alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006096EN.01001401.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/14

---

Action brought on 14 December 2005 — Daishowa Seiki v OHIM

(Case T-438/05)

(2006/C 96/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Daishowa Seiki Co. Ltd (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: T. Krüger, 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 of OHIM: Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft KG (Mülheim, Germany)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Decision R928/2004-1 of the First Board of Appeal for the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), made on 7 September 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision R928/2004-1 of the First Board of Appeal for the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), made on 7 September 2005;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of this action and of the objection proceedings R928/2004-1. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of this action and of the objection proceedings R928/2004-1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Daishowa Seiki Co. Ltd

Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘BIG PLUS’ for goods in Class 7 (Metal machine tools, parts and tool holders) Application no. 1 073 964

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative mark ‘Plus’ for goods, inter alia in Classes 6 and 8

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Setting aside of the decision of the Opposition Division

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of EC Regulation No. 40/94, as there is no risk of confusion between the opposing trade marks, (i) due to the lack of similarity of the goods and trade marks, and (ii) because the distinctive character of the opposing trademark is limited to the graphical design.

Pleas in law:

---
#### John A. MEYER et al., Appellants, v. William H. RICH, Appellee.

No. 73-1156.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 26, 1974.

Rehearing Denied May 28, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE>
                  TOUCHSTONE APPLIED SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC.
                               AND SUBSIDIARY

                                 EXHIBIT 11

                   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
<CAPTION>
                                                    Three Months Ended
                                                        January 31,
                                               1 9 9 7             1 9 9 6
                                               -------             -------
<S>                                         <C>                <C>
Primary earnings:

Net income                                   $   151,442        $   166,549

Shares:
  Weighted common shares outstanding           7,938,223          7,499,400
  Harriman options                                    --            113,223
  Employee stock options                              --            453,493
  B warrants                                          --             70,187
  Underwriter options                                 --             34,550
                                             -----------        -----------

Total weighted shares outstanding              7,938,223          8,170,853
                                             -----------        -----------

Primary earnings per common share            $       .02        $       .02
                                             ===========        ===========

Fully diluted earnings:

Net income                                   $   151,442        $   166,549

Shares:
  Weighted common shares outstanding           7,938,223          7,499,400
  Harriman options                                    --            113,223
  Employee stock options                              --            453,493
  B warrants                                          --             70,187
  Underwriter options                                 --             34,550
                                             -----------        -----------

Total weighted shares outstanding              7,938,223          8,170,853
                                             -----------        -----------

Fully diluted earnings per common share      $       .02        $       .02
                                             ===========        ===========
</TABLE>
# C_2006036EN.01003501.xml

| 11.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/35

---

Action brought on 18 November 2005 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission

(Case T-433/05)

(2006/C 36/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Sanchez Ferriz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the list of officials promoted under the 2004 exercise (1), insofar as that list does not include his name, and, as an incidental plea, the preparatory measures for that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the list of officials promoted under the 2004 exercise (1), insofar as that list does not include his name, and, as an incidental plea, the preparatory measures for that decision;

1

| — | Annul the allocation of promotion points during the 2004 exercise, in particular, following the recommendations of the promotion committees; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the allocation of promotion points during the 2004 exercise, in particular, following the recommendations of the promotion committees;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official, challenges the decision not to promote him during the 2004 exercise. In support of his action, he submits that the definitive version of his career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 had not been compiled by the time the contested decision was adopted. In addition, he is of the opinion that when allocating 'priority points' to officials for the purpose of their classification with a view to promotion, the Commission gave excessive weight to the 'remainder' of the officials who, although they had reached the promotion threshold, had not been promoted during the earlier exercises. The applicant also levels a more general criticism against the allocation of points which, he states, fails to comply with the requirement to carry out a comparative examination of merits for the purpose of promotion.

On that basis, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, and of the General Implementing Provisions and the Commission's Administrative Guide for assessment and promotion, infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, infringement of the principle of prohibition against arbitrary treatment, infringement of the duty to give reasons, infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and infringement of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.

---

(1)  List published in Administrative Notice No 130 - of 30.11.2004

1

---
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement no.
33-72788 of U.S.B. Holding Co., Inc. on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos.
333-75317, 333-56169, 333-43797, 333-27451, 33-80678 and 2-90674 on Forms S-8 of
our report dated January 28, 2000 incorporated by reference in the Annual Report
on Form 10K of U.S.B. Holding Co., Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.


/s/ Deloite & Touche LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
March 27, 2000
# C_2005217EN.01006306.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/63

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-67/97 (1)

1

(2005/C 217/133)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-67/97, J.P.M. Wolfs v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 20 (Monday, February 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5865-5866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2133]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,029]


Foxcroft Sportswear, Currently Known as Sara Campbell, LTD, Fall 
River, MA; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for 
Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility 
to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance on November 19, 2007, applicable to workers of 
Foxcroft Sportswear, Fall River, Massachusetts. The notice was 
published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69710).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of women's apparel.
    New information shows that in August 2007, Foxcroft Sportswear was 
purchased by Sara Campbell, Ltd and is currently known as Sara 
Campbell, Ltd.
    Accordingly, the certification is being amended to include workers 
at Foxcroft Sportswear, Fall River, Massachusetts, whose wages are 
reported under the Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax account for the 
successor firm, Sara Campbell, Ltd.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-62,029 is hereby issued as 
follows:


[[Page 5866]]


    All workers of Foxcroft Sportswear, currently known as Sara 
Campbell, Ltd, Fall River, Massachusetts, who became totally or 
partially separated from employment on or after August 21, 2006 
through November 19, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 and are also 
eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under 
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of January 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-2133 Filed 1-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EXHIBIT
32.2





STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER





I,
Timothy J. Shaheen, herby certify, to my knowledge, that:





1.
the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cadiz Inc. for the period
ended June 30, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and




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





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Statement as of the date
first written above.





Dated:
August 10, 2009








/s/ Timothy J.
Shaheen


Timothy
J. Shaheen


Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary
HomePlans, Performance, Budget...Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Evaluation Plan

# 									Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Evaluation Plan							

Report

## 								Table of Contents							

        - I. Introduction
        - II. Process
        - III. Significant Evaluations
        - Outcome Evaluation on Implementation of Child Drug Use Treatment Protocols in India
        - Evaluation of Brazil’s Youth Ambassadors and English Immersion Camp
        - Refugee Child and Youth Protection in Urban Areas in Africa
        - Effective Community Organizing and Mobilization: Three-Part Evaluation Series

## I. INTRODUCTION

The following Department of State Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Annual Evaluation Plan was developed consistent with section 312(b) of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (P. L. 115-435) (Evidence Act) and OMB guidance Memorandum M-19-23.

## II. PROCESS

The Department analyzed evaluations conducted thus far for FY 2018-2022, determining that they align with the Joint Strategic Plan (JSP) strategic goals and objectives, and identifying areas to strengthen evaluation coverage.  The Department also reviewed bureau evaluation plans for FY 2020, 2021, and 2022, using the Evaluation Registry (foreign assistance) and Evaluation Management System (diplomatic engagement), to identify ‘significant evaluations’ that may fill potential gaps in covering specific objectives. The FY 2018-2022 JSP can be found here.

The following chart presents a crosswalk of the JSP goals and objectives against the number of evaluations conducted during FY 2018 and FY 2019 (159 total). If the number of evaluations underneath a particular sub-objective equaled less than five percent (or eight in number) of total evaluations, that sub-objective was deemed to have a gap in evaluation coverage (denoted in the fourth column). If an evaluation is planned for FY 2022 that addresses one of those gaps, it has been included in the fifth column as an anticipated contribution to the pool of evidence.

The FY 2022 evaluation plan relied on an analysis of FY 2018 and 2019 *completed* evaluations, given the limitations of relying on FY 2020 and FY 2021 *planned* and *ongoing* evaluations. Including these ongoing and planned evaluations does not significantly alter the assessment of gaps, only showing that some gaps may be closing.

As the Department continues to implement the Evidence Act, it will be positioned to   use the critical learning needs highlighted by the learning agenda to determine where evaluations can fill evidence gaps, and thus which evaluations are significant. While the learning agenda is under development, the FY 2022 evaluations identified in this plan will contribute to the totality of evidence related to the corresponding JSP sub-objectives.  The FY 2022-2026 JSP is scheduled for completion in February 2022.
40893.

#### STEPHENS v. ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT et al.

Decided October 6, 1964.

Zoning appeal. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Shaw. *Preston L. Holland,*for plaintiff in error.

*Harold Sheats, John Tye Ferguson, Mathew Robins, Johnson & Lane, J. Clifford Johnson,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

On October 17, 1963, the Atlanta-Fulton County Joint Board of Adjustment granted a variance from the zoning regulations to Mrs. J. L. Picklesimer for certain real property. On October 21, 1963, the plaintiff in error filed with the said board what he entitled “Motion for rehearing, reconsideration and motion that variance granted on October 17, 1963, be set aside and variance denied.” This latter motion was denied by the Board of Adjustment on November 21, 1963. On December 2, 1963, the plaintiff in error filed his appeal to the Superior Court of Fulton County. The board filed its response to the appeal on January 2, 1964. A Judge of the Superior Court of Fulton County dismissed the appeal and the exception here is to a refusal by the Fulton Superior Court to vacate its decision dismissing the appeal.

1. Under *Code Ann.*§ 69-827 (Ga. L. 1946, pp. 191, 198) an appeal from a decision of the Board of Adjustment must be filed within 30 days after the decision of the board is rendered. In this case, instead of appealing within 30 days after the original decision of the board, the plaintiff in error filed his appeal within 30 days after the board rendered a decision on the motion for rehearing filed with it by the plaintiff in error. The appeal was filed more than 30 days after the rendition of the original decision by the board, which was the only legal and appealable *432decision rendered by the board. The decision by the board on the motion for rehearing and to set aside the original judgment was rendered on November 21, 1963. This judgment was a complete nullity and could not furnish a time basis for an appeal since the board is without jurisdiction to grant a rehearing in such a matter or to set aside a decision made by it on the ground of fraud in procurement. *Simpson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,*99 Ga. App. 629 (109 SE2d 876); *Black v. Westside Development Co.,*106 Ga. App. 378 (126 SE2d 901); *Ledbetter v. Roberts,*95 Ga. App. 652 (2) (98 SE2d 654); *Alexander v. Muscogee County Bd. of Adjustment,*101 Ga. App. 10 (112 SE2d 690).

The judgment of Fulton Superior Court overruling the motion to set aside its previous judgment dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff in error is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
#### Walter J. BROWN and Muriel A. Brown, his wife, and Florida Executive Realty, Inc., Appellants, v. Paul E. MATTON, Appellee.

No. 81-467.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 9, 1981.

Bennett S. Cohn, Lake Worth, and Carl L. Campbell, Palm Beach, for appellants.

William M. Layton, Lake Worth, for ap-pellee.

LETTS, Chief Judge.

This appeal comes to us from a final judgment which returned the deposit on a real estate contract to the buyer because the contract was contingent upon the buyer securing a mortgage which he failed to obtain. We reverse.

The particular contingency provision read as follows:

> This contract is contingent upon buyers securing an 85% mortgage at financial institution at current rate and terms within 30 days.

During the non-jury trial of this cause, considerable evidence was introduced by both sides about whether or not the buyer made a good faith effort to secure the financing. Normally the resolution of such a question would be one which we would leave to the trier of the facts. However, in this particular instance the judge’s final order unequivocally returned the deposit to the purchaser solely because:

> The way the contract is written, the responsibility for providing such financing is upon the seller or the real estate agent within thirty (30)days if either are to declare a forfeiture. In this case the plaintiff went further in attempting to close the transaction than was required by the contract.

We believe that the trial judge was wrong in so interpreting the contingency provision. Not only are we of the opinion that the quoted contingency does not place the responsibility of securing the financing upon the seller or the real estate agent, to the contrary we feel that the language employed quite clearly places the burden of obtaining the financing upon the buyer.

*1270Notwithstanding our disagreement with the trial judge’s reasoning we would nonetheless affirm if we were convinced that he had the right result although for the wrong reason. See *Firestone v. Firestone,*263 So.2d 223 (Fla.1972). However, our perusal of the record on the question of whether the purchaser made a good-faith effort to secure the financing is not convincing one way or the other and the trial judge made no such finding.

As a consequence, this cause is reversed for a new trial on the issue of whether or not the buyer made a good-faith effort to secure financing from an institutional mortgage lender at current rates and terms within thirty (30) days.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
#### § 3.510 Ex parte contacts.

No party or person (except employees of the ALJ's office) may communicate in any way with the ALJ on any matter at issue in a case, unless on notice and opportunity for both parties to participate. This provision does not prohibit a party or person from inquiring about the status of a case or asking routine questions concerning administrative functions or procedures.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40897 Summary Calendar

SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ REYNA Plaintiff-Appellant

v. THOMAS GREENWELL; BOBBY GALVAN; NANCY NINEMER; JACK HUNTER; SANDRA BANU ELOS; ESTHER NATIVIDAD; MELINDA MEDINA; ROBERT LUGO; PRISCILLA CH APA; JIM KAELIN; TIM K REVIS; M R RODRIGUEZ; R L GARCIA Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:07-CV-138
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Samuel Rodriguez Reyna, a pretrial detainee confined in the Nueces County, Texas, Jail, awaiting trial on murder charges, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit challenging his arrest and detention on the grounds that therewas no probable cause to arrest him, that the search and seizure of his person was unconstitutional, and that the defendants have United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 14, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-40897

2 conspired to deprive him of his liberty. The district court ordered that the complaint bedismissed pursuant tothe abstention doctrine ofYounger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). It alternatively dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim and as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. On appeal, Reyna renews the merits of his claims and urges that abstention was not warranted under Younger because the murder charges against him were brought in bad faith and with the intent to harass him. He also raises numerous other newassertions regarding the various defendants in hisappellate brief. However, he has abandoned by failing to brief any challenge to the district court’s alternative bases for dismissal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### Charles W. McALPINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 46775.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 17, 1975.

Appeal dismissed sua sponte. 302 So.2d 839.
#### § 423.604 Effect of a reconsideration determination.

A reconsideration determination is final and binding on the enrollee and the Part D plan sponsor, unless the enrollee files a request for a hearing under the provisions of § 423.2014.

[70 FR 4525, Jan. 28, 2005, as amended at 74 FR 65363, Dec. 9, 2009; 84 FR 19872, May 7, 2019]
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-97813, No. 333-133976, and 333-159129 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 1, 2011, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of McDermott International,Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s completed spin-off of its Government Operations and Power Generations Systems segments into an independent, publicly tradedcompany named The Babcock & Wilcox Company), and the effectiveness of McDermott International, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of McDermott International, Inc. for the yearended December 31, 2010. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Houston, Texas 

March 1, 2011