alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005182EN.01004003.xml

| 23.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/40

---

Action brought on 4 May 2005 by Usinor against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-189/05)

(2005/C 182/76)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 May 2005 by Usinor, whose registered office is in Paris, represented by Patrice de Condé, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2005; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2005;

| 2. | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | CORUS UK Limited |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark GALVALLOY — application No 796 557, for goods in Class 6 (steel sheet and strip etc) |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Applicant |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National word mark GALVALLIA for goods in Class 6 (steel sheet and strip etc) |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Decision of the Opposition Division annulled |
| Pleas in law: | Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

CORUS UK Limited

Community trade mark sought:

Word mark GALVALLOY — application No 796 557, for goods in Class 6 (steel sheet and strip etc)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

National word mark GALVALLIA for goods in Class 6 (steel sheet and strip etc)

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Decision of the Opposition Division annulled

Pleas in law:

Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1.

1

---
#### Maxwell *v.*State.

4662

243 S. W. 2d 377

Opinion delivered November 12, 1951.

*Ihe Murry,*Attorney General, and *George E. Lusk, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Minor W. Millwee, Justice.

This is the third appeal from a conviction of the appellant for the crime of *514rape. In each, instance the jury assessed the death penalty. On the first appeal we held the evidence sufficient to sustain the judgment, but reversed because insufficient time was given appellant to prepare his defense. *Maxwell*v. *State,*216 Ark. 393, 225 S. W. 2d 687.

On the second appeal we again held the evidence sufficient to support the verdict and judgment, but reversed on account of the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to quash the jury panel. *Maxwell*v. *State,*217 Ark. 691, 232 S. W. 2d 982.

No brief has been filed on behalf of appellant in the present.appeal, but the Attorney General has fully briefed the case and furnished us with a thorough abstract of the record. The transcript contains a formal order overruling appellant’s motion for new trial, but no such motion appears in the record. Upon suggestion of a diminution of the record by the State, *certiorari*was issued to the Circuit Court Clerk who certified that no motion for a new trial was filed on behalf of appellant and that the record is silent with respect to any action thereon.

We have carefully examined the record which reflects that appellant made no objection to any of the testimony introduced by the State and offered none in his own behalf. Appellant requested no instructions and did not object to any of the instructions given which fully covered presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt and appellant’s right to refrain from testifying or offering testimony in his behalf without prejudice.

At the instant trial appellant renewed his motion to quash the information on the ground that his constitutional rights were violated in that he was charged by information instead of indictment by a grand jury. We rejected this contention on the second appeal and adhere to that holding. We have repeatedly held such procedure constitutional, as has the United States Supreme Court. *Washington*v. *State,*213 Ark. 218, 210 S. W. 2d 307; *Adamson*v. *California,*332 U. S. 46, 67 S. Ct. 1672, 91 L. Ed. 1903.

*515It is unnecessary to detail the evidence which is set out in the opinion on the first appeal and is the same as that adduced here, with one exception. At the first trial appellant testified that he was persuaded by the prosecuting witness to indulge in the admitted sexual act, while he did not testify at the instant trial. We again hold the evidence ample to sustain the verdict and judgment.

The record is free of reversible error and the judgment is affirmed.

McFaddin, J., not participating.
#### § 566.308 Financial transaction.

The term *financial transaction* means any transfer of value involving a financial institution.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7677

JEREMIAH C. WALLMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CA-00-174-AM)

Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 22, 2002

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremiah C. Wallman, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge,

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

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeremiah C. Wallman seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Wallman v. Director, Virginia Dep’t

of Corrections, No. CA-00-174-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 5, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
No. 76-1056.

#### Buddy Systems, Inc. *v.*Exer-Genie, Inc., et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Mary Brockman, Respondent, *against*Henry Buell, Appellant.

(Decided April 7th, 1890.)

A chattel mortgage given to secure a sum of money payable oné day after its datéis not a mortgage payable on demand, and the commencement of an action to recover possession of the mortgaged property is a sufficient demand.

In an action to recover possession of chattels mortgaged to plaintiff, consisting of ahorse valued at $200, and harness and blankets valued at $50, the evidence as to value was uncontradicted, but the court awarded judgment for $40 only. *Held,*that the court on appeal could not render judgment for the full value of the property, but must-reverse the judgment, and order a new trial.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court in the City of New York for the Fifth Judicial District.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*L. H.*Dickerson, for appellant.

*B.*Hoffman, for respondent.

Larremore, Ch. J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of one sorrel horse valued at $200 and one set of blankets and harness valued at $50. The answer is a general denial and demand for a bill of particulars. Issue was joined in the court below and judgment rendered on December 27th, 1889, in favor of the plaintiff for $40, with costs.

Plaintiff claims as mortgagee in possession of the property and brings suit for the return thereof or its value. The mortgage in question was given by the defendant to the plaintiff to secure the sum of $800 one dajr after the date thereof. In such case no demand was necessary, it not being a mortgage payable on demand, and the commencement of the action constituted such demand.

*91As the court below found in favor of the plaintiff, thereby-establishing her right to recover the property or its value, it is somewhat difficult to understand the reason for the amount awarded. The testimony appears to be undisputed that the value of the horse was $200. Evidently the court did not take this into consideration in assessing the damages. We are asked to render a judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the value of the horse; this is not the province of an appellate court. The judgment appealed from must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Bischoff, J., concurred.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.
HomeTurkey

# Turkey

396 items

        -    Press Statement  		Secretary Blinken’s Travel to Tel Aviv, Amman, Ankara, Tokyo, Seoul, and New Delhi	  Matthew MillerNovember 4, 2023 
        -    		Travel to Tel Aviv, Amman, Ramallah, Baghdad, Ankara, Tokyo, Seoul, and New Delhi, November 2-10, 2023	   
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – November 1, 2023	  Matthew MillerNovember 1, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Media Note  		Counselor Chollet’s Travel to Israel, Jordan, and Türkiye	  November 1, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – October 30, 2023	  Matthew MillerOctober 30, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Turkish Foreign Minister Fidan	  October 29, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Turkish National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenOctober 29, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Remarks at the D-ISIS FTF Working Group	  Ian MossOctober 26, 2023Istanbul, Türkiye 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – October 23, 2023	  Matthew MillerOctober 23, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Turkish Foreign Minister Fidan	  October 15, 2023 

previous page1…45678…40next page

Back to Top
IJ S Deoartment Assistant Secretary 1200 New jersey Avenue SE 

U.S. Uepanmeni Washington. DC 20590 

Of Transportation |yy\p 1 g 2OII 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation _ 

"Li ^'"^i ^ 

The Honorable Waldemar Rivera Torres __ : ri-Ti 

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico 'J-^ c':. 

Municipio Autonomo de Villalba ^ 

Oficina del Alcalde 

Apartado 1506 

Villalba, Puerto Rico 00766 

Dear Mayor Rivera: 

Thank you for your March 1 letter regarding assistance to the Mercedita Airport under the 

Essential Air Service (EAS) program. As you probably know. Ponce has formally appealed the 

U.S. Department of Transportation's decision to rely on JetBlue's subsidy-free service to the 

mainland and not to renew Cape Air's EAS contract. We are currently evaluating the merits of 

the community's appeal. As is normal practice, we are placing a copy of your letter and this 

response in the Docket, which is available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov by 

entering DOT-OST-1999-6592 in the search field. 

If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to call me. 

Sincerely yours, 

Susan L. Kurland 

Assistant Secretary for 

Aviation and International Affairs 
SIO- I l()3!()-0() 7 

ESTADO UBRE ASOCIADO 1MB PUERTO RICO 

MUNICIPIO AVF6NOM O DB VILLALBA 

WICINA DEL ALCALDE 

APARTADO 15M 

VILLALBA, PUERTO RICO OtTCi 

TELEFmO 7I7-U7.53M 

FAX7a7-S47-152t 

March 1". 2011 

HON.RAYLAHOOD 

SBCKETARY or TKANSPOKTATION 

Uniied Stain Depaftmeot of Tratt^MxtMktt 

1200 New Jeney Ave. SE 

Washington. DC 20590 

RE; EAS Ptttgrun 

Nbmdlti AiQKHt 

Dear'MA Sfeoretary: • 7 . ; 

Greetings from this server and from the People of Villalba. 

The Municipality of Villalba is one of the cities from the south part of the island that because of it's proximity 

to the Municipality of Poocc^ it would benefit directly of any economic development initiative that serves the 

wholeregion. .. , ..,. .;. . ,, , 

The Mercedita Airport (Mercedita) is one example ctf an economic devdopmeot project that has a direct 

positive impact in the Municipality pfVillalbtt. Mercedita is located b thp.ci^ of Ponce andcuirpntlycatent 

the residents of the south and east part of Pueito Rico that have a significant impact on the economy of the 

region. 

This airport is under the auspices of the Essential Air Service ftogram (EAS) and serves as an imematknal air 

service in an inqiortant serviceable point of interest in the island. Mercedita also serves as an ad hoc airport for 

the island's main air transportation hub, the Luis Munoz Mariii Aiipoit <LMM), located more than 20 miles to 

the north. The importance fpr the people of Villalba to have tbe.i^tiniiqus service for hMmatUmal fights in 

Mercedita is monumental. . , .. , ....;. •:, . 

As Mayor of the Municipality of Villalba, I urge that Mercedita Airport can be taken into further ccHisideration 

to remain as an EAS platform. . 

Sincerelly, 

HON. WALDBMAR RIVBRA TOMBS 

MAYOB 

. . > L ' W » •
EXHIBIT 32.1**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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of United Bancorporation of Alabama, Inc. for theperiod ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Robert R. Jones, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:   (1). The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and    (2). The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.         Date:      March 27, 2008  By:  /s/ Robert R. Jones, III    Robert R. Jones, III    Chief Executive Officer
#### § 802.220 Foreign national.

The term *foreign national* means any individual other than a U.S. national.
§ 3.528 Motions. ( a ) An application to the ALJ for an order or ruling must be by motion. Motions must state the relief sought, the authority relied upon and the facts alleged, and must be filed with the ALJ and served on all other parties.
( b ) Except for motions made during a prehearing conference or at the hearing, all motions must be in writing. The ALJ may require that oral motions be reduced to writing.
( c ) Within 10 days after a written motion is served, or such other time as may be fixed by the ALJ, any party may file a response to the motion.
( d ) The ALJ may not grant a written motion before the time for filing responses has expired, except upon consent of the parties or following a hearing on the motion, but may overrule or deny the motion without awaiting a response.
( e ) The ALJ must make a reasonable effort to dispose of all outstanding motions before the beginning of the hearing.
#### Wayne GRAY et ux. v. WILLMUT GAS & OIL CO. and Kenny Miller.

No. 52374.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 28, 1981.

Fred T. Rucker, Scales & Scales, Jackson, for appellants.

Richard L. Forman, Butler, Snow, O’Mara, Stevens & Cannada, Jackson, for appellee.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and BROOM and HAWKINS, JJ.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Rankin County; Rufus H. Broome, Judge.

AFFIRMED.
§ 578.310 Licenses; general and specific. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in this part, the term *license* means any license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part.
( b ) The term *general license* means any license or authorization the terms of which are set forth in subpart E of this part or made available on OFAC's website: *www.treas.gov/ofac .*
( c ) The term *specific license* means any license or authorization issued pursuant to this part but not set forth in subpart E of this part or made available on OFAC's website: *www.treas.gov/ofac .*
Note 1 to § 578.310 .
*See* § 501.801 of this chapter on licensing procedures.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Serge Beausoleil., President & CEO of Viropro, Inc. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Annual Report on 10K/A of the Company for the period ended November 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 Company.











Date: March 10, 2009.



/s/ Serge Beausoleil

_______________________



Serge Beausoleil

President & CEO
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE FLIGHT STANDARDS AGENCY 

27 Nov 12 

MEMORANDUM FOR HQ FAA/ARM-100 

FROM: HQ AFFSA/A3OF 

 5901 Air Guard Dr. (AJW31AF) 

 Bldg 1001 

 Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

SUBJECT: 14 CFR Exemption 7389 Addendum (Docket No. FAA-2000-8187) 

14 CFR Exemption 7689 was granted to the United States Air Force on 28 Nov 2000 and 

exempts the USAF from the provisions of Section 91.169(b), allowing the Air Force to conduct 

local area and other flight training missions under instrument flight rules without designating an 

alternate airport, subject to certain conditions and limitations. The exemption was last renewed 1 

Jun 2012 (7389F) and expires 30 Nov 15. 

Paragraph 3 includes a note that states the airports listed in the Exemption are those from 

a request dated 11 September, 2000. Unfortuneatly, the airports listed on this letter are out of 

date. Please update the Exemption to include the following changes: 

1. Remove Kessler AFB, Mississippi (3.e.); 

2. Add Pensacola NAS, Florida; 

3. Add Lackland AFB, Texas. 

Alternatively, if maintaining a list of airports is not required by the FAA, then USAF 

flight directives can maintain the list. If this is the case then please modify Exemption verbiage 

in paragraphs 3 to state the following: The exemption provided for in Condition No. 2 applies at 

the airports that host Air Education and Training Command operations. This list of airports is 

maintained by Air Force Flight Standards, Flight Directives Division and maybe acquired by 

contacting them IAW AFI 11-202V3 procedures or e-mailing: hqaffsa.a3of@tinker.af.mil. 

Please contact me with any questions at e-mail: hqaffsa.a3of@tinker.af.mil or 

(405) 582-5024. We appreciate your assistance. 

 

 

 ALEX E. KRAUSE, Maj, USAF 

 Chief, Flight Standards Division
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                         734,076
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  146,506
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    523,967
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,638,675
<PP&E>                                       2,090,591
<DEPRECIATION>                                 475,432
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,350,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          194,375
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        100
<COMMON>                                       221,420
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,064,625
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,350,683
<SALES>                                      2,398,976
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,398,976
<CGS>                                        1,085,751
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,376,812
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,816
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                234,817
<INCOME-TAX>                                    95,314
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            139,503
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   139,503
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        


</TABLE>
Home1998 Treaties and Agreements...Antigua and Barbuda (98-1125.1) – Defense Assistance Agreement

# 									Antigua and Barbuda (98-1125.1) – Defense Assistance Agreement							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

November 25, 1998

Defense:  Assistance

Agreement effected by Exchange of Notes at Bridgetown and St. John’s November 13 and 25, 1998; Entered into force November 25, 1998.
Download attachment						 [269 KB]

Tags

Antigua and BarbudaDefenseTreaties

Back to Top
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 167 (Monday, August 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44866-44867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20889]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1855-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


Kentucky; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-1855-DR), dated August 14, 2009, 
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 24, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include Public 
Assistance in the following areas among those areas determined to have 
been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the 
President in his declaration of August 14, 2009.

    Trimble County for Public Assistance. Jefferson County for 
Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

[[Page 44867]]

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation 
Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-20889 Filed 8-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P