alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014253EN.01004801.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/48

---

Action brought on 28 May 2014 — August Storck v OHIM (2good)

(Case T-366/14)

2014/C 253/63

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Rohr, A. Richter, P. Goldenbaum and T. Melchert, 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 First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 February 2014 in case R 996/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 February 2014 in case R 996/2013-1;

| — | order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of the word mark ‘2good’ for goods in Class 30 — International registration No 1 1 33  636

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: The application was rejected

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7970 

To require direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs and 

biological products to include truthful and not misleading pricing information. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 11, 2024 

Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia (for herself and Ms. PORTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription 

drugs and biological products to include truthful and 

not misleading pricing information. 

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 ‘‘Plain Prescription 

5 Prices Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7970 IH

1 SEC. 2. REGULATING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR PRESCRIP2 TION DRUG AND BIOLOGICAL PRODUCT 

3 PRICES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the 

5 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health 

6 and Human Services, acting through the Administrator of 

7 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (referred to 

8 in this section as the ‘‘Administrator’’), shall promulgate 

9 regulations requiring each direct-to-consumer advertise10 ment on television (including broadcast, cable, streaming, 

11 and satellite television) for a prescription drug or biologi12 cal product for which payment is available under title 

13 XVIII or XIX of the Social Security Act to include a tex14 tual statement, which shall be truthful and not misleading, 

15 indicating the list price, as determined on the first day 

16 of the quarter during which the advertisement is being 

17 aired or otherwise broadcast, for a typical 30-day regimen 

18 or typical course of treatment (whichever is most appro19 priate). 

20 (b) DETERMINATIONS.—In promulgating regulations 

21 under subsection (a), the Administrator shall determine— 

22 (1) whether such regulations should apply with 

23 respect to additional forms of advertising; 

24 (2) the manner and format of textual state25 ments described in such subsection; 

26 (3) appropriate enforcement mechanisms; and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7970 IH

1 (4) whether such textual statements should in2 clude any other price information, as appropriate. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

34 36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 05/31 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-31448 Summary Calendar

MACK HENRY RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CV-1499

__________________________________________

June 22, 2001

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mack Henry Richardson appeals the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of

his civil lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 925A and 5 U.S.C. § 522a(g)(1)(C), arising out of his inabilit y to reacquire firearms as a result of

his 1973 felony conviction. Richardson argues that he was improperly denied the right to acquire

weapons because the Louisiana Constitution restored his civil rights. He also argues that the district

court erred in determining that the FBI was exempt from suit under the Privacy Act.2

Having conducted a de novo review, ( see Jackson v. City of Beaumont Police Dep’t

, 958 F.2d

616, 618 (5th Cir. 1992)), we conclude that for substanti ally the same reasons articulated by the

district court in its dismissal order, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Reclamation

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of renewal.

# SUMMARY:

This notice is published in accordance with section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-463). Following consultation with the General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of the Interior is renewing the charter for the Yakima River Basin Conservation Advisory Group (CAG). The purpose of the CAG is to provide recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior and the State of Washington on the structure and implementation of the Yakima River Basin Water Conservation Program. In consultation with the State, the Yakama Nation, Yakima River basin irrigators, and other interested and related parties, six members are appointed to serve on the CAG.

The basin conservation program is structured to provide economic incentives with cooperative Federal, State, and local funding to stimulate the identification and implementation of structural and nonstructural cost-effective water conservation measures in the Yakima River basin. Improvements in the efficiency of water delivery and use will result in improved streamflows for fish and wildlife and improve the reliability of water supplies for irrigation.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Dawn Wiedmeier, Deputy Area Manager, Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Program, telephone 509-575-5848, extension 213.

## Certification

I hereby certify that Charter renewal of the Yakima River Basin Conservation Advisory Group is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of the Interior.

Ken Salazar,

Secretary of the Interior.

[FR Doc. 2010-5163 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 11153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4997]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13627-000]


Hydro Energy Technologies, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit 
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To 
Intervene, and Competing Applications

March 1, 2010.
    On November 6, 2009, Hydro Energy Technologies, LLC (Hydro Energy 
Technologies) filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant 
to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the 
feasibility of the Harpersfield Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 13627, to 
be located at the existing Harpersfield Dam, on the Grand River, in 
Ashtabula County, Ohio.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) An existing 8.5-foot-
high by 330-foot-long gravity dam; (2) a existing 36-acre impoundment 
with a storage capacity of 250 acre feet.; (3) an existing filtration 
plant to be converted into a powerhouse and installed with three new 
turbine-generator units for a total installed capacity of 390 
kilowatts; (4) a new 150-foot-long, 480-volt transmission line; and (5) 
appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would operate in a run-of-
river mode and generate an estimated average annual generation of 2,200 
megawatt-hours.
    Hydro Energy Technologies: Anthony J. Marra Jr., President, Hydro 
Energy Technologies, LLC., 33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930, 
(978) 283-2822.
    FERC Contact: Michael Watts, (202) 502-6123.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``eFiling'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
    Enter the docket number (P-13627) in the docket number field to 
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4997 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# C_2014261EN.01003201.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/32

---

Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Penny-Markt v OHIM — Boquoi Handels (B! O)

(Case T-364/14)

2014/C 261/56

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Penny-Markt GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and A. Wagner, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Boquoi Handels OHG (Straelen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2014 in Case R 1201/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2014 in Case R 1201/2013-4;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark including the word element ‘B! O’ for goods in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 32 — Community trade mark No 10 038 008

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Boquoi Handels OHG

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the national and Community trade mark ‘bo’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 16, 21, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 35

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the decision of the Cancellation Division was annulled and the Community trade mark was declared invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
#### § 99.405 Applicability of labeling, adulteration, and misbranding authority.

The dissemination of information relating to a new use for a drug or device may constitute labeling, evidence of a new intended use, adulteration, or misbranding of the drug or device if such dissemination fails to comply with section 551 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360aaa) and the requirements of this part. A manufacturer's failure to exercise due diligence in submitting the clinical studies that are necessary for the approval of a new use that is the subject of information disseminated under this part or in beginning or completing such clinical studies shall be deemed a failure to comply with section 551 of the act and the requirements of this part.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7969 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that the period during 

which a former Member of Congress is prohibited from lobbying shall 

begin upon the expiration of the term for which the Member was elected. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 11, 2024 

Ms. TENNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that 

the period during which a former Member of Congress 

is prohibited from lobbying shall begin upon the expiration of the term for which the Member was elected. 

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 ‘‘Don’t Quit to Lobby 

5 Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7969 IH

1 SEC. 2. COMMENCEMENT OF PERIOD DURING WHICH 

2 FORMER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE PRO3 HIBITED FROM LOBBYING. 

4 (a) COMMENCEMENT UPON EXPIRATION OF

5 TERM.— 

6 (1) SENATORS.—Section 207(e)(1)(A) of title 

7 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘within 2 years after that person leaves office’’ and 

9 inserting ‘‘within 2 years after the expiration of the 

10 term for which the person was elected or appointed’’. 

11 (2) MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE.—Section 

12 207(e)(1)(B) of such title is amended by striking 

13 ‘‘within 1 year after that person leaves office’’ and 

14 inserting ‘‘within 1 year after that person leaves of15 fice or, in the case of a Member, within 1 year after 

16 the expiration of the term for which the Member was 

17 elected’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to an individual 

20 who leaves the office of Senator or Representative in, or 

21 Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress on 

22 or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.5400 Electroanesthesia apparatus. ( a ) *Identification.* An electroanesthesia apparatus is a device used for the induction and maintenance of anesthesia during surgical procedures by means of an alternating or pulsed electric current that is passed through electrodes fixed to a patient's head.
( b ) *Classification.* Class III (premarket approval).
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* A PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before December 26, 1996 for any electroanesthesia apparatus that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before December 26, 1996 been found to be substantially equivalent to an electroanesthesia apparatus that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other electroanesthesia apparatus shall have an approved PMA or a declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[47 FR 31142, July 16, 1982, as amended at 52 FR 17735, May 11, 1987; 61 FR 50706, Sept. 27, 1996]
§ 582.3766 Sodium metabisulfite. ( a ) *Product.* Sodium metabisulfite.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Limitations, restrictions, or explanation.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice, except that it is not used in meats or in food recognized as source of vitamin B1.
#### Dickson v. Dickson

*Dickie, McCctmey, Chilcote, Reif & Robinson,*for plaintiff.

*Evans, Ivory & Evans,*for defendant.

August 9, 1951.

Nixon, J.,

— The facts in this case justify a divorce upon the grounds of cruel and barbarous treatment and indignities. The only question raised by defendant is one of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff testified that she had lived all her life in Pittsburgh, Pa. We are satisfied that she has been a resident of Pittsburgh all of that time. For several years prior to November 4,1947 (the date of her marriage in Manila) she was employed in Red Cross work and other kindred activities both in and outside of the continental United States. Defendant agrees that such activity did not destroy her Pittsburgh residence. Defendant, however, contends that when she married him *190in Manila she lost her Pittsburgh residence. With this we cannot concur. A wife’s residence is not always that of her husband: Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 163 Pa. Superior Ct. 138. See also section 28 of the A. L. I. Restatement of the Law.

Defendant’s Residence was most uncertain. He was a civilian attached to an Army camp .near Manila, P. I., and lived temporarily, prior to that time, at various addresses in Washington, D. C., and, before that, in Utah, where his parents lived. Defendant has not met the burden of proof which is upon him under the law: Nixon v. Nixon, 329 Pa. 256; Alburger v. Alburger, 138 Pa. Superior Ct. 339, 341; Reimer v. Reimer, 160 Pa. Superior Ct. 509; Addison v. Addison, 147 Pa. Superior Ct. 267, and Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 163 Pa. Superior Ct. 138.

In the Rosenberg case, ibid, which we feel is controlling in the present proceeding, the court held that “bona fide” residence within the meaning of the Divorce Law means residence with domiciliary intent, that is, a home in which the parties actually live.

159 A. L. R. at page 507 cites the following:

> “The established domicile of a woman who had always lived in Illinois until her marriage in New York to an international itinerant, who never had established any permanent domicile, although his technical domicile was Italy, did not shift to that of her husband until he had established one elsewhere, and, he not having done so, she could maintain a divorce proceeding in Illinois.”

Under the law and the evidence we are compelled to find that the residence of plaintiff did not shift from Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pa., to the uncertain dwelling place of defendant in an Army camp near Manila, P. I., especially since defendant wholly failed and neglected to establish any dwelling place with dom*191iciliary intent as a home, ever so humble, in which the parties could actually live.

This court has jurisdiction. A divorce will be granted.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES O F THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : No. 33 7 Common Pleas Judicial Classification Docket

**O R D E R PER CURIA** **M:**

AND NOW , this 15 th day of August, 201 6 , upon consideration of the Petition s of the Honorable Sheila Woods
-Skipper, President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, for the assignment of Jud ges to di vision s of the court, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petitions are granted and the following assignments are approved :

Family Division The Honorable Daniel R. Sulman The Honorable Vincent W . Furlong Trial Division The Honorable Vincent N

. Melchiorre The Honorable Roger F. Gordon
§ 145.171 Artificially sweetened canned peaches. ( a ) Artificially sweetened canned peaches is the food which conforms to the definition and standard of identity prescribed for canned peaches by § 145.170(a), except that in lieu of a packing medium specified in § 145.170(a)(3), the packing medium used is water artificially sweetened with saccharin, sodium saccharin, or a combination of both. Such packing medium may be thickened with pectin and may contain any mixture of any edible organic salt or salts and any edible organic acid or acids as a flavor-enhancing agent, in a quantity not more than is reasonably required for that purpose.
( b ) ( 1 ) The specified name of the food is “artificially sweetened ______”, the blank being filled in with the name prescribed by § 145.170(a) for canned peaches having the same optional peach ingredient.
( 2 ) The artificially sweetened food is subject to the requirements for label statement of ingredients used, as prescribed for canned peaches by § 145.170(a). If the packing medium is thickened with pectin, the label shall bear the statement “thickened with pectin”. When any organic salt or acid or any mixture of two or more of these is added, the label shall bear the common or usual name of each such ingredient.
[42 FR 14414, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 58 FR 2880, Jan. 6, 1993]