alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014329EN.01002201.xml

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/22

---

Action brought on 11 July 2014 — Laboratoire Nuxe v OHIM — NYX, Los Angeles (NYX)

(Case T-537/14)

2014/C 329/30

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire Nuxe (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Antoine-Lalance, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: NYX, Los Angeles Inc. (California, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 8 April 2014 in Case R 1575/2013-5; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 8 April 2014 in Case R 1575/2013-5;

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: NYX, Los Angeles Inc.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of the figurative mark including the word element ‘NYX’ for goods in Class 3 — international registration designating the European Union No 1 1 0 52  316

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘NUXE’ for goods and services in Classes 3 and 44

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and the opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
#### §§ 1.437-1.440 [Reserved]
r 

. 

:. 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY ‘GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

GROVER SELLERS 

ATTORNLIGENERAL 

753 
I

‘.
February 14, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00091-CV V.

DAVID JENKINS, Appellee

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the trial court’s rulings of January 24, 2011 denying 

the City of Houston’s plea to the jurisdiction and granting it summary judgment, was 

heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record, and we find that the

trial court correctly denied the City’s plea to the jurisdiction, but erred in granting the 

City summary judgment. We therefore AFFIRM the portion of the judgment denying 

the plea to the jurisdiction; REVERSE the portion of the judgment granting summary 

judgment; and REMAND the case to the trial court for proceedings in accordance with 

this court’s opinion.

We order the City of Houston to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further 

order this decision certified below for observance.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1763

OTIS O. EDWARDS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE ATLANTIC GROUP, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00433-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Otis O. Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Robinson Burtch, LITTLER MENDELSON, PC, McLean, Virginia; Kimberly Jeanne Gost, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Otis O. Edwards appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his employment discrimination action. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Edwards v. The Atlantic Group, Inc. , No. 2:07-cv-00433-RAJ-TEM

(E.D. Va. June 23, 2008). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Carlton *v.*Moultrie Banking Company; *et vice versa.*

Nos. 8456, 8457.

February 27, 1932.

*Clifford E. Hay,*for Carlton.

*W. G. Martin*and *J. J. Hill,*contra.

Peb Ctjbiam.

The evidence authorized the verdict. None of the grounds of the motion for new trial show cause for reversal.

*Judgment affirmed on the main bill of exceptions; cross-bill dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Russell, O. J., amd Gilbert, J., who dissent.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter Principal Plus Fund L.P. and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       7,371,736
<SECURITIES>                                41,269,876
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,860
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,309,513<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,309,513<F2>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           (1,137,517)<F3>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,979,409
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,023,572)<F4>
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,023,572)<F4>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,023,572)<F4>
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>In addition to cash, securities and receivables, total assets include
net unrealized gain on open contracts of $45,417.
<F2>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $1,658,905, accrued
brokerage fee of $161,748, accrued administrative expenses of
$190,552, and accrued management fees of $40,437.
<F3>Total revenue includes realized trading revenue of $371,457, net
change in unrealized of $(1,155,290), interest income of $2,004,436 and
change in valuation of Yield Pool of $(2,358,120).
<F4>Income-Pretax, Income Continuing and Net Income includes minority
interest in loss of $93,354.
</FN>


</TABLE>
613 P.2d 287

#### Jack JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. Judge C. Kimball ROSE, Judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court, Respondent, and Charles F. Hyder, Maricopa County Attorney, Respondent. Jose Gomez GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Honorable C. Kimball ROSE, Judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court and the State of Arizona, Real Party in Interest, Respondents.

Nos. 14896, 14897.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

June 20, 1980.

*128Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender, by William K. Culbertson, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for petitioner Johnson.

Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender, by Richard A. Rice, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for petitioner Garcia.

Charles F. Hyder, Maricopa County Atty., Warren K. Smoot, Deputy County Atty., by Sandra L. Janzen and William B. DeMars, Deputy County Atty., Phoenix, for respondents.

HOLOHAN, Vice Chief Justice.

The petitions for special action of the above named petitioners have been consolidated for decision because they present essentially the same fact situation and legal issue.

The petitioners are each juveniles who have had petitions filed in juvenile court accusing them of acts of delinquency occurring in Maricopa County, Arizona. Counsel for petitioners have sought by motion supported by facts to have the juvenile court hold a preadjudication hearing to determine the mental competency of the petitioners. The respondent judge, ruling that the juveniles’ mental condition cannot be inquired into prior to adjudication, denied the motions for a competency hearing, and, in the case of petitioner Johnson, the respondent judge also denied the motion for appointment of mental health experts to examine and report on petitioner Johnson’s mental competency.

The rulings of the respondent judge were made prior to our recent decision in *State ex rel. Dandoy v. Superior Court,*126 Ariz. -, -, - P.2d - (1980) (No. 14743PR, filed June 4, 1980). In the cited case, we held that a juvenile could not be tried in a delinquency adjudicatory proceeding while he was mentally incompetent. We also pointed out that the requirements of due process necessitate the conclusion that the juvenile court had the power to inquire into a juvenile’s mental competency prior to adjudication. Since there was no specific procedure in the statutes or Rules of Procedure for the juvenile court covering the method of determining a juvenile’s competency prior to adjudication, we directed that the procedure set forth in Rule 11 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure be used as far as practicable in juvenile cases.

We adhere to the position stated in *State ex rel. Dandoy v. Superior Court.*The rulings of the respondent judge denying a mental examination and competency hearings are set aside, and the respondent judge is directed to proceed in accordance with the views expressed in *Dandoy*and in this opinion.

STRUCKMEYER, C. J., and HAYS and GORDON, JJ., concur.

CAMERON, J., did not participate in the determination of this matter.
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 10:20 AM

To: 'jmagers76@yahoo.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov' Subject: Petition for Exemption: X12 Pr oduction Services, LLP FAA-2014-1038



### April 2, 2015

Mr. Jeff Magers Managing Partner X12 Production Services, LLP

1702 Saracen Road Austin, TX 78733

Dear Mr. Magers:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-1038). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, S ection 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operat ion please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by April 16, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
Exhibit 32.2

                          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, 2003 as  filed
 with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the
 "Report"), I, John  C. Stuecheli, Chief  Financial 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/ John C. Stuecheli


 John C. Stuecheli

 Chief Financial Officer

 February 17, 2004
§ 58.215 Alternative or additional actions to disqualification. ( a ) Disqualification of a testing facility under this subpart is independent of, and neither in lieu of nor a precondition to, other proceedings or actions authorized by the act. The Food and Drug Administration may, at any time, institute against a testing facility and/or against the sponsor of a nonclinical laboratory study that has been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration any appropriate judicial proceedings (civil or criminal) and any other appropriate regulatory action, in addition to or in lieu of, and prior to, simultaneously with, or subsequent to, disqualification. The Food and Drug Administration may also refer the matter to another Federal, State, or local government law enforcement or regulatory agency for such action as that agency deems appropriate.
( b ) The Food and Drug Administration may refuse to consider any particular nonclinical laboratory study in support of an application for a research or marketing permit, if it finds that the study was not conducted in accordance with the good laboratory practice regulations set forth in this part, without disqualifying the testing facility that conducted the study or undertaking other regulatory action.
§ 1.337-1 Nonrecognition for property distributed to parent in complete liquidation of subsidiary. ( a ) *General rule.* If sections 332(a) and 337 are applicable with respect to the receipt of a subsidiary`s property in complete liquidation, no gain or loss is recognized to the liquidating subsidiary with respect to such property (including property distributed with respect to indebtedness, see section 337(b)(1) and § 1.332-7), except as provided in section 337(b)(2) (distributions to certain tax-exempt distributees), section 367(e)(2) (distributions to foreign corporations), and section 897(d) (distributions of U.S. real property interests by foreign corporations).
( b ) *Applicability date.* This section applies to any taxable year beginning on or after March 28, 2016.
[T.D. 9759, 81 FR 17074, Mar. 28, 2016]
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.2570 Instrumentation for clinical multiplex test systems. ( a ) *Identification.* Instrumentation for clinical multiplex test systems is a device intended to measure and sort multiple signals generated by an assay from a clinical sample. This instrumentation is used with a specific assay to measure multiple similar analytes that establish a single indicator to aid in diagnosis. Such instrumentation may be compatible with more than one specific assay. The device includes a signal reader unit, and may also integrate reagent handling, hybridization, washing, dedicated instrument control, and other hardware components, as well as raw data storage mechanisms, data acquisition software, and software to process detected signals.
( 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 § 862.9. The special control is FDA's guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Instrumentation for Clinical Multiplex Test Systems.” See § 862.1(d) for the availability of this guidance document.
[70 FR 11868, Mar. 10, 2005, as amended at 84 FR 71797, Dec. 30, 2019]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8132 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8132

   To amend title 35, United States Code, require a patent owner to 
  consent to the filing of a petition for inter partes review or post-
                 grant review, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2024

Ms. Kaptur (for herself and Mr. Massie) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 35, United States Code, require a patent owner to 
  consent to the filing of a petition for inter partes review or post-
                 grant review, 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 ``Balancing Incentives Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR PATENT OWNER TO CONSENT TO THE FILING OF 
              PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OR POST-GRANT REVIEW.

    Title 35, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in section 312(a)--
                    (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``; and'' and 
                inserting a semicolon;
                    (B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the 
                end and inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) the owner of the patent consents to the filing of the 
        petition.''; and
            (2) in section 322(a)--
                    (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``; and'' and 
                inserting a semicolon; and
                    (B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the 
                end and inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) the owner of the patent consents to the filing of the 
        petition.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 1.274-8 Effective/applicability date.

Except as provided in §§ 1.274-2(a), 1.274-2(e), 1.274-2(f)(2)(iv)(F), and 1.274-5, §§ 1.274-1 through 1.274-7 apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 1962.

[T.D. 9625, 78 FR 46504, Aug. 1, 2013]
<page> EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 Morgan Stanley
Principal Plus Fund L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2007, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Walter
Davis, President of Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(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
results of operations of the Partnership.









By:  	/s/ Walter Davis

Name:		    Walter Davis
Title:	    President of Demeter Management Corporation,
			    the general partner of the Partnership

Date:		    May 15, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 11137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5099]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Federal Advisory Committee; Department of Defense Wage Committee; 
Meeting

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of section 10 of Public Law 92-463, 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the 
Department of Defense Wage Committee will meet on April 6, 2010. The 
meeting is closed to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 6, 2010, at 10 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 1400 Key Boulevard, Level A, 
Room A101, Rosslyn, Virginia 22209.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additional information concerning the 
meetings may be obtained by writing to the Chairman, Department of 
Defense Wage Committee, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-
4000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the provisions of section 10(d) of 
Public Law 92-463, the Department of Defense has determined that the 
meeting meets the criteria to close meetings to the public because the 
matters to be considered are related to internal rules and practices of 
the Department of Defense and the detailed wage data to be considered 
were obtained from officials of private establishments with a guarantee 
that the data will be held in confidence.

Written Statements

    Members of the public who may wish to do so are invited to submit 
material in writing to the chairman (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT) concerning matters believed to be deserving of the Committee's 
attention.

    Dated: March 4, 2010.
Mitchell S. Bryman,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-5099 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P