alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006060EN.01000501.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 12 January 2006

in Case C-173/04 P: Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Three-dimensional shapes of stand-up pouches for fruit drinks and fruit juices - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character)

(2006/C 60/09)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-173/04 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 6 April 2004 by Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG, established in Eppelheim (Germany) (Lawyers: H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumenröder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K. Brandt, A. Franke, U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and B. Ertle, Rechtsanwälte), the other party to the proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; K.H. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it:

Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG

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

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 12.6.2004.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Registrant is a limited partnership which invests in real estate and real
estate joint ventures.  In accordance with industry practice, its balance
sheet is unclassified.  For full information, refer to the accompanying
unaudited financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                      11,772,823
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,294,472
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,300,857<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  42,488,901<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,300,857<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,731,918<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,335,193
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,396,725
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,396,725
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,396,725
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    35.17<F5>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net investments
in real estate of $29,867,586, and net deferred leasing commissions of $365,976.
<F2>Represents partners' capital.
<F3>Liabilities include accounts payable and accrued liabilities of $642,351,
and other liabilities of $169,605.
<F4>Total revenue includes rent of $3,241,467, equity in earnings of joint
venture of $2,425,949, and interest and other revenue of $64,502.
<F5>Represents net income per Unit of limited partnership interest.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
§ 408.4 Payment obligations. ( a ) *Month for which payment is due.* ( 1 ) A payment is due for each month, beginning with the first month of SMI coverage and continuing through the month of death or, if earlier, the month in which coverage terminates.
( 2 ) A premium is due for the month of death, if SMI coverage is still in effect, even though the individual dies on the first day of the month.
( b ) *Overdue premiums.* ( 1 ) Overdue premiums constitute an obligation enforceable against the enrollee or the enrollee's estate.
( 2 ) Overdue premiums are collected— ( i ) By deduction from social security or railroad retirement benefits or Federal civil service annuities;
( ii ) Directly from the enrollee or the enrollee's estate; or
( iii ) By offset against any SMI payments payable to the enrollee or the enrollee's estate.
( 3 ) Interest is not charged on overdue premiums, except under a State buy-in agreement, as provided in § 408.6(c)(4).
( c ) *Premiums not required for certain kidney donors.* ( 1 ) No premiums are required for SMI benefits related to the donation of a kidney if the donor is not an enrollee.
( 2 ) A kidney donor who is an enrollee is not relieved of the obligation for premiums.
[52 FR 48115, Dec. 18, 1987; 53 FR 4159, Feb. 12, 1988]
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.32 Basis for Medicare secondary payments. ( a ) *Basic rules.* ( 1 ) Medicare benefits are secondary to benefits payable by a primary payer even if State law or the primary payer states that its benefits are secondary to Medicare benefits or otherwise limits its payments to Medicare beneficiaries.
( 2 ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, Medicare makes secondary payments, within the limits specified in paragraph (c) of this section and in § 411.33, to supplement the primary payment if that payment is less than the charges for the services and, in the case of services paid on other than a reasonable charge basis, less than the gross amount payable by Medicare under § 411.33(e).
( b ) *Exception.* Medicare does not make a secondary payment if the provider or supplier is either obligated to accept, or voluntarily accepts, as full payment, a primary payment that is less than its charges.
( c ) *General limitation: Failure to file a proper claim.* When a provider or supplier, or a beneficiary who is not physically or mentally incapacitated, receives a reduced primary payment because of failure to file a proper claim, the Medicare secondary payment may not exceed the amount that would have been payable under § 411.33 if the primary payer had paid on the basis of a proper claim.
The provider, supplier, or beneficiary must inform CMS that a reduced payment was made, and the amount that would have been paid if a proper claim had been filed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



Chief Financial Officer 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 of Max & Erma's, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the quarterly period ending October 27, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Todd B.
Barnum, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(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 Company.



/s/ William C. Niegsch, Jr.
----------------------------------
William C. Niegsch, Jr.



January 16, 2003
#### James C. EISAMAN, Appellant, v. Louis IOMELLI and Yvonne Iomelli, Appellees.

No. 78-1363.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 9, 1979.

*620Thomas L. Boll of Safron & Rooney, Pun-ta Gorda, for appellant.

No appearance for appellees.

BOARDMAN, Judge.

The following facts were alleged in the complaint. Appellant/plaintiff general contractor entered into an oral contract on September 17, 1977, with appellees/defend-ants owners to install a cooling system in a residence owned by them. The contract price was $1385 to be paid in two installments. The system was partially completed when on September 23, 1977, appellees unilaterally terminated the contract. No payment had been made to appellant. The value of the labor and material provided by appellant at this point was $500.

Appellant filed a claim of lien for $500 on October 13, 1977, and the complaint was filed on December 12. Appellees’ filed a motion to dismiss based on appellant’s failure to comply with Section 713.06(3)(d)(l), Florida Statutes (1977). Section 713.-06(3)(d)(l) provides:

> When the final payment under a direct contract becomes due the contractor:

> 1. The contractor shall give to the owner an affidavit stating, if that be the fact, that all lienors have been paid in full or, if the fact be otherwise, showing the name of each lienor who has not been paid in full and the amount due or to become due each for labor, services or materials furnished. The contractor shall have no lien or right of action against the owner for labor, services or materials furnished under the direct contract while in default by reason of not giving the owner such affidavit. The contractor shall execute said affidavit and deliver it to the owner at least 5 days before instituting suit as a prerequisite to the institution of any suit to enforce his lien under this chapter.

Appellant did not deliver an affidavit to appellees before instituting this suit. Ap-pellees argue that, therefore, dismissal was proper. We do not agree.

This requirement is clearly applicable only to a suit seeking final payment of the contract price. Appellant argues, and we agree, that an affidavit is not required by Section 713.06(3)(d)(l) in this case because the $500 he sought was not a final payment under the contract. *See Connor v. Dreyer,*335 So.2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GRIMES, C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR NOONEY INCOME FUND LTD., L.P. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                   0000725266
<NAME>                         NOONEY INCOME FUND LTD., L.P.

<S>                                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                    SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                            1,166,561
<SECURITIES>                                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       238,545
<ALLOWANCES>                                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  1,185,990
<PP&E>                                                           10,686,342
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    5,433,976
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    7,201,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                               246,117
<BONDS>                                                           1,109,095
<COMMON>                                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                                        5,712,811
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      7,201,672
<SALES>                                                           1,548,875
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  1,573,521
<CGS>                                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  1,116,944
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   80,876
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     375,701
<INCOME-TAX>                                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        375,701
<EPS-BASIC>                                                           20.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                             0


</TABLE>
§ 137.237 How are funds redistributed when an Indian Tribe fully or partially withdraws from a compact or funding agreement and elects to enter a contract or compact? When an Indian Tribe eligible to enter into a contract under Title I or a compact or funding agreement under Title V fully or partially withdraws from a participating inter-Tribal consortium or Tribal organization, and has proposed to enter into a contract or compact and funding agreement covering the withdrawn funds: ( a ) The withdrawing Indian Tribe is entitled to its Tribal share of funds supporting those PSFAs that the Indian Tribe will be carrying out under its own contract or compact and funding agreement (calculated on the same basis as the funds were initially allocated in the funding agreement of the inter-Tribal consortium or Tribal organization); and
( b ) the funds referred to in paragraph (a) of this section must be transferred from the funding agreement of the inter-Tribal consortium or Tribal organization, on the condition that the provisions of sections 102 [25 U.S.C. 450f] and 105(i) of the Act [25 U.S.C. 450j], as appropriate, apply to the withdrawing Indian Tribe.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000705581
<NAME>                        DIGITAL COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         431
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  272
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               703
<PP&E>                                         28
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          251
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       13
<OTHER-SE>                                     663
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   927
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               255
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               807
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (502)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.61)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 174 (Thursday, September 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21738]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Southwestern Region, Arizona, New Mexico, West Texas and 
Oklahoma: Proposed Invasive Plant Control Project, Carson National 
Forest, Portions of Rio Arriba, Mora, Taos, and Colfax Counties; and 
Santa Fe National Forest, Portions of Rio Arriba, Los Alamos, Sandoval, 
San Miguel, and Mora Counties, New Mexico

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On December 15, 2000, the USDA Forest Service published a 
notice of intent (65 FR 78464-78465) to prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) for a proposed invasive plant control project on the 
Carson and Santa Fe national forests. A draft EIS was completed and the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice of 
availability (NOA) in the Federal Register on July 16, 2004 (69 FR 
42722). A NOA for the final EIS was published in the Federal Register 
on November 18, 2005 (70 FR 69967).
    Due to significant new information relevant to environmental 
concerns and bearing on the proposed action and its impacts, the Carson 
and Santa Fe national forests are jointly preparing a supplemental 
environmental impact statement (SEIS) for the invasive plant control 
project on National Forest System lands within the boundaries of the 
two national forests. The proposed action would control invasive plant 
populations on both national forests by using one or a combination of 
integrated pest management methods, including mechanical, chemical, 
biological, and cultural treatments.

DATES: Revised Dates: The anticipated date for completion and 
distribution of the draft SEIS is the end of December 2009. A 45-day 
comment period will follow issuance of the draft SEIS. The final SEIS 
is estimated to be released in April 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lucy Maldonado, 575-758-6255.

    Dated: September 2, 2009.
Kendall Clark,
Forest Supervisor, Carson National Forest.
[FR Doc. E9-21738 Filed 9-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
697 A.2d 577

#### In re District Justice Bradford Clark TIMBERS, Lehigh County Magisterial District 31-2-03.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Jan. 3, 1997.

Decided June 16, 1997.

No. 0178 Judicial Administration Docket No. 1.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 16th day of June, 1997, in light of the removal of District Justice Timbers from office, this matter is dismissed as moot.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3215 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3215

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

                                 An Act

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to repeal the provision relating 
        to Federal employees contracting or trading with Indians.

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

SECTION 1. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES CONTRACTING OR TRADING WITH INDIANS.

    (a) Repeal.--Section 437 of title 18, United States Code, is 
repealed.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning 
of chapter 23 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 
the item relating to section 437.
    (c) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a) shall--
        (1) take effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and
        (2) apply with respect to any contract obtained, and any 
    purchase or sale occurring, on or after the date of enactment of 
    this Act.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2958

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make appropriate improvements

to a county road located in the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore,

and to prohibit construction of a scenic shoreline drive in that national

lakeshore.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 1, 1996

Mr. STUPAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make appropriate improvements to a county road located in the

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, and to prohibit construction of a scenic shoreline drive in that national

lakeshore.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PROVISION FOR ROADS IN PICTURED ROCKS

4 NATIONAL LAKESHORE.

5 Section 6 of the Act of October 15, 1966, entitled

6 ‘‘An Act To establish in the State of Michigan the Pic-
2

•HR 2958 IH

1 tured Rocks National Lakeshore, and for other purposes’’

2 (16 U.S.C. 460s–5), is amended—

3 (1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ‘‘including

4 a scenic shoreline drive’’ and inserting ‘‘including

5 appropriate improvements to Alger County Road H–

6 58’’; and

7 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub8 section:

9 ‘‘(c) A scenic shoreline drive may not be constructed

10 in the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore.’’.

Æ