alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MEDICAL INCOME PROPERTIES 2A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR
THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,636,411
<SECURITIES>                                 1,546,129
<RECEIVABLES>                                  476,765
<ALLOWANCES>                                   173,340
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,571,301
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,113,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,520,184
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,856,323<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,113,050
<SALES>                                      9,320,253
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,332,193
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,664,450
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               229,195
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              99,494
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            559,189
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              6,539,998
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,099,187
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENT TOTAL PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL INCLUDING NET INCOME NET OF DISTRIBUTIONS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2014135EN.01005701.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/57

---

Action brought on 3 March 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of a yellowy pattern)

(Case T-143/14)

2014/C 135/74

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2013 given in Case R 703/2013-2. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2013 given in Case R 703/2013-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark representing a device of a yellowy pattern for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 16, 25, 35-39, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 11 388 311

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.1860 Immunohistochemistry reagents and kits. ( a ) *Identification.* Immunohistochemistry test systems (IHC's) are in vitro diagnostic devices consisting of polyclonal or monoclonal antibodies labeled with directions for use and performance claims, which may be packaged with ancillary reagents in kits. Their intended use is to identify, by immunological techniques, antigens in tissues or cytologic specimens. Similar devices intended for use with flow cytometry devices are not considered IHC's.
( b ) *Classification of immunohistochemistry devices.* ( 1 ) Class I (general controls). Except as described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section, these devices are exempt from the premarket notification requirements in part 807, subpart E of this chapter. This exemption applies to IHC's that provide the pathologist with adjunctive diagnostic information that may be incorporated into the pathologist's report, but that is not ordinarily reported to the clinician as an independent finding. These IHC's are used after the primary diagnosis of tumor (neoplasm) has been made by conventional histopathology using nonimmunologic histochemical stains, such as hematoxylin and eosin. Examples of class I IHC's are differentiation markers that are used as adjunctive tests to subclassify tumors, such as keratin.
( 2 ) Class II (special control, guidance document: “FDA Guidance for Submission of Immunohistochemistry Applications to the FDA,” Center for Devices and Radiologic Health, 1998). These IHC's are intended for the detection and/or measurement of certain target analytes in order to provide prognostic or predictive data that are not directly confirmed by routine histopathologic internal and external control specimens. These IHC's provide the pathologist with information that is ordinarily reported as independent diagnostic information to the ordering clinician, and the claims associated with these data are widely accepted and supported by valid scientific evidence. Examples of class II IHC's are those intended for semiquantitative measurement of an analyte, such as hormone receptors in breast cancer.
( 3 ) Class III (premarket approval). IHC's intended for any use not described in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section.
( c ) *Date of PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* As of May 28, 1976, an approval under section 515 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is required for any device described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section before this device may be commercially distributed. See § 864.3.
[63 FR 30142, June 3, 1998]
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.4565 Dental hand instrument. ( a ) *Identification.* A dental hand instrument is a hand-held device intended to perform various tasks in general dentistry and oral surgery procedures. The device includes the operative burnisher, operative amalgam carrier, operative dental amalgam carver, surgical bone chisel, operative amalgam and foil condenser, endodontic curette, operative curette, periodontic curette, surgical curette, dental surgical elevator, operative dental excavator, operative explorer surgical bone file, operative margin finishing file, periodontic file, periodontic probe, surgical rongeur forceps, surgical tooth extractor forceps, surgical hemostat, periodontic hoe, operative matrix contouring instrument, operative cutting instrument, operative margin finishing periodontic knife, periodontic marker, operative pliers, endodontic root canal plugger, endodontic root canal preparer, surgical biopsy punch, endodontic pulp canal reamer, crown remover, periodontic scaler, collar and crown scissors, endodontic pulp canal filling material spreader, surgical osteotome chisel, endodontic broach, dental wax carver, endodontic pulp canal file, hand instrument for calculus removal, dental depth gauge instrument, plastic dental filling instrument, dental instrument handle, surgical tissue scissors, mouth mirror, orthodontic band driver, orthodontic band pusher, orthodontic band setter, orthodontic bracket aligner, orthodontic pliers, orthodontic ligature tucking instrument, forceps, for articulation paper, forceps for dental dressing, dental matrix band, matrix retainer, dental retractor, dental retractor accessories, periodontic or endodontic irrigating syringe, and restorative or impression material syringe.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). If the device is made of the same materials that were used in the device before May 28, 1976, it is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 872.9.
[52 FR 30097, Aug. 12, 1987, as amended at 54 FR 13830, Apr. 5, 1989; 66 FR 38799, July 25, 2001]
# C_2014292EN.01005401.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/54

---

Action brought on 1 July 2014 — Seven for all mankind v OHIM — Seven (SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND)

(Case T-505/14)

2014/C 292/66

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Seven for all mankind LLC (Vernon, United States) (represented by: A. Gautier-Sauvagnac, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy)

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 First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 April 2014 given in Case R 1277/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 April 2014 given in Case R 1277/2013-1;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND’ for goods in Classes 14 and 18 — Community trade mark application No 4 4 43  222

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative Community trademarks containing the verbal element ‘Seven’

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Accepted the appeal in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.3875 Automated tissue processor. ( a ) *Identification.* An automated tissue processor is an automated system used to process tissue specimens for examination through fixation, dehydration, and infiltration.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). This device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 864.9.
[45 FR 60591, Sept. 12, 1980, as amended at 54 FR 25045, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38789, July 25, 2001]
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, Carl Mostert, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofSpescom Software Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably  likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Dated:  May 16, 2005 |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
|                      |   |
| /s/ Carl  Mostert         |   |   |
| Carl Mostert              |   |
|                      |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer  |   |
|                           |        |  |

 

----
# C_2016038EN.01005102.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2015 — Hikari Miso v OHIM — Nishimoto Trading (Hikari)

(Case T-751/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Hikari - Earlier national word mark HIKARI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 038/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hikari Miso Co. Ltd (Simosuwa-machi, Japan) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Nishimoto Trading Co. Ltd (Santa Fe Springs, California, United States) (represented by: G. Pritchard, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 (Case R 2394/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Nishimoto Trading Co. Ltd and Hikari Miso Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Hikari Miso Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hikari Miso Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
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 June 28, 2010

p0621 

# Order

June 28, 2010

140669 & (71)

In re ELMER M. DOBSON TRUST.

________________ _______________ __________/

DANIEL W. DOBSON and STEVEN M. DOBSON, Petitioners-Appellees,

v SC: 140669 COA: 285248 Branch PC: 06-032131-TV SOUTHERN MICHIGAN BANK & TRUST, Respondent-Appellee,

and

AUTUMN L. IVEY and CHARITY IVEY TAYLOR, Respondents-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for
sanctions is DENIED.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1819 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 11 ) IV-D-1 5 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/10/20088:56:54 AM

Sheet 11 of 348P. 2



## w=o £

Environmenta l an d Safety Th e America n Roa d Engineerin g Staf

fDearborn , Michiga n 4812 1 For d Moto rCompan y Octobe r 5 , 198 7
Mr . Gle n Passavan t U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 256 5 Plymout h Roa d An n Arbor , Michiga n 4810 5 Dea r Mr . Passavant :

Subject : EP

ALiqui d Sea l Feasibilit yStud y A t ou r Septembe r 16 , 198 7 meeting EP Agraciousl yoffere d t o showFord n representative s the curren t statu s o f EPA' s liqui d sea l refueling contro l demonstratio n project . Severa l o f our engineer s involve d i n refueling contro l system s ar e anxiou s t o mee t wit h EPAt o ge t a bette r understandin g o f you r liqui d sea l system . A s I hav e bee n unabl e t o reac h yo u b yphone , I a

m requesting a meeting , preferabl ybefor e the upcoming hearing .

Pleas e give me a cal l o n (313 ) 845-824 7 t o arrang e a dat e an d time . I loo k forwar d t o meetin g wit h yo u an d hop e w e ca n continu e t o wor k togethe r o n refueling contro l options .

'/•-•/' / ' • W . M' . 'Kreuche r WMK.83
# C_2015294EN.01006201.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/62

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — P-D Glasseiden and Others v Commission

(Case T-272/14) (1)

1

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/75)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz (Oschatz, Germany); P-D Interglas Technologies GmbH (Erbach, Germany); P-D Industriegesellschaft mbH (Wilsdruff, Germany); and Glashütte Freital GmbH (Freital, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G.-R. Engel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz, P-D Interglas Technologies GmbH, P-D Industriegesellschaft mbH and Glashütte Freital GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz, P-D Interglas Technologies GmbH, P-D Industriegesellschaft mbH and Glashütte Freital GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000814576
<NAME>  PAINEWEBBER R&D PARTNERS II, L.P.
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                           SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                       6,998
<SECURITIES>                                             2,365,628
<RECEIVABLES>                                            1,461,326
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         3,833,952
<PP&E>                                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           3,833,952
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       63,361
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                               3,770,591
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             3,833,952
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         1,245,719
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           135,195
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          1,110,524
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                             1,110,524
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0
        

</TABLE>