alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 86 ) ll-K - (B ) -7 4 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:51 AM Sheet 86 of 325P. 2
^ II-K-(B)-7 4
COMPARISO N

O F ICF AND EE

A METHODOLOGIE S FO

R CALCULATING CAPITA L CHARG E ANNUIT YFACTORS . Lette r fro

m T . Hogan , EE

A t o R . Short , EPA:SASD . Jun e 15 , 1981 , THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-7 4
# C_2016232EN.01001601.xml

| 27.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONICX2)

(Case T-776/14) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark ABTRONICX2 - Earlier EU word mark TRONIC - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion))

(2016/C 232/20)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Red Lemon Inc. (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2014 (Case R 2078/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Red Lemon Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Red Lemon Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Red Lemon Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

1

---
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

05-3285

CHARLES R. JORDAN, Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

__________ ________________ DECIDED: April 7, 2006

__________________________ Before MAYER, LOURIE, and LINN, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Charles R. Jordan appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed his appeal fo r lack of jurisdiction. Jordan v. Dep’t of the Air Force , SF3443040747-I-1 (MSPB Aug. 29, 2005). We affirm

. This court may only reverse a board’s decisi on if it was arbitrar y, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unlawfu l; procedurally deficient; or unsupported by substantial evidence. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). Whether the board has jurisdiction over an appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. See Herman v. Dep’t of Justice , 193 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999).Jordan had the bur den to es tablish the board’s jurisdiction by presenting evidenc e that he was an eligible civilian fede ral emplo y ee entitled to appeal to the board under the Uniformed Services Employment and Re employment Rights Act of 1994 (codified as amended at 38 U. S.C. §§ 4301-4333) (“USERRA”). Although aware his status as a “civilian employee” was at issue, Jordan failed to present any evidence that he was a civilian em ployee of the Air Force. His military medi cal h i story was not relevant to that question. We fi nd no erro r in the board’s factual determinations and conclude that the board lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.

05-3285 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          19,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     46,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                88,900
<PP&E>                                       1,194,600
<DEPRECIATION>                               (882,800)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 415,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          135,400
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,800
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           900
<OTHER-SE>                                    (73,500)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   415,500
<SALES>                                        149,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,300
<CGS>                                          107,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  158,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (5,800)<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,400)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,300)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)
<FN>
<F1>NET OF INTEREST INCOME OF $2.1 MILLION.
</FN>


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7851 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7851

    To amend title 23, United States Code, to establish additional 
requirements for bridge projects funded under such title, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2024

 Mr. Van Drew introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 23, United States Code, to establish additional 
requirements for bridge projects funded under such title, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Bridge Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BRIDGE PROJECTS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 180. Additional requirements for bridge projects
    ``(a) Requirements.--
            ``(1) In general.--As a condition for receiving funds under 
        this title, with respect to any project for the repair or 
        construction of a covered bridge under this title, the 
        Secretary of Transportation shall require to the greatest 
        extent feasible that such project include protective features 
        designed to avert allisions along critical bridge supports.
            ``(2) Protective features.--Protective features under 
        paragraph (1) shall be rated for the largest size of vessel 
        that regularly passes under such bridge.
    ``(b) Covered Bridge Defined.--In this section, the term `covered 
bridge' means a bridge over navigable water valued at over 
$50,000,000.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of title 23, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``180. Additional requirements for bridge projects.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7756 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7756

   To expand the scope of the Do Not Call rules under the Telephone 
 Consumer Protection Act to include all telephone subscribers, and to 
  expand the private right of action for calls in violation of those 
                                 rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2024

Ms. Schakowsky introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To expand the scope of the Do Not Call rules under the Telephone 
 Consumer Protection Act to include all telephone subscribers, and to 
  expand the private right of action for calls in violation of those 
                                 rules.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting American Consumers from 
Robocalls Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANDING SCOPE OF DO NOT CALL RULES AND PRIVATE RIGHT OF 
              ACTION.

    (a) In General.--Section 227(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 
(47 U.S.C. 227(c)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
        (A), by striking ``residential'';
            (2) in paragraph (3)--
                    (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by 
                striking ``residential''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking 
                ``residential''; and
            (3) in paragraph (5)--
                    (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by 
                striking ``more than one telephone call within any 12-
                month period by or on behalf of the same entity'' and 
                inserting ``a telephone call by or on behalf of an 
                entity''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``up to''.
    (b) Revised Regulations.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall 
revise the regulations prescribed under section 227(c) of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(c)) as necessary to implement 
the amendments made by subsection (a) of this section.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
Chief Financial Officer of The Timberland Company (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:



| |  |  | /s/BRIAN P. MCKEONBrian P. McKeon
Chief Financial Officer
| |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------

Date:
August 10, 2004

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

A
signed original of this written statement, required by Section 906, has been provided to The Timberland Company and will be retained by The Timberland Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.3760 Sacculotomy tack (Cody tack) ( a ) *Identification.* A sacculotomy tack (Cody tack) is a device that consists of a pointed stainless steel tack intended to be implanted to relieve the symptoms of vertigo. The device repetitively ruptures the utricular membrane as the membrane expands under increased endolymphatic pressure.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
#### OWEN *v.*OWEN.

Nos. 8519, 8532.

January 14, 1932.

*157
      *Titus & DeJcle*and *Hay £*Forester, for plaintiff in error.

*Hay £ Gainey,*contra.

Beck, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) Under the facts of the case, the court did not err in overruling the special plea. While the action for divorce had been brought by E. W. Owen nearly six years before, and had never been continued, and no defense to the action was filed, inasmuch as the case continued open upon the docket, and, so far as appears, no steps were taken to dismiss it, the filing, even after that length of time, of an application for alimony was allowable. The application for alimony was an incident to the main suit; and when the application was duly filed, the plaintiff in that suit, who had submitted himself' to the jurisdiction of the court, was bound to take notice thereof; and when the court ordered service of the application to be made upon the attorney of record, no further service was required. The application was served upon the attorney of record; his name still stood upon the court docket as the attorney for the plaintiff in the original divorce suit; it had not been stricken. And when the application for alimony was served upon the attorney of record, though he refused to accept service, saying that he was not then attorney for the original plaintiff in the divorce suit, no further service was necessary. Under the facts in this case the court had jurisdiction of the person of the plaintiff. He had submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court; and the fact that he permitted the case to stay on the docket, without having it marked in default or dismissing it, charged him with notice of an application that was germane to that suit.

*Judgment affirmed on the main bill of exceptions; cross-bill dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.88    
  


 
 

EXTENSION AGREEMENT    
  


Bank
of America, N.A.,

    as Administrative Agent

Attn: Suzanne Paul

231 South LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604 


Ladies
and Gentlemen: 


        The
undersigned hereby agrees to extend, effective April 3, 2002, its Commitment and the Maturity Date under the Credit Agreement dated as of April 3, 2001 among
SOURCECORP, Incorporated, f/k/a F.Y.I. Incorporated, each of the Lenders party thereto, Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, and Banc of America Securities LLC, as sole lead arranger and
sole book agent (as the same may be amended or otherwise modified from time to time, the "Credit Agreement") for 364 days to April 2, 2005
pursuant to Section 2.1(d) of the Credit Agreement. Terms defined in the Credit Agreement are used herein as therein defined. 


        This
Extension Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the law of the State of Texas. The Extension Agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument. 



	

 	
 	
BNP Paribas
	

 	
 	

Name:	

/s/  JEFF TEBEAUX      

	 	 	 	By:	Jeff Tebeaux

	 	 	 	Title:	Associate

	

 	
 	

Name:	

/s/  HENRY F. SETINA      

	 	 	 	By:	Henry Setina

	 	 	 	Title:	Director






	

Agreed and Accepted:
	

SOURCECORP, INCORPORATED, f/k/a

F.Y.I. INCORPORATED
	

By:	

/s/  BARRY EDWARDS      

	Name:	Barry Edwards

	Title:	EVP & CFO

	

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Administrative Agent
	

By:	

/s/  SUZANNE M. PAUL      

	Name:	Suzanne M. Paul

	Title:	Vice President












QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.88


EXTENSION AGREEMENT
#### Retha Harrolle, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jan N. Harrolle, Defendant-Appellee.

Gen. No. 68-188.

Second District.

June 16, 1969.

*282Cannariato, Nicolosi and Pigatti, of Rockford, for appellant; James F. Maynard, Maynard & Brassfield, of Rockford, for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE SEIDENFELD.

Not to be published in full.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7845 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7845

To designate the Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia as 
             the ``Donald J. Trump International Airport''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2024

Mr. Reschenthaler (for himself, Mr. Waltz, Mr. Ogles, Mr. Fleischmann, 
    Mr. Gosar, Mr. Moore of Alabama, and Mr. Nehls) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia as 
             the ``Donald J. Trump International Airport''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DONALD J. TRUMP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

    (a) Designation.--The Washington Dulles International Airport in 
Virginia shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and 
designated as the ``Donald J. Trump International Airport''.
    (b) Reference.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the airport 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a reference to 
the Donald J. Trump International Airport.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50504-50505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20520]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9719-3]

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Notification of Public Advisory 
Committee Teleconference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of Public Advisory Committee Teleconference.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 50505]]

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is 
hereby given that the Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) will 
hold a public teleconference on March 22, 2012 from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. 
Eastern Standard Time. The meeting is open to the public. For further 
information regarding the teleconference and background materials, 
please contact Mark Joyce at the number listed below.
    Background: GNEB is a federal advisory committee chartered under 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92463. GNEB provides 
advice and recommendations to the President and Congress on 
environmental and infrastructure issues along the U.S. border with 
Mexico.
    Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of this teleconference is to 
discuss the Good Neighbor Environmental Board's Fifteenth Report. The 
report will focus on water infrastructure issues in the U.S.-Mexico 
border region.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you wish to make oral comments or submit 
written comments to the Board, please contact Mark Joyce at least five 
days prior to the meeting.
    General Information: Additional information concerning the GNEB can 
be found on its Web site at www.epa.gov/ofacmo/gneb.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for 
individuals with disabilities, please contact Mark Joyce at (202) 564-
2130 or email at joyce.mark@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a 
disability, please contact Mark Joyce at least 10 days prior to the 
meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: August 8, 2012.
Mark Joyce,
Acting Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-20520 Filed 8-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-718

In Re: BRYANT LEGREE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-92)

Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 18, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryant Legree, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner filed a mandamus petition alleging delay in the

district court in ruling on his motion for reduction of sentence.

The district court has since denied the motion. United States v.

Legree, No. CR-93-92 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 1997). Accordingly, although

we grant Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny

the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with 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.

PETITION DENIED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on form S-4 of
VoiceStream Wireless Holding Corporation of our report dated March 31, 1999
relating to the financial statements of Omnipoint Corporation, which appear in
such Registration Statement. We also consent to the references to us under the
headings "Experts" in such Registration Statement.


                                             PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



Boston, MA
December 29, 1999
- 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 > Materials Prepared in Connection with the Study of Employment, Growth, and Price Levels for Consideration by the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States

              																								United States. Congress. Joint Economic Committee, 1956-					 and 	Eighty-Sixth Congress, 1959-1961.						"Study Paper Nos. 10 and 11 : Potential Public Policies to Deal with Inflation Caused by Market Power and A Brief Interpretive Survey of Wage-Price Problems in Europe" in *Materials Prepared in Connection with the Study of Employment, Growth, and Price Levels for Consideration by the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States*			(December 11, 1959).						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1244/item/3639, accessed on September 26, 2024.	    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER