alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014361EN.01001201.xml

| 13.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/12

---

Action brought on 30 July 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION)

(Case T-569/14)

2014/C 361/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 May 2014 in case R 122/2014-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 May 2014 in case R 122/2014-4;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 22  961

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:

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(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (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;

| — | Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations |
| --- | --- |

—

Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-1062

BRUCE E. ANDERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID L. SMITH; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DR. CEI; DR. KAPIL; EDWARD CAREY,

Doctor; DR. AMMONETTE; E. C. MORRIS; DOCTOR

WALKER, Bland Correctional Center,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District

Judge; Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-93-582-R)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 22, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce E. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Christine Maggard,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia;

Peter Duane Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. 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. Anderson v. Smith, No. CA-93-582-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 8, 1994).

We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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
#### Peter B. THOMAS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. The MEMBERS OF the CITY COUNCIL OF PORTLAND, et al., Defendants, Appellees.

No. 83-1786.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Argued March 7, 1984.

Decided March 23, 1984.

*42Murrough H. O’Brien, Portland, Me., with whom Dunlap & O’Brien, Portland, Me., was on brief, for plaintiff, appellant.

William J. Kayatta, Jr., Portland, Me., with whom Pierce, Atwood, Scribner, Allen, Smith & Lancaster, Portland, Me., was on brief, for defendants, appellees.

Before CAMPBELL, Chief Judge, and COFFIN and BREYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Peter B. Thomas, argues that the City of Portland, Maine, and various city officials infringed his constitutional rights by denying him a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Established case law makes clear that the federal Constitution grants appellant no right to carry a concealed handgun. *See, e.g., United States v. Miller,*307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) (second amendment applies only to weapons that have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”); *United States v. Oakes,*564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir.1977), *cert. denied,*435 U.S. 926, 98 S.Ct. 1493, 55 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (same); *United States v. Johnson,*497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir.1974) (same); *Presser v. Illinois,*116 U.S. 252, 265, 6 S.Ct. 580, 584, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886) (second amendment confers rights as against activity by the “federal government only”); *Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove,*695 F.2d 261, 269-70 (7th Cir.1982), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 194, 78 L.Ed.2d 170 (1983) (same); *Cases v. United States,*131 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir.1942), *cert. denied,*319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718 (1943) (same); *United States v. Warin,*530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.), *cert. denied,*426 U.S. 948, 96 S.Ct. 3168, 49 L.Ed.2d 1185 (1976) (second amendment grants right to the state, not the individual); *Stevens v. United States,*440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir.1971) (same). *See Lewis v. United States,*445 U.S. 55, 65 n. 8, 100 S.Ct. 915, 920 n. 8, 63 L.Ed.2d 198 (1980). Principles of res judicata bar appellant’s remaining claims against the chief of police. *Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education,*— U.S.—, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). And, the opinion of the magistrate, adopted by the district court, adequately discusses any other of appellant’s claims. The judgment of the district court, dismissing appellant’s case, is

*Affirmed.*
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Richard E. Jahnke, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this Form10-QSB of Angeion Corporation;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)          Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)          All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  | September  12, 2003 |                                   |   | /s/ Richard  E. Jahnke |   |
|--------|---------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|------------------------|--------|
|   |                | Richard E.  Jahnke                     |
|   |                | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 12 V

UNPUBLISHED

AMY SKOPAK

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: March 6, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

Administration (SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC , for

petitioner.

Traci R. Patton , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On January 3, 2019

, Amy Skopak filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder in jury related to vaccine

administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) as a result of an influenza ( “ flu ” ) vaccine administered on September 28, 2017 . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing

Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On February 28, 2020

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Managemen t and Promotion of

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such

material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 19 86, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012 ).2

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent concludes that Petit ioner “ meets the criteria

for a presumed SIRVA, as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table

. ” Id. at 4

- 5

.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.3130 Ophthalmic conformer. ( a ) *Identification.* An ophthalmic conformer is a device usually made of molded plastic intended to be inserted temporarily between the eyeball and eyelid to maintain space in the orbital cavity and prevent closure or adhesions during the healing process following surgery. ]
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 886.9.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 63 FR 59230, Nov. 3, 1998]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       5,925,831
<SECURITIES>                                60,454,012
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,543,015
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  6,548,214
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            84,295,155
<PP&E>                                       2,428,805
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              88,197,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,516,691
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       192,946
<OTHER-SE>                                  81,487,862
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                88,197,499
<SALES>                                     26,438,282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,438,282
<CGS>                                        8,923,084
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,473,414
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                461,174
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (370,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            831,174
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   831,174
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.1 Scope. ( a ) This part sets forth the classification of orthopedic devices intended for human use that are in commercial distribution.
( b ) The identification of a device in a regulation in this part is not a precise description of every device that is, or will be, subject to the regulation. A manufacturer who submits a premarket notification submission for a device under part 807 cannot show merely that the device is accurately described by the section title and identification provision of a regulation in this part, but shall state why the device is substantially equivalent to other devices, as required by § 807.87.
( c ) To avoid duplicative listings, an orthopedic device that has two or more types of uses (e.g., used both as a diagnostic device and as a surgical device) is listed in one subpart only.
( d ) References in this part to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21 unless otherwise noted.
( e ) Guidance documents referenced in this part are available on the Internet at *http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm .*
[52 FR 33702, Sept. 4, 1987, as amended at 68 FR 14137, Mar. 24, 2003; 78 FR 18233, Mar. 26, 2013]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                         790,955
<SECURITIES>                                27,310,873
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,383,011
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  8,093,629
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,721,593
<PP&E>                                       8,968,649
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,540,138
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,673,747
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,549,089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      8,750
<COMMON>                                       287,545
<OTHER-SE>                                  39,328,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                45,673,747
<SALES>                                      2,489,451
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,489,451
<CGS>                                        3,375,815
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,375,815
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,369,606
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              58,532
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (10,321,261)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (10,321,261)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (10,321,261)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### § 1.1321-2 Liquidation and replacement of lifo inventories by acquiring corporations.

For additional rules in the case of certain corporate acquisitions referred to in section 381(a), see section 381(c)(5) and the regulations thereunder.

[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12042, Nov. 26, 1960]
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.3600 Partially fabricated denture kit. ( a ) *Identification.* A partially fabricated denture kit is a device composed of connected preformed teeth that is intended for use in construction of a denture. A denture base is constructed using the patient's mouth as a mold, by partially polymerizing the resin denture base materials while the materials are in contact with the oral tissues. After the denture base is constructed, the connected preformed teeth are chemically bonded to the base.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 872.9. The special controls for this device are FDA's: ( 1 ) “Use of International Standard ISO 10993 ‘Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices—Part I: Evaluation and Testing,’ ” and
( 2 ) “OTC Denture Reliners, Repair Kits, and Partially Fabricated Denture Kits.”
[52 FR 30097, Aug. 12, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 17144, Mar. 31, 2000; 84 FR 71812, Dec. 30, 2019]
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302**

 

I, Howard Liang, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of BeiGene, Ltd.;

 

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

 

3.              Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

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

 

(a)         designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(a)         all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)         any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: March 30, 2016

 

 
| /s/   Howard Liang                                     |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Howard   Liang                                         |   |
| Chief   Financial Officer and   Chief Strategy Officer |   |

 

----
Exhibit 99.1

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


 In connection with the Quarterly Report of American HealthChoice, Inc.  (the
 "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the  period ending December 31, 2002 as  filed
 with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the
 "Report"), I  Dr. J.  W. Stucki,  Chief Executive  Officer of  the  Company,
 certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 1350, as  adopted pursuant to S 906 of  the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (1)  The Report fully complies with  the requirements of Section  13(a)
 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)  The information contained  in the Report  fairly presents, in  all
 material respects, the financial condition and  result of operations of  the
 Company.



 /s/ Dr. J. W. Stucki
 Dr. J. W. Stucki
 Chief Executive Officer

 February 14, 2003