alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015046EN.01005802.xml

| 9.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/58

---

Action brought on 4 December 2014 — Laboratorios ERN v OHIM — michelle menard (Lenah.C)

(Case T-802/14)

(2015/C 046/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios ERN, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: michelle menard GmbH — Berlin cosmetics (Berlin, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Lenah.C’ — Application for registration No 10 426 617

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2014 in Case R 2260/2013-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM and, if applicable, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs (jointly and severally). |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and, if applicable, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs (jointly and severally).

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7706 

To provide that funds made available under the Infrastructure Investment 

and Jobs Act for lead service line replacement projects be provided 

to disadvantaged communities in the form of forgivable loans or grants, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2024 

Mr. NUNN of Iowa (for himself and Mrs. SYKES) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide that funds made available under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for lead service line replacement projects be provided to disadvantaged communities in the form of forgivable loans or grants, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe Drinking Water 

5 for Disadvantaged Communities Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7706 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS. 

2 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all funds 

3 made available under the Infrastructure Investment and 

4 Jobs Act (Public Law 117–58) for capitalization grants 

5 for the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds under sec6 tion 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 

7 300j–12) for lead service line replacement projects and as8 sociated activities directly connected to the identification, 

9 planning, design, and replacement of lead service lines 

10 shall be disbursed in the form of forgivable loans or grants 

11 to disadvantaged communities (as defined in section 

12 1452(d)(3) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 

13 300j–12(d)(3))). 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Martin, Michael (OST) 

Subject: FW: EAS at Crescent City, CA- Proposals now due Tuesday February 17, 2015 

From: Martin, Michael (OST) 

Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 4:57PM 

Subject: EAS at Crescent City, CA- Proposals now due Tuesday February 17, 2015 

Everyone: 

'.·· ... 

We have received a request for an extension to the due date for EAS proposals at Crescent City, ciJ\.; We have decided to 

grant that request. Proposals for EAS at Crescent City will now be due by 11:59PM on Tuesday, February 17, 2015. 

This does not affect the existing due date of Thursday, January 15, 2015, for proposals at the following communities: 

• Moab, Utah 

• Pueblo, Colorado 

• Vernal, Utah 

Proposals at the above three communities are still due by 11:59PM on Thursday, January 15, 2015. 

Please let me know if you have questions. 

Regards, 

Michael Martin 

United States Department of Transportation 

Essential Air Service (EAS) and Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) 

(202) 366-6494 

1
#### Roy Carroll REYNOLDS *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5491

450 S. W. 2d 555

Opinion delivered March 2, 1970

*Skillman & Furrow,*for appellant.

*Joe Purcell,*Attorney General; *Don Langston,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

This is a post-conviction proceeding under our Criminal Procedure Rule 1. On March 7, 1969, the appellant was convicted, as a habitual offender, of the offenses of kidnaping and rape and was sentenced to 99 years imprisonment upon each charge. Reynolds was represented at the trial by paid counsel, but no appeal was taken.

*154Thereafter Reynolds himself prepared and filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the trial court properly treated as a petition under Rule 1. The matter was set down for a hearing, at which Reynolds and his attorney were present. Despite that opportunity to be heard, Reynolds did not offer to testify, did not request that any witnesses be called in his behalf, and asked instead that his petition be considered without any evidentiary hearing. The court perforce merely reviewed each allegation of the petition in the light of the evidence introduced at the original trial. Finding no merit in the petitioner’s allegations, the court denied the petition and remanded Reynolds to confinement in the penitentiary.

In September Reynolds addressed a letter to this court, asking assistance in appealing from the denial of his petition. In that letter Reynolds stated: "What I do know is that I wish to exhaust all my Rights.” We appointed counsel to take the appeal, who was provided with a transcript of the proceeding at no expense to the appellant. The matter has now been submitted to this court upon briefs.

There being no evidence in the record to support the allegations of the appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief, there is actually no issue presented to us for decision. It is plain enough that the petitioner is merely going through the motions of exhausting his “remedy” in the state courts as a preliminary step to instituting some sort of proceeding in the federal courts. In the circumstances we see no reason to dignify the petitioner’s maneuver by discussing it at length. Henceforth similar appeals, if any should be received, will be disposed of by a per curiam reference to this opinion.

Affirmed.

Fogleman, J., not participating.
#### In re Removal of Paskins as Trustee of Hensley Township, Johnson County, Indiana.

[No. 19,353.

Filed June 26, 1900.]

*Officers.*— Impeachment.—Appeal *and Error.*— Joint Assignment.— In a proceeding to impeach a public officer, undpr the act of 1897 (Acts 1897 p. 278), the person who verifies the accusation is not a party to the proceeding, and an assignment of error by the State, on appeal from the action of the court in sustaining a demurrer to the accusation, made jointly with the person who verified the accusation, presents no question.

Prom the Marion Circuit Court.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*W. L. Taylor,*Attorney-General, *R. M. Miller, H. C. Barnett, M. M. Hugg, Merrill Moores*and *C. C. Hadley,*for State.

*W. E. Deupree, L. E. Slack, W. H. H. Miller, J. B. Elam, J. W. Fesler*and *W. A. Johnson,*for appellee.

Baker, C. J.

— This proceeding was begun in the Johnson Circuit Court on April 24, 1899, under §35 of an act approved March 8, 1897, entitled “An act providing for the impeachment and removal from office of public officers”, Acts 1897 p. 278. On change of venue to the Marion Circuit Court, a demurrer for want of facts was sustained to the “accusation”, and this appeal resulted. Paskins moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground, among others, that the assignment of errors is insufficient to present any question to this court. The “accusation” was filed, presented to the court, and prosecuted, not by the prosecuting attorney in the name and on behalf of the State, but by citizens Lang and McEadden through their attorneys Miller & Barnett. To the ruling on the demurrer “the State of Indiana and the petitioners Lang and McEadden” severally excepted. The State of Indiana, by the Attorney-General, and Lang and McEadden, by their attorneys, have jointly assigned error on the ruling and judgment on the demurrer. In *174
      *Rowe*v. *Bateman,*153 Ind. 633, it was held that an “accusation” under §35 may be verified by the oath of any person, but must be presented to the court and prosecuted by the prosecuting attorney (unless he be the accused) in the name and on behalf of the State, that the State is the party adverse to the accused, and that the person who verifies the “accusation” is not a party to the proceeding. As the alleged error is not available to Lang or to McPadden, and as the State complains of no wrong except jointly with them, the assignment presents no question. *Armstrong*v. *Dunn,*143 Ind. 433 and cases cited on page 437; *Earhart*v. *Farmers Creamery,*148 Ind. 79: *Hatfield*v. *Cummings,*152 Ind. 280.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         800,110
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  108,011
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      11,454,452
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,641,375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,197,193
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,134,371
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,437,822
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,197,193
<SALES>                                      4,876,464
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,876,464
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,566,275
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             908,651
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (634,150)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (634,150)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 26, 2010 

p0719 

Order 

 

July 26, 2010 

140996 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140996 

 COA: 288972 

Saginaw CC: 07-029831-FC 

JOHN PAUL TOVAR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 9, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 03484

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 03484\03484_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03484\03484_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03484\03484_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 03484\03484_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03484\03484_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03484\03484_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

03484\Certification Statement Plant ID 03484.pdf Plant certification statement

x 03484\Supplemental Documentation\Freestone Facility Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03484\Supplemental Documentation\Freestone water balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

03484\Supplemental Documentation\03484_CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.5300 Medical neutron radiation therapy system. ( a ) *Identification.* A medical neutron radiation therapy system is a device intended to generate high-energy neutrons for radiation therapy. This generic type of device may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment support, treatment planning computer programs, component parts, and accessories.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
Plant Award Specification Sheet

OMB Control No. 2060-0347

Date

Plant name as it will appear on Certificate

Company name as it will appear on 

Certificate

Corporate energy manager contact information

Name

Title

Organization

Address 1

Address 2

City

State

Zip code

Email

Phone

Organization/Plant Owner’s Chief Executive Officer information:

Name

Title

Organization

Address 1

Address 2

City

State

Zip code

Email

Phone
Professional Engineer information

Name

Title

Organization

Address 1

Address 2

City

State

Zip code

Email

Phone

License number

Plant Owner information:

Company or 

Parent Company 

Name

Address 1

Address 2

City

State

Zip code

Web address:

Phone

NOTE: Unless specified otherwise, all recognition materials (the bronze plaque, the banner/flag graphic, and the 

letter of congratulations) will be addressed to and sent to the Corporate Energy Manager at the location specified 

above. The letter of congratulations for the CEO will be sent directly to the address provided for the CEO.

Please specify any other information/requests for distribution of recognition materials in the space below.

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to range up to 15 minutes per response. Send comments on the 

Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent 

burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. 

Do not send the completed form to this address.

EPA Form 5900-265
<PAGE>   1


                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements 
No. 33-95630, No. 333-04192, and No. 333-04190 of MiniMed Inc. on Form S-8 of 
our report dated March 5, 1999 (except for Note 15 as to which the date is 
April 1, 1999), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MiniMed, Inc. 
for the year ended January 1, 1999.

Our audits of the financial statements referred to in our aforementioned report
also include the financial statement schedule of MiniMed Inc., listed in Item
14. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to
the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material
respects the information set forth therein.


/s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP
---------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles, California
April 1, 1999
# C_2014351EN.01002401.xml

| 6.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/24

---

Action brought on 8 August 2014 — BSH v OHIM (PerfectRoast)

(Case T-591/14)

2014/C 351/30

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by S. Biagosch, 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 Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 June 2014 in Case R 359/2014-5; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 June 2014 in Case R 359/2014-5;

| — | order OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘PerfectRoast’ for goods in Classes 7 and 11 — Community trade mark registration No 1 2 1 73  902

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

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

—

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

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.6225 Nose clip. ( a ) *Identification.* A nose clip is a device intended to close a patient's external nares (nostrils) during diagnostic or therapeutic procedures.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 868.9. The device is 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.
[47 FR 31142, July 16, 1982, as amended at 54 FR 25048, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38796, July 25, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1570 Ophthalmoscope. ( a ) *Identification.* An ophthalmoscope is an AC-powered or battery-powered device containing illumination and viewing optics intended to examine the media (cornea, aqueous, lens, and vitreous) and the retina of the eye.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device, when it is an AC-powered opthalmoscope, a battery-powered opthalmoscope, or a hand-held ophthalmoscope replacement battery, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 886.9.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 84 FR 71817, Dec. 30, 2019]
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3800 Wrist joint metal/polymer semi-constrained cemented prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A wrist joint metal/polymer semi-constrained cemented prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted to replace a wrist joint. The device limits translation and rotation in one or more planes via the geometry of its articulating surfaces. It has no linkage across-the-joint. This generic type of device includes prostheses that have either a one-part radial component made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, with an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene bearing surface, or a two-part radial component made of alloys and an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene ball that is mounted on the radial component with a trunnion bearing. The metallic portion of the two-part radial component is inserted into the radius. These devices have a metacarpal component(s) made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum. This generic type of device is limited to those prostheses intended for use with bone cement (§ 888.3027).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.5750 Inflatable tracheal tube cuff. ( a ) *Identification.* An inflatable tracheal tube cuff is a device used to provide an airtight seal between a tracheal tube and a patient's trachea.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).