alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006074EN.01003102.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/31

---

Action brought on 16 February 2006 — Antartica/OHIM

(Case T-47/06)

(2006/C 74/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Antartica S.r.l. (Rome, Italy) [represented by: E. Racca, 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: The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (Washington D.C., USA)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM, of 7 December 2005, in case R 752/2004 — 2, on the grounds that it does not comply with Article 63 (2) and Article 8 (5) of Regulation No. 40/94 and Article 5.1.2. of the Directive No 89/104/CEE; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM, of 7 December 2005, in case R 752/2004 — 2, on the grounds that it does not comply with Article 63 (2) and Article 8 (5) of Regulation No. 40/94 and Article 5.1.2. of the Directive No 89/104/CEE;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Nasdaq’ for goods in classes 9, 12, 14, 25 and 28

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.

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

Mark or sign cited: Community word trade mark ‘Nasdaq’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42 as well as earlier well known mark ‘Nasdaq’ in all Members States of the European Union

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejects opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annuls the decision of the opposition division and rejects the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Violation of Articles 63 (2) and 8 (5) of Regulation No 40/94 as well as Article 5.1.2. of Directive No. 89/104/CEE; the applicant submits that the earlier unregistered word mark was not, in fact, invoked in the notice of opposition. It also contests the findings that the reputation of the stock exchange index ‘nasdaq’ is the same as the reputation of the trade mark of the same name. It finally submits that the notion of reputation in Regulation 40/94 and Directive 89/104 is not the same as notoriety under the Paris Convention.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2006074EN.01001501.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/15

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 January 2006 — Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall and Others v Commission

(Case T-92/02) (1)

1

(State aid - tax exemption scheme applied to the reserves established by nuclear installations established in Germany for the purpose of eliminating their radioactive waste and the definitive - Decision finding that there is no Sate aid at the end of the preliminary examination procedure - Action for annulment)

(2006/C 74/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH (Schwäbisch Hall, Germany), Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH (Tübingen, Germany) and Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH (Uelzen, Germany) (represented by: D. Fouquet, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, Agent)

Defendants:

:

Interveners in support of the defendant: E.ON Kernkraft GmbH (Hanover, Germany), RWE Power AG (Essen, Germany), EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG (Karlsruhe, Germany) and Hamburgische Electricitäts-Werke AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein and D. Sellner, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Application for

Annulment of Commission Decision C (2001) 3967 final of 11 December 2001

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicants, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay those incurred by the Commission and by the interveners. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay those incurred by the Commission and by the interveners.

---

(1)  OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.

1

---
§ 417.418 Qualifying condition: Quality assurance program. ( a ) *Condition.* The HMO or CMP must make arrangements for a quality assurance program that meets the requirements of this section.
( b ) *Standard.* An HMO or CMP must have an ongoing quality assurance program that meets the requirements set forth in § 417.106(a).
[58 FR 38072, July 15, 1993]
# C_2006131EN.01002002.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester) — Dolland & Aitchison Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise

(Case C-491/04) (1)

1

(Community Customs Code - Customs value - Customs import duties - Delivery of goods by a company established in Jersey and supplies of services effected in the United Kingdom)

(2006/C 131/36)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dolland & Aitchison Ltd

Applicant:

Defendant: Commissioners of Customs & Excise

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester — Interpretation of Articles 29 and 30 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Customs value of imported goods — Contact lenses delivered by post by a company established in a third territory (the Island of Jersey) belonging to a company established in a Member State supplying examination, consultation and aftercare services for contact lenses

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, payment for the supply of specified services, such as examination, consultation or aftercare required in connection with contact lenses, and for specified goods, consisting of those lenses, the cleaning solutions and the soaking cases, constitutes as a whole the ‘transaction value’ within the meaning of Article 29 of the Customs Code and is, therefore, dutiable. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, payment for the supply of specified services, such as examination, consultation or aftercare required in connection with contact lenses, and for specified goods, consisting of those lenses, the cleaning solutions and the soaking cases, constitutes as a whole the ‘transaction value’ within the meaning of Article 29 of the Customs Code and is, therefore, dutiable.

| 2. | The principles laid down in the CCP judgment (Case C-349/96) of 25 February 1999 cannot be used directly to determine the elements of the transaction to be taken into account for the purposes of applying Article 29 of the Customs Code. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principles laid down in the CCP judgment (Case C-349/96) of 25 February 1999 cannot be used directly to determine the elements of the transaction to be taken into account for the purposes of applying Article 29 of the Customs Code.

CCP

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 19.02.2005.

1

---
§ 82.4 Penalties. ( a ) Any person who exports, melts, or treats 5-cent coins or one-cent coins of the United States in violation of § 82.1 shall be subject to the penalties specified in 31 U.S.C. 5111(d), including a fine of not more than $10,000 and/or imprisonment of not more than 5 years.
( b ) In addition to the penalties prescribed by 31 U.S.C. 5111(d), a person violating the prohibitions of this part may be subject to other penalties provided by law, including 18 U.S.C. 1001(a).
Mark McKinnon

Dentons US LLP

1676 International Drive • Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102-4832

United States

email: mark.mckinnon@dentons.com

T 703.336.8808

F 703.336.8750

Salans FMC SNR 

Denton

McKenna Long

dentons.com

May 20, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11400C granted to Contend LLC (Docket No. FAA–

2015-0155)

To Whom it May Concern:

As you are aware, this office represents Contend LLC regarding the above-referenced 

Petition for Exemption, which was granted on April 20, 2015. Contend LLC has been acquired 

in an asset purchase by Mosaic Sales Solutions US Operating Co. LLC. Contend LLC hereby 

requests an amendment to its Exemption to reflect this transaction and change the name of the 

entity granted the Exemption from Contend LLC to Mosaic Sales Solutions US Operating Co. 

LLC. 

Contend LLC does not seek any changes to any of the conditions or limitations in the 

original grant. As such, this amendment is suitable for approval through a Summary Grant. In 

addition, the requested amendment is in the public interest, as having the petitioner correctly 

identified in the Grant of Exemption will avoid confusion and further the FAA's interests in 

accountability.

If you have any questions regarding this amendment, or require any additional 

information to process this Petition, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Very Truly Yours, 

Mark E. McKinnon

Counsel for Contend LLC
#### Alan Leonard MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn Bradley MILLER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13988.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Dec. 3, 1979.

Cryer & Harp by George E. Harp, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellant.

Arthur E. Rollo, Shreveport, for defendant-appellee.

*1041Before PRICE, MARVIN and BIGBY, JJ.

PRICE, Judge.

Plaintiff brought suit for divorce in the district court for the parish of Caddo, alleging that he had been separated from defendant for more than two years without reconciliation and had been a resident of Louisiana for more than five years.

The trial court refused to grant plaintiff a final divorce holding that he had failed to show that his living separate and apart from his wife was voluntary on her part.

Plaintiff has appealed. The sole issue on this appeal concerns whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in applying La.R.S. 9:301 so as to require that the separation be voluntary on the part of both parties.

The following facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff was married to defendant in the state of Virginia. They separated in that state in 1970 and in 1974 plaintiff moved to Caddo Parish and has been domiciled here ever since, whereas defendant has remained in the state of Virginia'. In February 1979 plaintiff filed this suit seeking a final divorce. When defendant was notified of the pending suit she responded in a letter to the court appointed curator that she had been unaware of her husband’s whereabouts since 1973, and that he had been derelict in his child support payments since that time. The trial judge therefore concluded that the separation of the parties was not mutually voluntary and refused to grant the divorce.

Plaintiff seeks the divorce under R.S. 9:301 which provides:

> When spouses have been living separate and apart continuously for a period of two years or more either spouse may sue for and obtain a judgment of absolute divorce.

There is no requirement under this statute that the separation be voluntary on the part of both husband and wife. It is sufficient that it be voluntary with respect to only one of the parties. See *Sciortino*v. *Sciortino,*209 So.2d 355 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1968), writ refused 252 La. 461, 211 So.2d 328 (1968), and *Otis v. Bahan,*209 La. 1082, 26 So.2d 146, 166 A.L.R. 494 (1946).

Therefore, for the above and foregoing reasons the judgment of the district court is reversed, and it is hereby ordered that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff, Alan Leonard Miller, and against defendant, Carolyn Bradley Miller, decreeing a final divorce and dissolving the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between them. All costs including this appeal are assessed to appellee.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Quarterly
Report of Capital City Bank Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (this "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the
information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition of the Company and its results of operations as of and
for the periods covered therein.








/s/ William G. Smith, Jr.William
      G. Smith, Jr.Chairman,
      President, andChief
      Executive Officer





Date:
August 8, 2008








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
§ 423.2000 Hearing before an ALJ and decision by an ALJ or attorney adjudicator: General rule. ( a ) If an enrollee is dissatisfied with an IRE's reconsideration, the enrollee may request a hearing before an ALJ.
( b ) A hearing before an ALJ may be conducted in-person, by video-teleconference, or by telephone. At the hearing, the enrollee may submit evidence subject to the restrictions in § 423.2018, examine the evidence used in making the determination under review, and present and/or question witnesses.
( c ) In some circumstances, the Part D plan sponsor, CMS, or the IRE may participate in the proceedings on a request for an ALJ hearing as specified in § 423.2010.
( d ) The ALJ or attorney adjudicator conducts a de novo review and issues a decision based on the administrative record, including, for an ALJ, any hearing record.
( e ) If an enrollee waives his or her right to appear at the hearing in person or by telephone or video-teleconference, the ALJ or an attorney adjudicator may make a decision based on the evidence that is in the file and any new evidence that is submitted for consideration.
( f ) The ALJ may require the enrollee to participate in a hearing if it is necessary to decide the case. If the ALJ determines that it is necessary to obtain testimony from a person other than the enrollee, he or she may hold a hearing to obtain that testimony, even if the enrollee has waived the right to appear. In that event, however, the ALJ will give the enrollee the opportunity to appear when the testimony is given, but may hold the hearing even if the enrollee decides not to appear.
( g ) An ALJ or attorney adjudicator may also issue a decision on the record on his or her own initiative if the evidence in the administrative record supports a fully favorable finding.
[74 FR 65363, Dec. 9, 2009, as amended at 82 FR 5127, Jan. 17, 2017]
# C_2006044EN.01000101.xml

| 22.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

21 February 2006

(2006/C 44/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1906 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 141,61 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4625 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68210 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3887 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5598 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 77,02 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0545 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5746 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,455 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 251,87 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,7773 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,4969 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,47 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,263 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,5683 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6116 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3668 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2413 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7931 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9421 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 153,16 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,2213 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,5825 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3080 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 027,93 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,428 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,697 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,5830 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,916 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1906

JPY

Japanese yen

141,61

DKK

Danish krone

7,4625

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68210

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3887

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5598

ISK

Iceland króna

77,02

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0545

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5746

CZK

Czech koruna

28,455

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

251,87

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,7773

RON

Romanian leu

3,4969

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,47

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,263

TRY

Turkish lira

1,5683

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6116

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3668

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2413

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7931

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9421

KRW

South Korean won

1 153,16

ZAR

South African rand

7,2213

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,5825

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3080

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 027,93

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,428

PHP

Philippine peso

61,697

RUB

Russian rouble

33,5830

THB

Thai baht

46,916

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1940** 

LENA HARDAWAY; ANGELENE HARDAWAY , Plaintiffs

– Appellants ,

v.
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT LLC , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. ( 8:13

- cv
- 00149

- DKC )

Submitted : January 26, 2017 Decided: February 7, 2017

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Lena Hardaway ; Angelene Hardaway, Appellants Pro Se. Jason M. St. John, Nicholas Charles Stewart, SAUL EWING, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal the district court ’ s order s dismissing
their complaints . We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the di strict court. Hardaway v. Equity Residential Mgmt.,

LLC , No. 8:13

- cv
- 00149

- DKC (D. Md. Feb. 26, 2015 & July 22,
2016) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
§ 423.112 Establishment of prescription drug plan service areas. ( a ) *Service area for prescription drug plan sponsors.* The service area for a prescription drug plan sponsor other than a fallback prescription drug plan sponsor consists of one or more PDP regions as established under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) *Establishment of PDP regions* — ( 1 ) *General.* CMS establishes PDP regions in a manner consistent with the requirements for the establishment of MA regions as described at § 422.455 of this chapter.
( 2 ) *Relation to MA regions.* To the extent practicable, PDP regions are the same as MA regions. CMS may establish PDP regions that are not the same as MA regions if CMS determines that the establishment of these regions improves access to prescription drug plan benefits for Part D eligible individuals.
( c ) *Authority for territories.* CMS establishes a PDP region or regions for States that are not within the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
( d ) *Revision of PDP regions.* CMS may revise the PDP regions established under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( e ) *Regional or national plan.* Nothing in this section prevents a prescription drug plan from being offered in two or more PDP regions in their entirety or in all PDP regions in their entirety.
[70 FR 4525, Jan. 28, 2005, as amended at 75 FR 19816, Apr. 15, 2010]
#### Vinell LANIEUX v. IBERVILLE SERVICES, INC., and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company.

No. 80-C-2586.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 5, 1980.

In re Vinell Lanieux, applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of *1244Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 391 So.2d 1282.

Writ denied.

DIXON, C. J., would grant the writ.
# C_2006131EN.01004802.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/48

---

Action brought on 12 April 2006 — Zuffa v OHIM

(Case T-118/06)

(2006/C 131/89)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zuffa, LLC (Las Vegas, USA) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, M. Blair, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | The decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 30 January 2006 in Case R 931/2005-1 dismissing the appeal under Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) CTMR shall be annulled. |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 30 January 2006 in Case R 931/2005-1 dismissing the appeal under Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) CTMR shall be annulled.

| — | The Office shall bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Office shall bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 28 and 41 — application No 2 789 568

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application in respect of all the goods and services applied for

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the examiners decision, rejection of the trade mark applied for pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and remission of the case to the examiner for further examination pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Regulation

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in equating the words ULTIMATE FIGHTING to the identification of the name of a particular sport and in finding that their meaning was clear and unequivocal. The Board of Appeal therefore erred in holding the trade mark applied for descriptive and non-distinctive.

Pleas in law:

---