alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 43 (Friday, March 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10340-10341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4673]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending February 6, 2010

    The following applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.).
    The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to 
Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the 
Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. 
Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a 
tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further 
proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0029.
    Date Filed: February 2, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: February 23, 2010.
    Description: Application of Perimeter Aviation LP as represented by 
its general partner Perimeter Aviation GP Inc. c/o/b Perimeter Aviation 
requesting an exemption and a foreign air carrier permit to engage in 
charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail: (1) 
Between any points in Canada and any point or points in the United 
States; (2) between any point or points in the United States and any 
point or points in a third country or countries, provided that, except 
with respect to cargo charters, such service constitutes part of a 
continuous operation, with or without a change of aircraft, that 
includes service to Canada for the purpose of carrying local traffic 
between

[[Page 10341]]

Canada and the United States; and (3) other charter operations.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-4673 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.6305 Ingestible event marker. ( a ) *Identification.* An ingestible event marker is a prescription device used to record time-stamped, patient-logged events. The ingestible component links wirelessly through intrabody communication to an external recorder which records the date and time of ingestion as well as the unique serial number of the ingestible device.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) The device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible and non-toxic;
( 2 ) Nonclinical, animal, and clinical testing must provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, including device performance, durability, compatibility, usability (human factors testing), event recording, and proper excretion of the device;
( 3 ) Appropriate analysis and nonclinical testing must validate electromagnetic compatibility performance, wireless performance, and electrical safety; and
( 4 ) Labeling must include a detailed summary of the nonclinical and clinical testing pertinent to use of the device and the maximum number of daily device ingestions.
[78 FR 28734, May 16, 2013]
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.3010 Tissue processing equipment. ( a ) *Identification.* Tissue processing equipment consists of devices used to prepare human tissue specimens for diagnostic histological examination by processing specimens through the various stages of decalcifying, infiltrating, sectioning, and mounting on microscope slides.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). These devices are exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 864.9. The devices are also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[45 FR 60587, Sept. 12, 1980, as amended at 54 FR 25044, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38789, July 25, 2001]
#### Charles Keeshin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roger L. McDougal, Kenneth Sandahl, and Lee Roy Sandahl, Individually, and d/b/a Sandahl Farm Service, Defendants-Appellees. Roger McDougal, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Keeshin, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 68-182. (Abstract of Decision.)

Second District.

August 8,1969.

Thomas, Kostantacos and Traum, of Rockford, for appellant; French, Davitt & Greene, of Rockford, for appellees.

Opinion by PRESIDING JUSTICE MORAN. Not to be published in full.
# C_2015354EN.01003101.xml

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Schniga v CPVO — Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer)

(Joined Cases T-91/14 and T-92/14) (1)

1

((Plant varieties - Application for a Community plant variety right for the apple variety Gala Schnitzer - Technical examination - Distinctiveness - Test guidelines - Discretion enjoyed by the President of the CPVO))

(2015/C 354/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and F. Mattina, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, intervening before the General Court: Brookfield New Zealand Limited (Havelock North, New Zealand); and Elaris SNC (Angers, France) (represented by: M. Eller, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against two decisions of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 20 September 2013 (Cases A 004/2007 and A 003/2007) concerning the grant of a Community plant variety right for the Gala Schnitzer apple variety.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Schniga Srl to pay the costs incurred by Brookfield New Zealand Limited and by Elaris SNC and to pay its own costs. The Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Schniga Srl to pay the costs incurred by Brookfield New Zealand Limited and by Elaris SNC and to pay its own costs. The Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0165

CITY OF BOZEMAN,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JACOB ANDREW HOWARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 1, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 8 2021

02/08/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0165
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Donald E. Hunt

King, C. J., Alcorn, House, Cotter and Ryan, Js.

Argued November 8

decided November 13, 1968

*James W. Marshall,*for the appellant (defendant).

*David B. Salzman,*assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were *George R. Tiernan,*state’s attorney, and *Robert K. Walsh,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

Per Curiam.

On June 10, 1968, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in the case of *Hunt*v. *Connecticut,*392 U.S. 304, 88 S. Ct. 2063, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1110, and ordered and decreed that the judgment rendered by us in *State*v. *Hunt,*154 Conn. 517, 227 A.2d 69 (decided February 21, 1967), be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in the light of *Bruton*v. *United States,*391 U.S. 123, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476, and *Roberts*v. *Russell,*392 U.S. 293, 88 S. Ct. 1921, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1100, each decided after our decision in *State*v. *Hunt,*supra.

Pursuant to that order, a hearing on the need for a reargument of the appeal in *State*v. *Hunt,*supra, was held on July 2, 1968, at which time counsel for the parties appeared and were heard. Thereupon, *591briefs were ordered to be filed on or before October 1, 1968. See *State*v. *Hunt,*156 Conn. 664, 244 A.2d 413.

Following the filing of briefs pursuant to our order of July 2, 1968, the case was assigned for re-argument on November 8,1968. On that date, counsel for the parties appeared and were fully heard. Within an hour after completion of the arguments, however, counsel for the defendant reappeared with the defendant and, in the presence of the state’s attorney, stated that the defendant wished to withdraw his appeal. The matter was put over until the afternoon session, at which time the defendant’s counsel informed us that a withdrawal of appeal, signed by him and by the defendant himself, had been filed.

In open court and in the presence of counsel for the parties, the defendant was asked whether he spoke and understood English, whether he understood what his withdrawal of appeal was and what it meant and whether, as to it, he was acting voluntarily. To each question, the defendant responded in the affirmative and stated that the reason for his withdrawal of appeal was to avoid the hazard of a new trial on the same charge with its attendant possibility of an increased sentence. The state’s attorney indicated that he had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal.

The appeal having been effectively withdrawn, there remains no case for further consideration.
# C_2014142EN.01004501.xml

| 12.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/45

---

Action brought on 3 March 2014 — PRS Mediterranean v OHIM — Reynolds Presto Products (NEOWEB)

(Case T-166/14)

2014/C 142/58

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: PRS Mediterranean Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: A. Späth and V. Töbelmann, 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: Reynolds Presto Products, Inc. (Richmond, United States)

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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 November 2013 given in Joined Cases R 889/2012-2 and R 635/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 November 2013 given in Joined Cases R 889/2012-2 and R 635/2012-2;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of 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 ‘NEOWEB’ for goods in Class 19 — Community trade mark application No 6 184 568

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: Various national trademarks of the word mark ‘GEOWEB’ for goods in Classes 1, 17 and 19 and the non-registered mark ‘GEOWEB’ used in the course of trade in all Member States of the European Union

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal proceedings

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
#### James H. POWELL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 85-4189.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 1, 1986.

Russell J. Thomas, Jr., Cindy Rhodes Victor, Detroit, Mich., Marilyn P. Maledon, Rockwell Intern. Corp., Pittsburgh, Pa., M. Curtiss McKee, Jackson, Miss., for defendant-appellant.

Keith R. Raulston, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before RANDALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HINOJOSA,* District Judge.

*

 District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellee, James H. Powell, Jr., was awarded damages for a retaliatory discharge against defendant-appellant, Rockwell International Corporation. The dis*523trict court awarded attorneys’ fees for representation during the trial stage of the case.

Rockwell International appealed to this Court, and we affirmed the judgment of the district court in favor of appellee Powell. 788 F.2d 279 (5th Cir.1986). Powell through his attorneys has now filed a motion for attorneys’ fees for successfully defending the appeal.

Following our usual practice, *Morrow v. Dillard,*580 F.2d 1284, 1300 (5th Cir.1978), we remand the case to the district court for determination of attorneys’ fees since defendant-appellant, Rockwell International, may challenge the amount of the fees claimed by appellee.

REMANDED for determination of attorneys’ fees.
# C_2014372EN.01002202.xml

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/22

---

Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Fútbol Club Barcelona v OHIM (Representation of a crest)

(Case T-615/14)

2014/C 372/28

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fútbol Club Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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 General Court should:

| — | alter the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of 23 May 2014 and of the Examiner of 23 May 2013, in accordance with Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009, for infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009, acknowledging the distinctive character of the figurative mark applied for in application No 1 1 7 64  354 and, therefore, the inapplicability of the absolute ground for refusal of registration laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, and ordering the publication of that trade mark application so that, once the remaining procedures have been dealt with, the application may be granted; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of 23 May 2014 and of the Examiner of 23 May 2013, in accordance with Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009, for infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009, acknowledging the distinctive character of the figurative mark applied for in application No 1 1 7 64  354 and, therefore, the inapplicability of the absolute ground for refusal of registration laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, and ordering the publication of that trade mark application so that, once the remaining procedures have been dealt with, the application may be granted;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 87(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 87(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a crest for goods and services in classes 16, 25 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 64  354.

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars               
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1997         
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1996   
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1996   
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1   
<CASH>                                    11  
<SECURITIES>                               0  
<RECEIVABLES>                          4,008
<ALLOWANCES>                             218       
<INVENTORY>                           10,041  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      14,469  
<PP&E>                                10,198  
<DEPRECIATION>                         3,639  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        22,422  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  9,090  
<BONDS>                                    0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0  
<PREFERRED>                                0  
<COMMON>                                   3  
<OTHER-SE>                             4,560  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          22,422  
<SALES>                               35,348  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      35,348  
<CGS>                                 22,615  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         34,690  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       324  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          334  
<INCOME-TAX>                             140  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      194  
<DISCONTINUED>                             0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0  
<CHANGES>                                  0  
<NET-INCOME>                             194  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .07  
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .07  
        

</TABLE>
#### § 601.90 Scope.

This subpart applies to certain biological products that have been studied for their safety and efficacy in ameliorating or preventing serious or life-threatening conditions caused by exposure to lethal or permanently disabling toxic biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear substances. This subpart applies only to those biological products for which: Definitive human efficacy studies cannot be conducted because it would be unethical to deliberately expose healthy human volunteers to a lethal or permanently disabling toxic biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear substance; and field trials to study the product's efficacy after an accidental or hostile exposure have not been feasible. This subpart does not apply to products that can be approved based on efficacy standards described elsewhere in FDA's regulations (e.g., accelerated approval based on surrogate markers or clinical endpoints other than survival or irreversible morbidity), nor does it address the safety evaluation for the products to which it does apply.
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.3070 Dental amalgam, mercury, and amalgam alloy. ( a ) *Identification.* Dental amalgam is a device that consists of a combination of elemental mercury, supplied as a liquid in bulk, sachet, or predosed capsule form, and amalgam alloy composed primarily of silver, tin, and copper, supplied as a powder in bulk, tablet, or predosed capsule form, for the direct filling of carious lesions or structural defects in teeth. This device also includes the individual component devices, mercury and amalgam alloy, when intended to be combined with each other to form dental amalgam.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for this device is FDA's “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Dental Amalgam, Mercury, and Amalgam Alloy.” *See* § 872.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.
[74 FR 38714, Aug. 4, 2009]
#### § 710.1 Who should register.

The owner or operator of a cosmetic product establishment which is not exempt under § 710.9 and engages in the manufacture or packaging of a cosmetic product is requested to register for each such establishment, whether or not the product enters interstate commerce. This request extends to any foreign cosmetic product establishment whose products are exported for sale in any State as defined in section 201(a)(1) of the act. No registration fee is required.
#### Arnold C. Greenberg, Trustee *v.*Town Plan and Zoning Commission of the Town of Farmington

*Palmer 8. McGee, Jr.,*for the appellant (defendant).

Argued March 4

decided March 5, 1969

The motion by the defendant to have the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County set aside, and the appeal from the defendant’s decision dismissed, is denied.
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.6700 Erythrocyte sedimentation rate test. ( a ) *Identification.* An erythrocyte sedimentation rate test is a device that measures the length of time required for the red cells in a blood sample to fall a specified distance or a device that measures the degree of sedimentation taking place in a given length of time. An increased rate indicates tissue damage or inflammation.
( 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 60608, Sept. 12, 1980, as amended at 54 FR 25045, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38790, July 25, 2001]
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 21



                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                           Year Ended August 31, 1998



        Wholly owned subsidiaries of the registrant are:

               Penford Products Co.
                 incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware

               Penford Export Corporation

        All subsidiaries are included in the consolidated financial statements.