alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006049EN.01000402.xml

| 28.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3379 — P&O/Royal Nedlloyd/P&O Nedlloyd)

(2006/C 49/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 29 March 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3379. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3379. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRANDEN EDWIN LINDBERG, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

RICHARD V. SPENCER, Secretary, 

Department of the Navy, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-35470 

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05671-RBL 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2018**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. 

Branden Edwin Lindberg appeals pro se from the district court’s summary 

judgment in her Title VII action alleging sex discrimination and retaliation claims. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291. We review for an abuse of discretion

rulings on discovery issues. Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1084 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

(9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lindberg’s motions 

to compel discovery because the information requested was irrelevant to the issues 

in the case. See Laub, 342 F.3d at 1093 (“A district court is vested with broad 

discretion to permit or deny discovery, and a decision to deny discovery will not be 

disturbed except upon the clearest showing that the denial of discovery results in 

actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.” (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding defendant 

$1,322.20 for the cost of Lindberg’s deposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) (courts 

may tax costs that were “necessarily obtained for use in the case”); Alflex Corp. v. 

Underwriters Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 176-177 (9th Cir. 1990) (setting forth 

standard of review and holding that fees for deposition transcripts necessarily 

obtained for use in a case may be recovered under 28 U.S.C. § 1920). 

We reject as unsupported by the record Lindberg’s contention that the 

district court judge was biased. 

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal, or matters not 

specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. 
 3 

Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
ATTACHMENT G

PESP Membership Application

Note: The form below is a reproduction of a form that was developed for online use.

By completing this application for membership in PESP, we affirm our commitment to the following:

We believe that environmental stewardship is an integral part of pest management practices and will 

continue to work toward pest management practices that reduce the risks to humans and the 

environment. As part of our voluntary participation in the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program, 

this organization will develop a Strategic Approach to pesticide risk reduction and implement annual 

Activities that fall within this Strategic Approach. 

We understand that in return, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will seek to foster, fund and 

promote, through research, education, and other means, the adoption of alternative pest management 

technologies and practices that enhance pest management and reduce pesticide risk. 

* = required

Contact Type* 

Salutation*

First Name* Last Name*

Company*

Title*

Email*

Phone* (number only - no dashes or spaces) 

Fax (number only - no dashes or spaces) 

Address*

Primary

--None--
City* State/Province* Zip*

Industry*

Secondary Contact Information 

Overview & Mission of Your Organization*

Please provide an overview of your organization (e.g., history and size, nature of services offered, number 

of customers or acres managed, environmental/IPM activities and/or certifications, etc.) and your 

environmental stewardship mission. How do your organization’s activities and mission currently relate to 

IPM? (Maximum length: 10,000 characters) 

Why are you interested in joining PESP?*

Please explain your organization's interest in joining PESP. How do you hope to be engaged as a PESP 

member, and what do you hope to gain from PESP membership? Please also let us know how you heard 

about PESP. If you were referred by an existing PESP member or partner, please provide the individual's 

name.(Maximum length: 10,000 characters)

OMB Control No. 2070-XXXX

EPA Form No. 9600-02

Approval Expires XX-XX-XXXX

--None--

Submit Application
# C_2006074EN.01002601.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/26

---

Action brought on 29 December 2005 — Bang & Olufsen/OHIM

(Case T-460/05)

(2006/C 74/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bang & Olufsen AS (Struer, Denmark) [represented by: K. Wallberg, lawyer]

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | The decision taken by the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) on 22 October 2005 in case No. R0497/2005-1 be annulled and |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision taken by the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) on 22 October 2005 in case No. R0497/2005-1 be annulled and

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

—

the defendant pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional mark in form of a vertical pencil-shaped loudspeaker on a low pedestal for goods in classes 9 and 20 — application No 3 354 371

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application for all the claimed goods

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The mark is in accordance with Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 inherently distinctive for all the goods covered by the application and if not so, it has acquired distinctiveness through use in accordance with Article 7(3) of the Regulation.

Pleas in law:

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-41219

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROBERT CHARLES BORKERT,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-94-CV-286

- - - - - - - - - -

February 20, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Charles Borkert, federal inmate #43568-079, appeals

the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He argues that trial

counsel rendered ineffective assistance due to a conflict of

interest, stemming from the payment of legal fees by an

unindicted coconspirator, which adversely affected counsel’s

performance, specifically, counsel’s failure to advise Borkert

about the disadvantages and benefits of a plea offer. We have

carefully reviewed the record and the appellate arguments. In
No. 96-41219

-2-

light of the credibility determinations by the court of the

testimony from Borkert and counsel, we conclude that the district

court did not err in concluding that Borkert failed to establish

an actual conflict of interest which adversely affected counsel’s

performance. See United States v. Placente, 81 F.3d 555, 558-59

(5th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1


                                   EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------


         Each director and/or officer of Max & Erma's Restaurants, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), whose signature appears below hereby
appoints Todd B. Barnum or William C. Niegsch, Jr., or either of them, as his or
her attorney-in-fact, to sign, in his or her name and behalf and in any and all
capacities stated below, and to cause to be filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K (the "Annual
Report") for the fiscal year ended October 29, 2000, and likewise to sign and
file any and all amendments, including post-effective amendments, to the Annual
Report, and the Company hereby also appoints such persons as its
attorneys-in-fact and each of them as its attorney-in-fact with like authority
to sign and file the Annual Report and any amendments thereto in its name and
behalf, each such person and the Company hereby granting to such
attorney-in-fact full power of substitution and revocation, and hereby ratifying
all that such attorney-in-fact or his substitute may do by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this 12th day of
December, 2000.


Signature                     Title
---------                     -----


/s/ Todd B. Barnum            Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer and
-----------------------------       Director
Todd B. Barnum


/s/  William C. Niegsch, Jr.  Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
-----------------------------       Treasurer, Secretary and Director
William C. Niegsch, Jr.


/s/ Mark F. Emerson           Chief Operating Officer and Director
-----------------------------
Mark F. Emerson


/s/ William E. Arthur         Director
-----------------------------
William E. Arthur


/s/ Thomas R. Green           Director
-----------------------------
Thomas R. Green


/s/ Robert A. Rothman         Director
-----------------------------
Robert A. Rothman


/s/ Roger D. Blackwell        Director
-----------------------------
Roger D. Blackwell


/s/ Michael D. Murphy         Director
-----------------------------
Michael D. Murphy
#### § 3.416 Authority to settle.

Nothing in this subpart limits the authority of the Secretary to settle any issue or case or to compromise any penalty.
§ 417.140 Scope. This subpart sets forth— ( a ) The requirements for— ( 1 ) Entities that seek qualification as HMOs under title XIII of the PHS Act; and
( 2 ) HMOs that seek— ( i ) Qualification for their regional components; or
( ii ) Expansion of their service areas;
( b ) The procedures that CMS follows to make determinations; and
( c ) Other related provisions, including application fees.
[59 FR 49836, Sept. 30, 1994]
# C_2006143EN.01002001.xml

| 17.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 April 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-180/05) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 92/100/EEC - Rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property - Public lending right - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2006/C 143/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: M. S. Schreiner, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringements of Articles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to apply the provisions on public lending right provided for in Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to apply the provisions on public lending right provided for in Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171 of 9.7.2005

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3428 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3428

 For the relief of certain former spouses of employees of the Federal 
                              Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 1996

  Mr. Oxley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 For the relief of certain former spouses of employees of the Federal 
                              Government.

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

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR SURVIVOR ANNUITY BENEFITS.

    For the purpose of determining eligibility for survivor annuity 
benefits for a former spouse under section 8341 of title 5, United 
States Code, an application of any former spouse shall be approved if--
            (1) the annuitant is deceased;
            (2) the former spouse was living as of January 1, 1992;
            (3) the former spouse has not received Social Security 
        benefits based on eligibility as the spouse of the annuitant;
            (4) such application was filed on or after January 1, 1989;
            (5) the annuitant rendered at least 25 years of creditable 
        service to the Federal Government;
            (6) at the time of the annuitant's retirement, the 
        annuitant and the former spouse had been married at least 25 
        years;
            (7) at the time of the annuitant's retirement, the 
        annuitant designated the former spouse to receive survivor 
        annuity benefits;
            (8) the annuitant and the former spouse were divorced prior 
        to September 14, 1978, and after the annuitant retired;
            (9) neither at the time of the divorce nor at any time 
        thereafter was a joint waiver of survivor annuity benefits 
        executed between the annuitant and the former spouse;
            (10) the divorce decree was silent as to survivor annuity 
        benefits or designated the former spouse to receive survivor 
        annuity benefits;
            (11) subsequent to the divorce of the annuitant and the 
        former spouse, the annuitant advised the Office of Personnel 
        Management of the divorce;
            (12) neither annuitant nor the former spouse married any 
        other individual after their divorce from each other;
            (13) no direct notice outlining or defining the former 
        spouse's survivor annuity benefits election rights was 
        delivered to the former spouse by the Office of Personnel 
        Management; and
            (14) the former spouse has exhausted all judicial remedies 
        up to and including remedies available through the United 
        States Court of Appeals.
                                 <all>
```
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3302

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to provide additional deposit

insurance coverage for accounts at depository institutions which reduce

net fee income in any year by 50 percent or more, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 23, 1996

Ms. WATERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to provide

additional deposit insurance coverage for accounts at depository institutions which reduce net fee income in any

year by 50 percent or more, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bank Fee Reduction

5 Incentive Act of 1996’’.
2

•HR 3302 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN DEPOSIT INSURANCE FOR DEPOSI2 TORY INSTITUTIONS WHICH REDUCE FEES.

3 Section 11(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act

4 (12 U.S.C. 1922(a)) is amended by adding at the end the

5 following new paragraph:

6 ‘‘(9) INCREASED DEPOSIT INSURANCE FOR IN7 STITUTIONS WHICH REDUCE FEES.—

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If the Corporation de9 termines, in accordance with such procedures as

10 the Corporation shall establish, that the net fee

11 income of an insured depository institution is

12 reduced by 50 percent or more over any 2 con13 secutive semiannual periods due to a reduction

14 in the number and amount of fees imposed by

15 the institution in connection with consumer ac16 counts and consumer transactions, paragraphs

17 (1)(B), (2)(A), and (3) and section 7(i) shall be

18 applied, with respect to such institution, during

19 the 2 semiannual periods which begin after the

20 date of such determination by substituting

21 ‘$105,000’ for ‘$100,000’ each place such term

22 appears in such paragraphs and section.

23 ‘‘(B) EXCEPTION AUTHORIZED.—The Cor24 poration may waive the application of subpara25 graph (A) to any insured depository institution

26 if the Corporation determines that the applica-
3

•HR 3302 IH

1 tion of such subparagraph to such institution

2 would create a disproportionate increase in risk

3 to a deposit insurance fund.’’.

Æ
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Isaac BRAZIEL v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 80-KH-1935.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 16, 1981.

In re Isaac Braziel, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Orleans. No. 256-058.

Granted. The trial court is ordered to fix a new return date in this matter 60 days from date of this order. In this regard the transcript shall be furnished at least 15 days prior to the return date. *See,*C.Cr.P. Art. 919 as amended by Acts 1980, no. 537.
No. 00-186.

#### Topps Co., Inc. *v.*Michigan Department of Treasury, Revenue Division.

Ct. App. Mich. Motion of Gillette Co. for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae*granted. Cer-tiorari denied.
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.680 Witnesses. ( a ) The hearing officer may examine the witnesses.
( b ) The parties or their representatives are permitted to examine their witnesses and cross-examine witnesses of other parties.
Exhibit 99.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

            This certification is intended to accompany the Annual Report of
Omega Financial Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying
the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The undersigned, in my capacity as set forth
below, hereby certifies that, to the best of my knowledge:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

      /s/ Daniel L. Warfel
      Chief Financial Officer                   Date: 03/24/2003


                                       53
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-87,555-01

EX PARTE ANTHONY CRUZ BERNAL, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. C-42,307-A IN THE 244 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM ECTOR COUNTY

ALCALA, J., filed a concurring opinion.

CONCURRING OPINION

I agree with this Court’s remand order’s determination that applicant has alleged facts that,

“if true, might entitle him to relief.” I, however, do not join this Court’s order because I would

require the habeas court on remand to appoint counsel for applicant upon request if he is indigent,

regardless of whether the trial court holds a hearing. See Ex parte Pointer, 492 S.W.3d 318, 320-21

(Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (per curiam) (Alcala, J., concurring). Specifically, in addition to the order’s

current admonition that the appointment of counsel is mandatory for an indigent applicant upon

request if the habeas court holds a hearing, I would include a further admonishment that an indigent

applicant is “entitled” to the appointment of counsel upon request “if the court concludes that the

interests of justice require representation.” See TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ART. 1.051(d). With these

comments, I respectfully concur in this Court’s order.

Filed: November 22, 2017

Do Not Publish