alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014235EN.01002401.xml

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/24

---

Action brought on 23 April 2014 — Aalto-korkeakoulusäätiö v OHIM (APPCAMPUS)

(Case T-255/14)

2014/C 235/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aalto-korkeakoulusäätiö (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: C. Tomás Pedro, 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:

| — | Partially annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 January 2014 given in Case R 713/2013-2 in the part that it confirmed the decision of rejection of protection in the European Union to the International Registration 1 1 34  485‘APPCAMPUS’ (word) regarding computer software, magnetic data carriers, recording discs, compact discs, DVD’s and other digital recording media in class 9 and technological services and research and design relating thereto, design and development of computer software in class 42; |
| --- | --- |

—

Partially annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 January 2014 given in Case R 713/2013-2 in the part that it confirmed the decision of rejection of protection in the European Union to the International Registration 1 1 34  485‘APPCAMPUS’ (word) regarding computer software, magnetic data carriers, recording discs, compact discs, DVD’s and other digital recording media in class 9 and technological services and research and design relating thereto, design and development of computer software in class 42;

| — | 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: International Registration designating the European Union No 1 1 34  485 of the word mark ‘APPCAMPUS’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark applied for partially not eligible for registration

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c), (b) and 7(2) of the Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

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

§ 874.1820 Surgical nerve stimulator/locator. ( a ) *Identification.* A surgical nerve stimulator/locator is a device that is intended to provide electrical stimulation to the body to locate and identify nerves and to test their excitability.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 11164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5043]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM10-11-000]


Integration of Variable Energy Resources; Notice Extending 
Comment Period

March 3, 2010.
    On February 23, 2010, Edison Electric Institute (EEI) filed a 
motion requesting an extension of the period in which to file comments 
in response to the Commission's January 21, 2010 Notice of Inquiry 
(NOI) in this proceeding.\1\ EEI requests a fourteen-day extension of 
the comment period, which would result in a comment due date of April 
12, 2010. Additionally, on February 26, 2010, Bonneville Power 
Administration (BPA) filed a motion requesting an extension of at least 
fourteen days.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Integration of Variable Energy Resources, 130 FERC ] 61,053 
(2010).
    \2\ BPA indicates, however, that its preference would be for a 
twenty-one day extension of the comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that the period during 
which interested parties may file comments in response to the 
Commission's NOI in this proceeding is extended by fourteen days. 
Comments are now due on or before April 12, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5043 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# C_2014212EN.01003301.xml

| 7.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/33

---

Action brought on 27 March 2014 — Schroeder v Council and Commission

(Case T-205/14)

2014/C 212/42

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: I. Schroeder KG (GmbH & Co.) (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Landry, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Order the defendants to pay compensation to the applicant in the amount of EUR 3 45  644 together with interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of delivery of the judgment, or to declare that the applicant is entitled to compensation from the defendants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendants to pay compensation to the applicant in the amount of EUR 3 45  644 together with interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of delivery of the judgment, or to declare that the applicant is entitled to compensation from the defendants;

| — | Order the defendants to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks compensation on account of the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008, (1) which was declared invalid by judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 March 2012 in Case C-338/10 GLS.

1

GLS

The applicant submits that although the anti-dumping duties wrongly collected on the basis of that regulation have been refunded by the national customs authorities, it suffered financial loss as a result of the fact that it was compelled by the withdrawal of liquidity to obtain additional bank loans at the usual market rates of interest. The applicant therefore seeks reimbursement of the difference between the interest it paid on its bank loans and the lower amount of interest that it would have had to pay if no anti-dumping duties had been collected. The applicant submits in that regard that, by unlawfully adopting Regulation No 1355/2008, the defendants committed a sufficiently serious breach of their duty of due care and proper administration, resulting in a loss to the applicant for which compensation is not otherwise available, since there is no provision under the relevant national rules on import duties for interest to be paid on the amount of any difference in favour of the person liable to pay import duties, from the time of payment.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 350, p. 35).

1

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

§ 886.4610 Ocular pressure applicator. ( a ) *Identification.* An ocular pressure applicator is a manual device that consists of a sphygmomanometer-type squeeze bulb, a dial indicator, a band, and bellows, intended to apply pressure on the eye in preparation for ophthalmic surgery.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
### Re: ppm-hours data Susan Stone to: David Schonbrunn 02/08/2010 11:56 AM Cc: Tricia Crabtree, David Mintz, Vicki Sandiford Dear David Schhonbrunn: By copy of this message, I am asking David Mintz to point you to any additional mapping information, other than the maps we had at the public hearing; and I'm asking Vicki Sandiford to point you to the location in the Federal Register notice where we discuss our rationale for the proposed range. David M. and Vicki, if you would please copy Tricia Crabtree on your responses so that we can ensure that communications are entered into the public docket. David Schonbrunn, I hope this information will be useful. Best regards, Susan Susan Lyon Stone Ambient Standards Group l US EPA (C504-06) l Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919-541-1146 l Fax: 919- 541-0237 l HSD Phone 919-966-6226 David Schonbrunn 02/04/2010 09:09:31 PM Susan, I would appreciate being able to look at t... From: David Schonbrunn <David@Schonbrunn.org> To: Susan Stone/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 02/04/2010 09:09 PM Subject: ppm-hours data

Susan, I would appreciate being able to look at the GIS mapping and underlying data for the secondary ozone standard. I am especially curious how 7 was chosen as the appropriate lower limit. Thank you for your help in my starting to get a handle on this new type of standards value. Many thanks, --David

David Schonbrunn, President Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF) P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915-1439 415-331-1982 David@Schonbrunn.org www.transdef.org
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.5800 Automated sedimentation rate device. ( a ) *Identification.* An automated sedimentation rate device is an instrument that measures automatically the erythrocyte sedimentation rate in whole blood. Because an increased sedimentation rate indicates tissue damage or inflammation, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate device is useful in monitoring treatment of a disease.
( 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 60602, Sept. 12, 1980, as amended at 54 FR 25045, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38790, July 25, 2001]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7838 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7838

To require the Commandant of the Coast Guard to submit a report on the 
implementation of certain recommendations for improving the Coast Guard 
                housing program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2024

 Mr. Kilmer (for himself and Mr. D'Esposito) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Commandant of the Coast Guard to submit a report on the 
implementation of certain recommendations for improving the Coast Guard 
                housing program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Coast Guard Housing Affordability 
and Availability Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON GAO RECOMMENDATIONS.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit to Congress a report on the 
status of the implementation of the recommendations contained in the 
Government Accountability Office report published on February 5, 2024, 
and titled ``Coast Guard: Better Feedback Collection and Information 
Could Enhance Housing Program'' (GAO-24-106388).
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.5680 Pediatric position holder. ( a ) *Identification.* A pediatric position holder is a device used to hold an infant or a child in a desired position for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes, e.g., in a crib under a radiant warmer, or to restrain a child while an intravascular injection is administered.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). Except when the device is an infant positioner for prescription use in highly monitored settings or an infant sleep position holder, it is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 880.9. The device is exempt from the good manufacturing practice 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 69682, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 66 FR 46952, Sept. 10, 2001; 84 FR 71815, Dec. 30, 2019]
<Page>
                                                                   [LOGO]


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 20 to Registration
Statement No. 033-37577 of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company Variable Account
D of our report dated February 28, 2003, relating to the financial statements
of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company Variable Account D, appearing in the
Statement of Additional Information which is part of such Registration
Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading "Independent Public
Accountants" in such Statement of Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Hartford, Connecticut

April 7, 2003
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.3900 Inflatable extremity splint. ( a ) *Identification.* An inflatable extremity splint is a device intended to be inflated to immobilize a limb or an extremity.
( 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 § 878.9.
[53 FR 23872, June 24, 1988, as amended at 59 FR 63010, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38802, July 25, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.1890 Predictive pulmonary-function value calculator. ( a ) *Identification.* A predictive pulmonary-function value calculator is a device used to calculate normal pulmonary-function values based on empirical equations.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

11 a.m., Friday March 12, 2010.

# PLACE:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Surveillance Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,

Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2010-3522 Filed 2-18-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1070 Anomaloscope. ( a ) *Identification.* An anomaloscope is an AC-powered device intended to test for anomalies of color vision by displaying mixed spectral lines to be matched by the patient.
( 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 § 886.9.
[55 FR 48441, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 63012, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38810, July 25, 2001]
<Page>

                                                                          [LOGO]

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to the
registration statement on Form N-4 (No. 333-43886) (the "Registration
Statement") of our report dated February 13, 2003, relating to the financial
statements of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company, which appears in such
Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading
"Independent Accountants" in such Registration Statement.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 7, 2003
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.5660 Therapeutic massager. ( a ) *Identification.* A therapeutic massager is an electrically powered device intended for medical purposes, such as to relieve minor muscle aches and pains.
( 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 § 890.9.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 61 FR 1125, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38818, July 25, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3310 Hip joint metal/polymer constrained cemented or uncemented prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A hip joint metal/polymer constrained cemented or uncemented prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted to replace a hip joint. The device prevents dislocation in more than one anatomic plane and has components that are linked together. This generic type of device includes prostheses that have a femoral component made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, and an acetabular component made of ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene with or without a metal shell, made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum and titanium alloys. This generic type of device is intended for use with or without bone cement (§ 888.3027).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for this device is the FDA guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance: Hip Joint Metal/Polymer Constrained Cemented or Uncemented Prosthesis.”
[67 FR 21173, Apr. 30, 2002]
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00316-CV

IN RE MILTON LEE GARDNER

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed with this Court on September 

17, 2015. There are numerous procedural deficiencies with the petition, including but 

not limited to an inadequate record and the failure to serve the trial court as the 

respondent or the State of Texas as the real party in interest. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7; 52.2; 

9.5(a). However, to expedite a decision in this proceeding, we use Rule 2 to suspend the 

rules and overlook these and other deficiencies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2.

Relator alleges he has filed an application for writ of habeas corpus with the trial 

court under the Texas Constitution article V, § 8 as a collateral challenge of his juvenile 
In re Gardner Page 2

conviction. Relator asserts that he is currently restrained in his liberty because this 

allegedly improper juvenile conviction was used to enhance an offense relator 

committed as an adult and for which he is currently incarcerated. 

The petition for writ of mandamus to this Court does not identify the nature of 

the juvenile offense. Relator alleges, among other things, that the State has responded 

to his application for writ of habeas corpus, asserting the defense of latches, to which 

relator has filed a reply. He also asserts that neither of the District Court judges that 

have sat on the matter, apparently under an exchange of benches, has ruled on his 

application or the merits thereof.

Relator has not provided any of the referenced documents (the writ, the 

response, or the reply) or other motions and clerk’s records he references in his petition. 

Moreover, he does not provide the date any of these documents were allegedly filed or 

hearings were allegedly held.

The trial court has a ministerial duty to timely rule on motions or matters filed 

with the court. See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228-229 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. 

proceeding). However, without a record sufficient to show a violation of this duty, we 

cannot issue a mandamus against the trial court. See In re Wallace, No. 10-15-00065-CR, 

2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2682, *2 (Tex. App. Waco Mar. 19, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. 

op.). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
In re Gardner Page 3

Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the 

time a document is presented for filing. TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to TEX. R. APP.

P., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). See also TEX. R.

APP. P. 5; 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 5; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207(b); 51.208; § 

51.941(a) (West 2013). Under these circumstances, we suspend the rule and order the 

Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case. TEX. R. APP. P. 2. The write-off of 

the fees from the accounts receivable of the Court in no way eliminates or reduces the 

fees owed.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed October 8, 2015

[OT06]