1977, as amended at 49 FR 23834, June 8, 1984; 55 FR 11013, Mar. 26, 1990; 64 FR 26286, May 14, 1999; 65 FR 13679, Mar. 14, 2000]
**EXHIBIT 32**

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        GVC Venture Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007,        as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,        Bernard Zimmerman, Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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, to the best of my 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.

November 6, 2007

|   | /s/ Bernard                    Zimmerman                                 

Bernard Zimmerman, President                    (Principal Executive Officer) and                    Treasurer (Principal Financial and                    Accounting Officer) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>                      Healthcare Properties FDS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000814458                 
<NAME>                        Healthcare Properties, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                        9,839,845
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 5,035,957
<ALLOWANCES>                  (4,270,655)
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              0
<PP&E>                        24,897,257
<DEPRECIATION>                (15,057,412)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                32,239,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         0
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      0
<OTHER-SE>                    24,633,707
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  32,239,451
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              7,139,597
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 5,652,250
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              80,614
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            512,651
<INCOME-PRETAX>               894,082
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  894,082
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0
        


</TABLE>
38986.

#### FERGUSON v. THE STATE.

Decided July 14, 1961

Rehearing denied July 26, 1961.

*Baron H. Asher,*for plaintiff in error.

*Dan Winn, Solicitor-General, John T. Perren, Robert J. Noland,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

The defendant under an indictment charging him with the offense of murder made a motion in the Superior Court of Douglas County for a change of venue. The trial court denied the motion and the exception is to that judgment.

1. An exception to the denial of a motion for a change of venue based upon the grounds that a fair and impartial jury and a fair and impartial trial cannot be obtained in the county of the forum is not grounds for a direct bill of exceptions to this court under the provisions of *Code*§ 27-1201. *Coleman v. George,*140 Ga. 619 (2) (79 SE 543); *Anderson v. State,*
      *216190 Ga. 455 (2) (9 SE2d 642); *McCullough v. Searcy,*45 Ga. App. 841 (166 SE 372); *Etchison v. State,*59 Ga. App. 876 (2 SE2d 673). Under the rulings of this court in *Crane v. State,*94 Ga. App. 63 (1) (93 SE2d 667), and *McGruder v. State,*96 Ga. App. 874 (1) (102 SE2d 54), this court is without jurisdiction at this time to consider so much of the exception as complains of the overruling of the above grounds of the motion.

2. Under *Code*§ 27-1201, it is the duty of the trial judge, upon his own motion or upon it being shown at a hearing on a motion for a change of venue, that there is probability or danger of lynching, or other violence, to grant a change of venue. *Griffin v. State,*59 Ga. App. 333 (1 SE2d 41). While the provisions of this Code section are sufficiently broad to include danger or probability of violence to the defendant’s attorney, which is the basis of that part of the instant motion which we may now consider, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in the present case in denying the motion based on that ground. The only evidence of any violence or threat of violence to the defendant’s attorney adduced upon the hearing related to a single isolated incident which occurred when the attorney served a subpoena upon a citizen of the county ordering him to appear at the hearing.

While the defendant’s attorney testified that he felt that he could not do a proper job as defense counsel, if the trial were held in Douglas County, as a result of the fear engendered in him by this incident, under all the evidence adduced upon the hearing, the trial judge was authorized to find as a matter of fact that “there is no danger of bodily harm to counsel for defendant, nor is there reasonable grounds for any fear that violence may be perpetrated upon him.”

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a change of venue.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00271-CR

Jesus ESPINOZA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-9689

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 10, 2009

DISMISSED

The trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a pleabargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and that “defendant has waived the right of

appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if
04-09-00271-CR

-2-

a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record

under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, on May 28, 2009, this court issued an

order stating this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court

certification that shows defendant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record. See

Daniels v. State,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order); TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d);

37.1. 

On May 29, 2009, defendant’s appellate counsel filed a letter stating “this court has no choice

but to dismiss the appeal.” In light of the record presented, we agree with defendant’s counsel that

Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Volunteer
Bancorp, Inc. (Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (3) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 
| | 

| | (4) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                |  |  |  |  |  |                                                   |  | 
|--------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                |  |  |  | 
|Dated: 2/7/2012 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/     Benjamin Lindley                          |  | 
|                |  |  |  |  |  | Benjamin Lindley                                  |  | 
|                |  |  |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by Volunteer Bancorp, Inc. for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that Volunteer Bancorp, Inc. specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Volunteer Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Volunteer
Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 812.25 Investigational plan. The investigational plan shall include, in the following order: ( a ) *Purpose.* The name and intended use of the device and the objectives and duration of the investigation.
( b ) *Protocol.* A written protocol describing the methodology to be used and an analysis of the protocol demonstrating that the investigation is scientifically sound.
( c ) *Risk analysis.* A description and analysis of all increased risks to which subjects will be exposed by the investigation; the manner in which these risks will be minimized; a justification for the investigation; and a description of the patient population, including the number, age, sex, and condition.
( d ) *Description of device.* A description of each important component, ingredient, property, and principle of operation of the device and of each anticipated change in the device during the course of the investigation.
( e ) *Monitoring procedures.* The sponsor's written procedures for monitoring the investigation and the name and address of any monitor.
( f ) *Labeling.* Copies of all labeling for the device.
( g ) *Consent materials.* Copies of all forms and informational materials to be provided to subjects to obtain informed consent.
( h ) *IRB information.* A list of the names, locations, and chairpersons of all IRB's that have been or will be asked to review the investigation, and a certification of any action taken by any of those IRB's with respect to the investigation.
( i ) *Other institutions.* The name and address of each institution at which a part of the investigation may be conducted that has not been identified in paragraph (h) of this section.
( j ) *Additional records and reports.* A description of records and reports that will be maintained on the investigation in addition to those prescribed in subpart G.
Exhibit 32.02

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 Pursuant to Sectin 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of Amerityre Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-
KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David K. Griffiths,
Secretary/Treasurer [Principal 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, 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 result of operations of the Company.


/S/ David K. Griffiths
David K. Griffiths
Secretary/Treasurer

September 26, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > U.S. Economy in 1985: A Summary of BLS Projections

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*U.S. Economy in 1985: A Summary of BLS Projections : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1809*,												Washington, D.C: 								The Bureau, 										1974,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4866,			accessed on September 21, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, James T. Engen, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of LOUD Technologies Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Dated:   March 28, 2008 By:  /s/ James T. Engen    James T. Engen    *Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer*
# C_2016251EN.01003002.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/30

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2016 — Efler and Others v Commission

(Case T-754/14 R)

((Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Refusal of registration - Application for interim measures - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 251/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Michael Efler (Berlin, Germany), Pedro De Birto E. Abreu Krupenski (Lisbon, Portugal), Susan Vance George (Paris, France), Otto Jaako Kronqvist (Helsinki, Finland), Blanche Léonie Denise Weber (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), John Jephson Hilary (London, United Kingdom), Ileana Lavinia Andrei (Bucarest, Romania) (represented by: B. Kempen)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for interim measures relating to Commission Decision C (2014) 6501 final of 10 September 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the citizens’ initiative ‘STOP TTIP’.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---