alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006096EN.01001101.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/11

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 February 2006 — Il Ponte Finanziaria v OHIM

(Case T-194/03) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark composed of the word ‘Bainbridge’ - Earlier national, figurative three-dimensional and word marks including the word ‘Bridge’ - Proof of use - Use in a different form - ‘Defensive’ trade marks - Family of trade marks)

(2006/C 96/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties:

Applicant: Il Ponte Finanziaria (Scandicci, Italy) (represented by: P.L. Roncaglia, A. Torrigiani Malaspina and M. Boletto, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Buffolo and O. Montalto, agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Marine Enterprise Projects — Società Unipersonale di Alberto Fiorenzi Srl (Numana, Italy) (represented by: D. Marchi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Action

brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2003 (Case R 1015/2001-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA and Marine Enterprise Projects — Società Unipersonale di Alberto Fiorenzi Srl

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 C 184.

1

---
CONTINUING JURISDICTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION.

Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.

#### N. B. Maxey v. The Industrial Commission of Ohio.

Decided, November 26, 1917.

*Denial of Further Compensation to Injured Employee Because of Development of the Injury—Does Not Confer Jurisdiction on the Common Pleas.*

Tbe court of common pleas is without jurisdiction in tbe matter of a denial by tbe industrial commission of an application by an injured employee for further compensation because of a development of his injury occurring subsequent to the making of the original allowance by the commission.

*576
      *Allen C. Roudebush*and *Joel H. Ward,*for plaintiff in error.

*Campbell, Hickenlooper, Hauck & Capelle,*County Prosecutor, for defendant.

Per Curiam.

In this case the industrial commission found upon the original application and proof of injury that the claimant was entitled under the law to compensation, and it fixed and paid an allowance for the same. A claim for additional compensation was afterwards made because of a subsequent development—the formation of an .abscess—that was claimed to have resulted from the original injury. This claim was denied by the commission which held that the proof was not sufficient to show that the abscess was caused by the injury.

The power and jurisdiction of the board, however, is continuing, and it still has power upon a further rehearing to make such modification or change in its rulings as the facts may justify.

The facts in this ease bring it directly under the case of *Snyder*v. *State Liability Board of Awards,*94 O. S., 342. The court of common pleas therefore had no jurisdiction of the subject of 'the action, and the case should have been dismissed in that court. Instead of so doing, however, the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant and judgment was entered thereon. This action was not to the prejudice of the plaintiff in error, and the judgment will therefore be affirmed.

Jones, P. J., Gorman, J., and Hamilton, J., all concur.
25, October 2012 

Mr. Dennis J. Devany 

Chief EAS and Domestic Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington DC 20590 

·-···- .·-"·.' 

' • ," •' \Lj i ",__,_; t.~·. J ::, : 

""1 -

-· I 

Re: City of Akutan comments on EAS proposal by Grant Aviation at Akun, Alaska. 

Dear Mr. Devany, 

With the advent of Pen Air's announcement that it has ceased all air services to Akutan, on 

behalf of the City of Akutan and all of its permanent and seasonal residents, I want to state in 

clear and concise terms that a state of transportation emergency exists in Akutan. People are 

stranded and can't get home, or to their destinations, and mail and supplies (especially for 

construction ofthe passenger terminal) are backlogged. 

Akutan like so many communities in Alaska has no roads leading to a state-wide land 

transportation system. Akutan is completely dependent on air and water transportation, and water 

transportation for passengers is simply not a consistent and viable option for. a whole host of 

reasons. 

Given that Grant Air has a pending EAS proposal before the U.S. DOT, which the City strongly 

supports as the best solution for the continuation of vital air services to Akutan, it is an absolute 

imperative that the U.S. DOT does everything it can to compel, encourage, and expedite 

approval of an agreement for handling of the U.S. Mail, being worked out among the Aleutian 

East Borough, the USPS, and Grant Air for inclusion into the EAS proposal process at the 

earliest possible time. 

The City continues to stand ready to assist in any way it can, to facilitate an acceptable 

arrangement for the handling of mail, so that the EAS selection can be made and critically, 

important air service for the community can resume in the immediate future. 

~i-ncerely, 

Y::;er~ Mayor
HomeBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsRemarks & Releases...Caribbean Energy Security Initiative Loan Guarantee Agreement

# 									Caribbean Energy Security Initiative Loan Guarantee Agreement							

Fact Sheet

January 20, 2021

On October 31, 2019, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) announced a $25 million loan guarantee to promote energy investment across the Caribbean.  Through this program, the U.S. government will assume responsibility for the loans, giving both lenders and borrowers the confidence needed to make important energy investments.
        - The loan guarantee program is not a grant; it can be used to guarantee eligible loans to support energy sector development with private, commercial lending.
        - The loan portfolio guarantee program will foster greater lending across the Caribbean to support investments in energy projects promoting Caribbean energy security and resilience.  The loan guarantee program aims to increase lending to individuals, households, small and medium enterprises, and larger companies across the Caribbean for small-scale non-oil energy projects, including renewable energy, power generation and distribution, energy efficiency, and green mortgages.
        - To help identify projects eligible for the program, the U.S. Department of State provided $2 million to support a series of stakeholder consultations, market assessments, and four energy workshops in the Caribbean to identify promising energy investment opportunities and banks, investors, and lenders interested in a potential loan guarantee.  These market assessments identified over 70 energy and alternative transportation projects under development in the Caribbean.
        - Private sector companies and energy project developers interested in securing financing should contact the National Commercial Bank of Jamaica, which was selected as the banking partner for the region in this program, in order to discuss their projects under development and how best to take advantage of financing backed by the U.S. government.
        - This loan guarantee portfolio program supports the U.S. government’s Caribbean Energy Security Initiative (CESI), which seeks to advance diverse, resilient, cost-effective, and secure energy systems across the Caribbean.  CESI is a key pillar of the U.S.-Caribbean 2020 strategy, a whole-of-government approach aimed at increasing U.S. engagement with the Caribbean region to advance peace, prosperity and security.

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsCaribbean Basin Security InitiativeEnergyForeign AssistanceInvestmentsPartnerships

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46218-46219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21559]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

 [Docket No. FR-5300-N-21]


Notice of Availability: Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for 
HUD's Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Section 202 Supportive Housing for the 
Elderly

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing 
Commissioner, HUD.

[[Page 46219]]


ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HUD announces the availability on its Web site of the 
application information, deadline information and other requirements 
for the FY2009 Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly. 
Approximately $420.9 million in capital advance funds plus associated 
project rental assistance contract (PRAC) funds is made available 
through this NOFA, by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111-8, approved March 11, 2009), and 
any carryover funds available. This program provides funding for the 
development and operation of supportive housing for very low-income 
persons who are 62 years of age or older. Capital advance funds are to 
assist in the cost of developing the housing. PRAC funds will cover the 
difference between the HUD-approved operating costs of the project and 
the tenants' contributions toward rent (30 percent of their adjusted 
income). The notice providing information regarding the application 
process, funding criteria and eligibility requirements is available on 
the Grants.gov Web site at http://apply.07.grants.gov/apply/forms_apps_idx.html. A link to Grants.gov is also available on the HUD Web 
site at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm. The 
Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for Section 202 
Supportive Housing for the Elderly is 14.157. Applications must be 
submitted electronically through Grants.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the Section 
202 program, contact Aretha M. Williams, Housing Project Manager, Grant 
Policy and Management Division, Office of Housing, Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6142, 
Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-2480 (this is not a 
toll-free number). Persons with speech or hearing impairments may 
access this telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal 
Information Relay Service during working hours at 800-877-8339.

    Dated: August 20, 2009.
David H. Stevens,
Assistant Secretary of Housing--Federal Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. E9-21559 Filed 9-2-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
HomeSouth Sudan

# South Sudan

78 items

        -    Press Statement  		Renewing the Call for the South Sudan Transitional Government to Conduct a Credible Investigation Into Journalist Christopher Allen’s Death	  Matthew MillerApril 2, 2024 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		FY 2024 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs in South Sudan Responding to the Ongoing Sudan Crisis	  March 27, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on South Sudan	  March 19, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Promoting Accountability for Corruption that Fuels South Sudan’s Conflict	  Matthew MillerMarch 13, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 6, 2024	  Matthew MillerMarch 6, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Press Statement  		Promoting Accountability for Transnational Repression Against South Sudanese Nationals Abroad	  Matthew MillerFebruary 29, 2024 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Promoting Accountability in Support of the 75th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights	  December 8, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		U.S.-Japan-Republic of Korea Trilateral Meeting on Women’s Economic Empowerment	  August 19, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		U.S. Government Issues a Business Advisory for South Sudan	  Matthew MillerAugust 14, 2023 
        -    Other Release  		South Sudan Business Advisory	  August 14, 2023 

123…8next page

Back to Top
No. 99-8934.

#### Andrews *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jimmie Lee SHOLAS.

No. 65815.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1979.

In re Jimmie Lee Sholas, applying for remedial writ. Parish of West Baton Rouge. Number unknown.

Denied.
Editorial Note on Part 410
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 410 appear at 62 FR 46037, Aug. 29, 1997.

§ 410.72 Registered dietitians' and nutrition professionals' services. ( a ) *Definition: Registered dietitians and nutrition professionals.* Meet the qualifications at § 410.134.
( b ) *Covered registered dietitian and nutrition professional services.* Medicare Part B covers: ( 1 ) *Coverage condition.* Medical nutrition therapy (MNT) services as defined at § 410.130 under the conditions of coverage at § 410.132.
( 2 ) *Other services.* Registered dietitians and nutrition professionals may also provide diabetes self-management (DSMT) services if they are or represent an accredited DSMT entity and have an order from a physician or qualified nonphysician practitioner who is treating the patient's diabetic condition.
( 3 ) *Limits on MNT and DSMT.* ( i ) DSMT and MNT cannot be furnished to a patient on the same date of service, and
( ii ) MNT and DSMT services cannot be furnished incident to the professional services of a physician or nonphysician practitioner service.
( c ) *Limitations.* The following services are not registered dietitian or nutrition professional services for purposes of billing Medicare Part B: ( 1 ) Services furnished by a registered dietitian or nutrition professional to an inpatient of a Medicare-participating hospital.
( 2 ) Services furnished by a registered dietitian or nutrition professional to an inpatient of a Medicare-participating SNF.
( 3 ) Services furnished by a registered dietitian or nutrition professional to a patient in a Medicare-participating ESRD facility in accordance with the limitation on coverage of MNT service listed at § 410.132(b)(1).
( d ) *Professional services.* Except for DSMT services furnished as, or on behalf of, an accredited DSMT entity, registered dietitians and nutrition professionals can be paid for their professional MNT services only when the services have been directly performed by them.
( e ) *Telehealth services.* MNT and DSMT services may be provided as telehealth services (meeting the requirements in § 410.78) when registered dietitians or nutrition professionals act as distant site practitioners.
( f ) *Restrictions.* The services of a registered dietitian or nutrition professional are provided on an assignment-related basis, and a registered dietitian or nutrition professional may not charge a beneficiary in excess of the amounts permitted under 42 CFR 424.55. If a beneficiary has made payment for a service in excess of these limits, the registered dietitian or nutrition professional must refund the full amount of the impermissible charge to the beneficiary.
[86 FR 65665, Nov. 19, 2021, as amended at 88 FR 79528, Nov. 16, 2023]
#### SECURITY INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. ESTATE of Jerry E. STILLSON, Appellee.

No. WW-436.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 7, 1981.

*1207Roger W. Rizk, of Howell, Howell, Liles, Braddoek & Milton, Jacksonville, for appellant.

David H. Booher, III, James V. Facciolo, Jacksonville, for appellee.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying the parties’ joint motion to authorize a compromise and settlement of estate claims; we affirm the order appealed.

Section 733.708, Florida Statutes, is the applicable statute relating to compromise of estate claims, and provides that:

> ... [T]he court may enter an order authorizing the compromise if satisfied the compromise will be for the best interest of the beneficiaries. The order shall relieve the personal representative of liability or responsibility for the compromise. ...

The personal representative may thus avoid liability for a compromise by obtaining the statutory order of authorization. The failure to secure such an order does not preclude a compromise however, the personal representative remains subject to the possibility of liability. *See Evans v. Tucker,*101 Fla. 688, 135 So. 305 (1931). The statute vests the trial court with discretion, and we conclude that in the circumstances of the present ease the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to authorize the proposed compromise and settlement. We also note that while the judge orally advised the parties regarding his view of the course of action which they should take, this advice was not incorporated into the order and is not properly a matter for appellate review.

The order appealed is affirmed.

SHIVERS, J., and LILES, WOODIE A. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Exhibit 32.1

AMERICANWEST BANCORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Patrick J. Rusnak, state and attest that:



|(1) | I am the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of AmericanWest Bancorporation (the Registrant).
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | I 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 the best of my
knowledge,
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the periodic report) containing
financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); and
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant for the periods presented.
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                                                               
|----- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Name: |  | /s/ Patrick J. Rusnak                                         
|Title |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
|Date: |  | May 12, 2010
#### Marshall W. HANKS et al., Appellants, v. The SEED, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-747.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 1, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Errol KELLY.

No. 67057.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 13, 1980.

In re Errol Kelly, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and stay order. Parish of Orleans. No. 274-463.

Granted. An evidentiary hearing is ordered forthwith to determine whether relator had notice of the court session at which he was obligated to appear; the trial judge shall permit the defense to produce witnesses to testify.
#### Jessie Sanders SPIKES v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 48114.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 28, 1974.

*251Levingston & Jacks, Cleveland, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen Gil-foy and Vera Madel Speakes, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

SMITH, Justice:

Jessie Sanders Spikes was indicted for armed robbery. He was tried in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Bolivar County, convicted, and sentenced to serve a term of twelve years in the penitentiary.

On appeal, three grounds for reversal are assigned. All three challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

A summary of the salient facts, as disclosed by the record, is as follows: There was evidence that the armed robbery did occur, in broad daylight, the ro'bber was not masked, he was recognized by at least one of his victims, that three or four twenty dollar bills and one ten dollar bill were taken at pistol point, Spikes was positively identified by the victims, who had ample opportunity to observe him during the course of the robbery. There was testimony also that Spikes was arrested during a search of the neighborhood by officers shortly after the crime had been committed, that Spikes had in his pocket a loaded pistol of the general description of the gun used by the robber, and had three twenty dollar bills and a ten dollar bill.

As opposed to this, Spikes denied having committed the robbery, proved that he had been paid sixty odd dollars the day before by his employer, developed certain discrepancies in the description of the clothes the victims had said the robber was wearing, and produced testimony of an alibi, in that, it was said, Spikes had been in a nearby cafe at the time of the robbery.

The above summary of the salient facts in evidence is sufficient to show that there was a factual issue as to Spikes’ guilt or innocence of the crime, upon irreconcilably conflicting evidence, both direct and circumstantial, and that the resolution of this issue was peculiarly for the jury as the trier of facts.

By its verdict of guilty, the jury rejected the evidence offered by appellant and accepted that introduced by the prosecution.

> The jury was not required to accept this alibi. Its duty was to evaluate the testimony of the witnesses for the State and defendant, and to determine whether the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty. The State’s evidence was contradictory of that of appellant concerning an alibi. It was a jury issue. Newton v. State, 1956, 229 Miss. 267, 90 So.2d 375. (Kelly v. State, 239 Miss. 683, 690, 124 So.2d 840, 842 (1960)).

On appeal, in this situation, in passing upon the sufficiency of evidence to support a verdict, this Court must accept as true the evidence which supports the verdict. Murphree v. State, 228 So.2d 599 (Miss.1969).

*252We find, therefore, from the record, that there was ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict and that the conviction and sentence appealed from must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

RODGERS, P. J., and PATTERSON, INZER and SUGG, JJ., concur.