alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (word mark ‘BUD’)

(Case T-257/06)

(2006/C 281/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (České Budějovice, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BUD’ for services in Classes 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Application No 1 737 121

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Protected designation of origin ‘BUD’ to designate beer

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) and Article 20 of implementing Regulation No 2868/95 (2) in that the Board of Appeal is not competent to rule on the validity of the designation of origin invoked by the applicant in the context of its opposition. It further submits that the sign ‘BUD’ constitutes a designation of origin, protected in both France and Austria. The applicant also invokes misapplication of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 in that, in its view, the designation of origin ‘BUD’ is indeed a sign used in the course of trade.

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

----
§ 171.117 Reports. The owner of each facility to which this subpart applies shall make the following reports, at the time indicated, to the Federal Aviation Administration Regional Office for the area in which the facility is located: ( a ) Record of meter readings and adjustments (Form FAA-198). To be filled out by the owner or his maintenance representative with the equipment adjustments and meter readings as of the time of commissioning, with one copy to be kept in the permanent records of the facility and two copies to the appropriate Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration. The owner shall revise the form after any major repair, modification, or retuning, to reflect an accurate record of facility operation and adjustment.
( b ) Facility maintenance log (FAA Form 6030-1) This form is a permanent record of all equipment malfunctioning met in maintaining the facility, including information on the kind of work and adjustments made, equipment failures, causes (if determined), and corrective action taken. The owner shall keep the original of each report at the facility and send a copy to the appropriate Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration at the end of each month in which it is prepared.
( c ) Radio equipment operation record (Form FAA-418), containing a complete record of meter readings, recorded on each scheduled visit to the facility. The owner shall keep the original of each month's record at the facility and send a copy of it to the appropriate Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration.
[Doc. No. 10116, 35 FR 12711, Aug. 11, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 171-10, 40 FR 36110, Aug. 19, 1975]
§ 161.201 Scope. ( a ) This subpart applies to: ( 1 ) An airport imposing a noise or access restriction on the operation of Stage 2 aircraft, but not Stage 3 aircraft, proposed after October 1, 1990.
( 2 ) An airport imposing an amendment to a Stage 2 restriction, if the amendment is proposed after October 1, 1990, and reduces or limits Stage 2 aircraft operations (compared to the restriction that it amends) or affects aircraft safety.
( b ) This subpart does not apply to an airport imposing a Stage 2 restriction specifically exempted in § 161.7 or a Stage 2 restriction contained in an agreement as long as the restriction is not enforced against aircraft operators that are not parties to the agreement.
§ 797.14 Requests for administrative offset from other federal agencies where NCUA is the paying agency. ( a ) Any agency may request that funds due and payable to a debtor by NCUA be administratively offset in order to collect a debt owed to such agency by the debtor.
( b ) NCUA shall initiate the requested administrative offset only upon receipt of a written certification from the creditor agency that: ( 1 ) The debtor owes the debt, including the amount and basis of the debt;
( 2 ) The agency has prescribed regulations for the exercise of administrative offset; and
( 3 ) The agency has complied with its own administrative offset regulations and with the applicable provisions of the FCCS, with respect to providing the debtor with due process.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3813 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3813

 To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to 
 reauthorize the Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 21, 2020

Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Portman) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to 
 reauthorize the Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF OHIO & ERIE NATIONAL HERITAGE CANALWAY.

    Division II of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 
1996 (Public Law 104-333; 110 Stat. 4274; 122 Stat. 824; 122 Stat. 826; 
127 Stat. 3801; 127 Stat. 420; 128 Stat. 314; 133 Stat. 778) is 
amended--
            (1) in section 809, by striking ``2021'' and inserting 
        ``2036''; and
            (2) in section 810(a), by striking ``$20,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$30,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12

- 884 V

Filed: April 22, 2014

Not for P ublication

*************************************

LYNN KOETJE

, *

*

Petitioner

, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision b ased on

* s tipulation of f

act

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Scott W. Rooney , Farmington Hills, MI , for petitioner.

Jennifer L. Reynaud , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On April 21 , 2014 , the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case

.

I n accordance with t he General Order #9 requirement, petitioner asserts t hat she did not

incur any out

- of

- pocket expenses i n pursuit of her petition. Petitioner submitted her request for

attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent. During informal discussions, respondent ra ised

objections t o certain items in petitioner’ s application but found the total amount of fees and costs

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation f or the special master’ s action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ s website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special master s will be made

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of priva cy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and

move to redact such information prior to the document = s disclosure. If the special master, upon review,

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall

redact such material from public access.2

r equested to be reasonable

. Petitioner now requests reimbursement for attor neys’ fees and costs

in the amount of $11,916.56

. Respondent does not object to this amount. The undersigned finds

this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $ 11,916.56 , representing

reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a chec k made

payable jointly to petitioner and Nemes, Rooney & McKindles P.C. in the amount of $ 11,916.56

.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the

court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2014 s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
#### WILLIAMS v. CITY OF TUSCALOOSA. (Two Cases)

(Decided April 22, 1915.)

Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court,

Heard before Hon. H. B. Foster.

No counsel marked for appellant, Brown & Ward, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed for ivant of prosecution.
EXHIBIT 32.1


           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                         RULE 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b) AND
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In  connection  with the annual  report of Lexington  Resources  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form  10-KSB/A for fiscal year ended  December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
Grant R. Atkins,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  and Vaughn  Barbon,
Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  each  certifies  for the  purpose of
complying with Rule  13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934 (the  "Exchange  Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code, that:

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

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



Dated: July 25, 2005                  By:  /s/ GRANT R. ATKINS
                                               _______________________
                                               Grant R. Atkins
                                               Chief Executive Officer



Dated: July 25, 2005                  By:  /s/ VAUGHN BARBON
                                               _______________________
                                               Vaughn Barbon,
                                               Chief Financial Officer






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 LEXINGTON  RESOURCES INC. AND WILL
BE RETAINED BY LEXINGTON  RESOURCES  INC. AND  FURNISHED TO THE  SECURITIES  AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
§ 135.615 VFR flight planning. ( a ) *Pre-flight.* Prior to conducting VFR operations, the pilot in command must— ( 1 ) Determine the minimum safe cruise altitude by evaluating the terrain and obstacles along the planned route of flight;
( 2 ) Identify and document the highest obstacle along the planned route of flight; and
( 3 ) Using the minimum safe cruise altitudes in paragraphs (b)(1)-(2) of this section, determine the minimum required ceiling and visibility to conduct the planned flight by applying the weather minimums appropriate to the class of airspace for the planned flight.
( b ) *Enroute.* While conducting VFR operations, the pilot in command must ensure that all terrain and obstacles along the route of flight are cleared vertically by no less than the following: ( 1 ) 300 feet for day operations.
( 2 ) 500 feet for night operations.
( c ) *Rerouting the planned flight path.* A pilot in command may deviate from the planned flight path for reasons such as weather conditions or operational considerations. Such deviations do not relieve the pilot in command of the weather requirements or the requirements for terrain and obstacle clearance contained in this part and in part 91 of this chapter. Rerouting, change in destination, or other changes to the planned flight that occur while the helicopter is on the ground at an intermediate stop require evaluation of the new route in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
( d ) *Operations manual.* Each certificate holder must document its VFR flight planning procedures in its operations manual.
§ 15.5 Administrative claim, who may file. ( a ) A claim for injury to, or loss of, property may be presented by the owner of the property interest which is the subject of the claim or by the owner's duly authorized agent or legal representative.
( b ) A claim for personal injury may be presented by the injured person or that person's duly authorized agent or legal representative.
( c ) A claim based on death may be presented by the executor or administrator of the decedent's estate or by any other person legally entitled to assert such a claim under applicable State law.
( d ) A claim for loss wholly compensated by an insurer with the rights of a subrogee may be presented by the insurer. A claim for loss partially compensated by an insurer with the rights of a subrogee may be presented by the insurer or the insured individually, as their respective interest appear, or jointly. Whenever an insurer presents a claim asserting the rights of a subrogee, it shall present with its claim appropriate evidence that it has the rights of a subrogee.
( e ) A claim presented by an agent or legal representative shall be presented in the name of the claimant, be signed by the agent or legal representative, show the title or legal capacity of the person signing, and be accompanied by evidence of authority to present a claim on behalf of the claimant as agent, executor, administrator, parent, guardian, or other representative.
#### § 797.11 Interest, administrative costs, and penalties.

Where NCUA is the creditor agency, it shall assess interest, penalties and administrative costs pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3717 and 31 CFR parts 900 through 904, unless excused in accordance with the FCCS.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT (10)(b)

                         OPINION AND CONSENT OF ACTUARY

<PAGE>

                [Transamerica Life Insurance Company Letterhead]

April 1, 2003

Transamerica Life Insurance Company
4333 Edgewood Road NE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499-0001

Re:      Separate Account VA J
         Registration on Form N-4
         SEC File No.333-63086

Dear Sir/Madam:

With regard to the above registration statement, I have examined such documents
and made such inquiries as I have deemed necessary and appropriate, and on the
basis of such examination, have the following opinions:

Fees and charges deducted under the Immediate Income Builder II contracts are
those deemed necessary to appropriately reflect:

(1)   the expenses incurred in the acquisition and distribution of the
      contracts,

(2)   the expenses associated with the development and servicing of the
      contracts,

(3)   the assumption of certain risks arising from the operation and management
      of the contracts and/or riders to the contracts and that provide for a
      reasonable margin of profit.

Fees and charges assessed against the contract values include:

(i)   Service Charge and Administrative Charge

(ii)  Mortality and Expense Risk Fee (M&E)

(iii) Taxes (including premium and other taxes if applicable)

(iv)  Surrender Charges

(v)   Any applicable rider fees or charges

<PAGE>

Transamerica Life Insurance Company
Page 2
April 1, 2003

The magnitude of each of the individual charges listed above in (i) through (v)
is established in the pricing of the Immediate Income Builder II, to achieve a
reasonable Return on Investment (ROI), which is within the range of industry
practice with respect to comparable variable immediate annuity products.

Except by coincidence, it is not expected that actual charges assessed in a
given year would exactly offset actual expenses incurred. Acquisition expenses
(as well as major product and/or systems development expenses) are incurred "up
front" and recovered, with a reasonable profit margin, through future years'
charges. In addition, the company cannot increase certain charges under the
contracts in the pricing process.

Therefore, in my opinion, the fees and charges deducted under the contracts, in
the aggregate, are reasonable in relation to the services rendered, the expenses
expected to be incurred, and the risks assumed by the company.

I hereby consent to the use of this opinion, which is included as an Exhibit to
the Registration Statement.

/s/ Roger Freeman
-----------------------
Roger Freeman, MAAA
Vice President
Transamerica Life Insurance Company
. . . . .

%..:r.*

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY **GENERAL** OF T’ EXAS AUSTINHonorable %* E, Elliott,

P.&. )

judge w atlol1.h

.thtl offWe. Xt is **obtiouo** that **the** l~~irlatur. **cti.lgwdLy** p1m.A 

### t h o l p~lntiry, 

### p a w or int he dietriat

### ju 4 aa

x&her 

### t h win

the 

### s o * m l~o l o a oro t

aourt. 

### Lik 4 wlw

E M p o w o x t o d l o R o ntfnus 

## the sarrloer or t&aauditin-was *issly pIme with auah jud@ rsthni t&m wiul t&e oourt. The ofrloeof mudltar

has tbamoot Irrtlsmto rdatlm to tbe aotiona

of the .odsslonero~ oorirt and th. oomalrolworo 8homoolveo. It lo of Oh* highoat pall. OOaQm timt 4u4h en 02210.r bo left .atlr.- ty in4 tram the eontraL of then oSSlO.ra, mm tc the eotont of a poeoiblc rwov%l by th. Aloeontlnuanao of the Authr or his 

## ftmu. h l cilithn it Is of 

### gmrt ;&tlioieportenoe tE6t e l

kUleu d experl~n.eQ

arfioeraf thlo klad, 8lred7 halkr dth the finsno~al

.onution8 of t&o oouat7as& it. Euolnooo,

rhoold not be #bJaet*a to t&o **podblo** reoultrof raoh biennial.lootlon, tt IO our 07i.n. loa that WEen the .owi.oriau4ro' oouroowe tRk.0 aotlos whleh 10.6. to tho rypolntmmt of an 

### aoditor GOT a 04uat7, owh 00 10 retems to ia Artlab 1646, 8UOh OOwty, a@ for 80 th0 0#100 IO OQ~O~H&OA, we th6 rppolntaont of Ott *.&&.ntthw..i10 owowned btmmee uwtLy like ooantieo AeaQpatrteA in Artf.1.1665; subjest to tho porrsr of the Ai* t r io sjud ge

l l~no to ~lowntinuo i&o aorrio*o Qz euoh wAltor in the wuin.r

. . pr0vid.Uin Artfel. 1646. ”
In do* of th. fo ofa& T it lo bho opialoa oi thle 4epRraunt that tho 41otr et judeo~Qmo ho tb #ow4r Do Alooontlauo the sonioeo OXowk auditor In the mnn1op as provi.doA

ia trtloloIti& Tesnb~~e bnstatod Gtvil -?ktateot
Tmaoting th%t the Soreuol4q SULLY awworo Jour in- &.r7, we are
Yvu?.YeFy tstl1y
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 129953(38) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, ANTHONY E. LAMAR, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 129953 COA: 262800 Ingham CC: 04-000787-AA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of February 27, 2006 is considere d, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

d0424 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2006

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,898,299
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,544,741
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,040,405
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       3,907,359
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              60,364,523
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       237,116
<OTHER-SE>                                   (505,354)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                60,364,523
<SALES>                                     29,689,271
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            29,689,271
<CGS>                                       18,102,254
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,102,254
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            17,617,704
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (231,838)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,190,773)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (79,519)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,111,214)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,111,214)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)
        

</TABLE>
U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Request to amend Exemption No. 11408, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0131. 

Dear Sir or Madam; 

This letter supersedes the previous amendment dated July 17, 2015, to reflect an update and 

additional request. 

ArrowData, LLC was issued an exemption under Section 333 ofthe "FAA Modernization and 

Reform act of2012" and herby requests an amendment to Exemption No. 11408 to permit the 

operation of additional UAS platforms as previously granted to Measure, a 32 Advisors 

Company, LLC, Exemption No. 12646, to allow commercial operation ofUAS for the purpose 

of aerial data collection, aerial videography, cinematography, photography, search and rescue, 

and firefighting perimeter safety checks. 

Point of Contact: 

Liz Stalford 

General Manager, ArrowData, LLC. 

777 N. Rainbow Blvd. Suite 380 

Las Vegas, NV 89107 

Phone: ( 480) 205-6644 

Please do not hesitate to contact me should additional information be required. Your prompt 

assistance is appreciated. 

Sincerely, 6 6 ~r .YLiz Stalford 

Attachments: 

1. List of Previously Approved Small UAS from the Measure Exemption
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24293 Filed:05/22/23 Entered:05/23/23 11:35:55 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24293 Filed:05/22/23 Entered:05/23/23 11:35:55 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2