alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Date: November 22 , 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

NOTICE SHORTENING ANSWER PERIOD

DOCKET DOT

- OST

- 2011

- 0152

On November 20 , 2011, Universal Jet Aviation, Inc. (“Universal Je t”), filed a request for an extension of its existing exemption 1 from Part 298 of the Department’s r egulations (14 CFR Part 298) to operate one executive

- configured Boeing 737

, or Boeing Business Jet (“BBJ”)

, 2 along

with a Motion to shorten the answer period in this case to November 28 , 2011

. Under the Department’s regulations (14 CFR § 302.307), answers to the exemption application would normally be due by December 6 , 2011.

In support of its request, Universal Jet states that a sho rtened answer period will enable Universal to continue to provide the charter transportation it has been authorized to operate. In support of its extension request, Universal also states it is seeking temporary relief to continue operating its

contracted charter air service until such time as the Department has taken action on its pending certificate applications for interstate and foreign passenger charter authority

.

We have reviewed Universal Jet’s request and find it appropriate to grant the Motion to shorten the answer period in this case to November 28, 2011. Additionally, the Department received a letter from Universal stating that it had polled and received non

- objections from interested parties regarding the shortened answer period.

We will serve this notice by email or facsimile on all interested parties.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of this notice under the Department’s Regulations, 14 CFR 385.30, may file their petitions within 10 days of the service da te of this

order.

1 See Order 2011

- 8

- 19 granting Universal an exemption from 14 CFR Part 298. This exemption expires on November 30, 2011.

2 Normally, aircraft with only 16 seats would not require certificate authority since such aircraft generally qualify

as “small” aircraft that can be operated under the Part 298 air taxi exemption. However, the BBJ, which is a

modified B

- 737, and other similar sized aircraft are “large” aircraft that do not qualify for the air taxi exemption. Therefore, Universal Jet has applied for certi ficate authority in Dockets DOT

- OST

- 2011

- 0150 and DOT

- OST

- 2011

- 0151. U N I T E D S

T A T E S O F A

M E R I C A D E P A R T M E N T O F T R A N S P O R T A T

I O N2

This notice is effective immediately and the filing of a petition for reconsideration shall not alter

its effectiveness.

By:

TODD M. HOMAN

Director Office of Aviation Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.regulations.com
# C_2016111EN.01004601.xml

| 29.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/46

---

Corrigendum to the Order of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — BR IP Holder v OHIM — Greyleg Investments (HOKEY POKEY)

(Case T-62/14)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark HOKEY POKEY — Unregistered earlier national word mark — Proof of use — Right to prohibit use of the mark sought — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right of a Member State — Obligation to state reasons — Raised by the Court of its own motion)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark HOKEY POKEY — Unregistered earlier national word mark — Proof of use — Right to prohibit use of the mark sought — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right of a Member State — Obligation to state reasons — Raised by the Court of its own motion)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 90 of 7.3.2016, p. 15
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 90 of 7.3.2016, p. 15

(2016/C 111/58)

The OJ Communication in Case T-62/14, BR IP Holder v OHIM — Greyleg Investments (HOKEY POKEY) should read as follows:

‘Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — BR IP Holder v OHIM — Greyleg Investments (HOKEY POKEY)

(Case T-62/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark HOKEY POKEY - Unregistered earlier national word mark - Proof of use - Right to prohibit use of the mark sought - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right of a Member State - Obligation to state reasons - Raised by the Court of its own motion))

(2016/C 090/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BR IP Holder LLC (Canton, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: F. Traub, lawyer and C. Rohsler, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Greyleg Investments Ltd (Baltonsborough, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2013 (Case R 1091/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between BR IP Holder LLC and Greyleg Investments Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 November 2013 (Case R 1091/2012-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 November 2013 (Case R 1091/2012-4);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by BR IP Holder LLC.’ |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by BR IP Holder LLC.’

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-3075

In Re: WILBUR P. HOLLAR; RUTH CAROL HOLLAR,

Debtors.

_________________________

WILBUR P. HOLLAR; RUTH CAROL HOLLAR,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; INTERNAL REVENUE

SERVICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-95-446-2, BK-93-11389C-7W-B, BK-93-2087W-A)

Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilbur P. Hollar, Ruth Carol Hollar, Appellants Pro Se. Robert

William Metzler, Gary Dexter Gray, Gary R. Allen, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal from the district court's order affirming

the bankruptcy court's order granting judgment for the United

States in their adversary proceeding seeking to set aside as a

fraudulent transfer the tax sale of a parcel of property and seeking a declaration that their 1989 and 1990 income tax liabilities

are dischargeable in bankruptcy. We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hollar v.

United States, Nos. CA-95-446-2; BK-93-11389C-7W-B; BK-93-2087W-A

(M.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 1995). We also deny the motions of the United

States for sanctions and to consolidate this appeal with another

appeal filed by the Appellants. 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.

AFFIRMED
# C_2016136EN.01003202.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Spokey v OHIM — Leder Jaeger (SPOKeY)

(Case T-846/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark SPOKeY - Earlier Community word mark SPOOKY - Declaration of partial invalidity - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Examination of evidence - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 136/46)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Spokey sp. z o.o. (Katowice, Poland) (represented by: B. Matusiewicz-Kulig, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Zajfert and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Leder Jaeger GmbH (Siegen, Germany)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 October 2014 (Case R 525/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Leder Jaeger GmbH and Spokey sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Spokey sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Spokey sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.2320 Ballistocardiograph. ( a ) *Identification.* A ballistocardiograph is a device, including a supporting structure on which the patient is placed, that moves in response to blood ejection from the heart. The device often provides a visual display.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
#### William H. COSBY, Jr., and Camille O. Cosby, Appellees, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellant. JACK BARRY PRODUCTIONS, INC., Appellee, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellant.

Appeal Nos. 85-2756, 85-2757.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 21, 1986.

Elaine F. Ferris, of the Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellant. With her on brief, were Roger M. Olsen, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup and Richard Farber, of the Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Togo D. West, of Patterson, Belknap, Webb *&*Tyler, Washington, D.C., argued for appellees Cosby. With him on brief, was Renee L. Szybala, of Patterson, Belk-nap, Webb & Tyler.

Sheldon S. Cohen, of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Washington, D.C., argued, for ap-pellee Barry. With him on brief were Roger A. Pies and Howard J. Hoffman, of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

Before NIES, BISSELL, Circuit Judges, and SWYGERT, Senior Circuit Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Luther M. Swygert, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

BISSELL, Circuit Judge.

These appeals1 challenge the Claims Court, Kozinski, C.J., decision that tapes of The New Bill Cosby Show and The Jokers’ Wild qualify for investment tax credit (ITC or credit) under the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 48(k) (1982), and that the categorical exclusion of variety shows and game shows as “qualified” films contained in Treasury Regulations § 1.48 — 8(a)(3)(iii) (1979), is invalid. *Cosby v. United States,*8 Cl.Ct. 428 (1985). We affirm.

In addition to the Claims Court decision permitting the ITC for the Cosby Show and The Joker’s Wild program, other courts in lengthy and well-reasoned opinions have construed section 48(k) as permitting ITC for another game show, films concerning a sporting event, recordings of rock musical performances, and another variety show and have held the regulation invalid to the extent of its categorical exclusion of the *1000shows at issue. *Apis Productions, Inc. v. Commissioner,*86 T.C. 69 (1986) (held variety show exclusion in Treas.Reg. § 1.48-8(a)(3)(iii) (1979) invalid); *Goodson-Todman Enterprises, Ltd. v. Commissioner,*84 T.C. 255 (1985) (game show — To Tell The Truth), *aff'd and modified,*784 F.2d 66 (2d Cir.1985) (game show exclusion in Treas. Reg. § 1.48 — 8(a)(3)(iii) (1979) invalid); *Budget Films, Inc. v. Commissioner,*85 T.C. 114 (1985) (film footage of bullfights and Beatles’ concerts were eligible for the ITC).

The above cited decisions provide exhaustive analysis concerning the invalidity of the regulations at issue in this case. Consequently, we see little necessity for further exposition and affirm on the basis of the Claims Court opinion.

AFFIRMED.

1

. These appeals were not consolidated. Appel-lees in this court, plaintiffs in the Claims Court, are represented by separate counsel and ad-vanee different theories on statutory interpretation. Nevertheless, because the issues presented are closely analagous issues, and the cases were heard in the Claims Court and argued on appeal in tandem, we issue one opinion incorporating our decision in each case.
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.3945 Dengue virus serological reagents. ( a ) *Identification.* Dengue virus serological reagents are devices that consist of antigens and antibodies for the detection of dengue virus and dengue antibodies in individuals who have signs and symptoms of dengue fever or dengue hemorrhagic fever. The detection aids in the clinical laboratory diagnosis of dengue fever or dengue hemorrhagic fever caused by dengue virus.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control is FDA's guideline entitled “Class II Special Controls Guideline: Dengue Virus Serological Reagents.” For availability of the guideline document, see § 866.1(e).
[79 FR 31023, May 30, 2014]
#### § 820.5 Quality system.

Each manufacturer shall establish and maintain a quality system that is appropriate for the specific medical device(s) designed or manufactured, and that meets the requirements of this part.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 43 (Friday, March 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 10330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4667]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12055 and <greek-i>12056]


Nebraska Disaster <greek-i>NE-00033

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-
1878-DR), dated 02/25/2010.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storms and Snowstorm.
    Incident Period: 12/22/2009 through 01/08/2010.

Effective Date: 02/25/2010.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 04/26/2010.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/25/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 02/25/2010, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Adams, Antelope, Brown, Burt, Butler, Cass, Cherry, 
Clay, Dakota, Dodge, Douglas, Gage, Garfield, Hamilton, Jefferson, 
Johnson, Keya Paha, Lancaster, Madison, Morrill, Nance, Nemaha, Otoe, 
Pawnee, Rock, Saline, Saunders, Seward, Stanton, Thayer, Thurston, 
Washington, Wheeler, York.
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere...      3.625
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
For Economic Injury:
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 12055B 
and for economic injury is 12056B.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-4667 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.4014 Nonresorbable gauze/sponge for external use. ( a ) *Identification.* A nonresorbable gauze/sponge for external use is a sterile or nonsterile device intended for medical purposes, such as to be placed directly on a patient's wound to absorb exudate. It consists of a strip, piece, or pad made from open woven or nonwoven mesh cotton cellulose or a simple chemical derivative of cellulose. This classification does not include a nonresorbable gauze/sponge for external use that contains added drugs such as antimicrobial agents, added biologics such as growth factors, or is composed of materials derived from animal sources.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in part 807, subpart E of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 878.9.
[64 FR 53929, Oct. 5, 1999]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60627 USDC No. 4:95-CV-67-S-A

ROGER ERIC THORSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus HARRISON COUNTY ET AL., Defendants,
KIRK FORDICE; EDDIE LUCAS; EDWARD HARGETT; MISSISSIPPI DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS; ROGER COOK; J.J. STREETER, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

- - - - - - - - - - April 7, 1997 Before SMITH, DUHE’ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Roger Eric Thorson (Mississippi prisoner # 08836C), moves this court for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) in his appeal fromNo. 96-60627 -2- the district court's denial of his motion pursuant to F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(6). The motion for leave to proceed IFP is GRANTED. The PLRA requires a prisoner appealing IFP in a civil action to pay the full amount of the filing fee, $105. As Thorson does not have funds for immediate payment of this fee, he is assessed a partial filing fee of 40¢ in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Following payment of the partial filing fee, funds shall be deducted from Thorson’ prisoner account until the full filing fee is paid. Id. IT IS ORDERED that Thorson pay the appropriate filing fee to the Clerk of the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of Thorson’s inmate account shall collect the remainder of the $105 filing fee and forward for payment to the Clerk of the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Thorson argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 60(b)(6) motion. As Thorson's Rule 60(b)(6) motion did not present the district court with "extraordinary circumstances" justifying relief, the denial of Thorson's motion did not rise to the level of an abuse of discretion. Government Fin. Servs. One Ltd. Partnership v. Peyton Place, Inc ., 62 F.3d 767, 774 (5th Cir. 1995). The decision is AFFIRMED.
#### § 822.36 Can you inspect and copy the records related to my postmarket surveillance plan?

We may, at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, inspect and copy any records pertaining to the conduct of postmarket surveillance that are required to be kept by this regulation. You must be able to produce records and information required by this regulation that are in the possession of others under contract with you to conduct the postmarket surveillance. Those who have signed agreements or are under contract with you must also produce the records and information upon our request. This information must be produced within 72 hours of the initiation of the inspection. We generally will redact information pertaining to individual subjects prior to copying those records, unless there are extenuating circumstances.
# C_2014212EN.01003202.xml

| 7.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/32

---

Action brought on 31 March 2014 — Mo Industries v OHIM (Splendid)

(Case T-203/14)

2014/C 212/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mo Industries LLC (Los Angeles, United States) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, 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 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 7 January 2014 given in Case R 1542/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2014 given in Case R 1542/2013-1;

| — | 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

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Splendid’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 6 13  131

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

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) and (c) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated (the "Company") and PSEG Funding
Trust I on Form S-3 of our report dated February 15, 2002, appearing in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001, and
to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in the Prospectus which is
part of this Registration Statement.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Parsippany, NJ

April 16, 2002
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.8950 Russell viper venom reagent. ( a ) *Identification.* Russell viper venom reagent is a device used to determine the cause of an increase in the prothrombin time.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls).
[45 FR 60637, Sept. 12, 1980]