alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 161
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 161 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49238, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 161.013-7 Signal requirements. ( a ) An electric light must have a flash characteristic of the International Morse Code for S-O-S and, under design conditions, ( 1 ) Each short flash must have a duration of 1 ⁄ 3 second;
( 2 ) Each long flash must have a duration of 1 second;
( 3 ) The dark period between each short flash must have a duration of 1 ⁄ 3 second;
( 4 ) The dark period between each long flash must have a duration of 1 ⁄ 3 second;
( 5 ) The dark period between each letter must have a duration of 2 seconds;
( 6 ) The dark period between each S-O-S signal must have a duration of 3 seconds.
( b ) The flash characteristics described in paragraph (a) must be produced automatically when the signal is activated.
# C_2008101EN.01002401.xml

| 23.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/24

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4662 — Syniverse/BSG

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2008/C 101/08)

On 5 June 2007, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration by which the undertaking Syniverse Technologies, Inc. (Syniverse), would acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, control of the wireless business of Billing Services Group Limited (BSG) by way of purchase of shares.

Syniverse

After a preliminary examination of the notification, the Commission found that the transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, it decided on 10 July 2007 to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

Syniverse was given access to the key documents in the file, in accordance with the Best Practices rules for merger cases, in the form of non-confidential versions of third parties' replies to the market investigation; these were provided on 17 July 2007.

Following an in-depth market investigation, the Commission services concluded that the proposed transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part of it and is therefore compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement. Accordingly, no Statement of Objections was sent to the notifying party.

No queries or submissions have been made to me by the parties or any third party. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.

Brussels, 29 November 2007.

Karen WILLIAMS

---
#### Chamberlain v. Applegate.

*Undertaking—on appeal—validity of—construction of.*

In an action by C. against S. to enforce payment upon a contract for the sale of real estate by C., a judgment was rendered directing the sale of the real estate and the payment of the amount found to be due C. from the proceeds, but no personal judgment was rendered against S. S. appealed and gave an undertaking executed by defendants to stay proceedings under Code, § 335, instead of under section 338, as it should have been. The undertaking, after stating that a judgment for the amount adjudged to be due had been rendered against S., and undertaking that the costs should be paid, provided that if the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, S. would pay the amount directed to be paid by the judgment and all damages awarded against him in the appeal. In an action upon the undertaking for a deficiency resulting from a sale of the land after the decision of the appeal. *Held.,*(1) that though not in the form adapted to the appeal, it was a'valid obligation against defendants so far as by its terms it imposed any obligation for the satisfaction of the judgment *{Decker*v. *Judson,*16 N. Y. 439); (3) that the obligation was limited to the amount directed by the judgment and did not extend to that of the amount found due C. on the contract, and (8) if any loss resulted to 0. by the delay in the sale of the lands by reason of the time consumed in the appeal in the absence of evidence of what the amount of that loss was, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover only nominal damages therefor on the undertaking.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in a cause tried at the circuit by the court without a jury in which plaintiff recovered nominal damages and defendants recovered costs.

The action was brought by Calvin T. Chamberlain against Joseph Applegate and others upon an undertaking on appeal executed by defendants in an action by plaintiff’s assignor against one Schomberg and others.

*D. H. Bolles,*for appellant.

*A. G. Rice,*for respondent.

Mullin, P. J.

The judgment was affirmed with costs against plaintiff upon the opinion of Daniels, J., who tried the action. A sufficient statement of the points passed upon in that opinion is given in the head-note.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### Albert Van Loan, Respondent, *v.*Tucker, Speyers *&*Company, Appellant.

*Van Loan*v. Tucker, *Speyers & Co.,*130 App. Div. 879, affirmed.

(Argued January 28, 1910;

decided February 15, 1910.)

Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 27, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an- order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover on an alleged contract for services.

*Austen G. Fox*and *Frank M. Patterson*for appellant.

*Otto Horwitz*and *Frederic Cyrus Leubuscher*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Cli. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook and Chase, JJ.
#### § 169.827 Hatches and other openings.

The master is responsible for seeing that all hatches, openings in the hull, and watertight doors are properly closed tight.
###### Editorial Note on Part 153

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 153.1060 Benzene.

The person in charge of a Coast Guard inspected vessel must ensure that the provisions of part 197, subpart C, of this chapter are applied.

[CGD 88-040, 56 FR 65006, Dec. 13, 1991]
#### ISRAEL P. GRANT and WRIGHT DE WATERS, Appellants, *v.*JOHN BURCH, Respondent.

*Sale*— 'agreement *to take a machine on trial*— when *the purchaser is not required to give it a reasonable trial.*

Appeal from a judgment of tlie Chemung County Court, entered in favor of the defendant on the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for, a new trial, made upon the minutes of the court.

The action was brought to recover the price of a reaper claimed by the plaintiffs to have been sold to the-defendant.

After considering some, objections to the receipt of evidence, the court at General Term said: *“*The last objection urged by the plaintiffs is, that the judge refused to charge, at their request, that if the defendant took the reaper on trial he was bound to give it a reasonable trial. The defen dant insisted (and that presented one of the issues and the principal issue) that the bargain was, that the reaper should be left there for him on trial, and that if he liked the machine and was suited with it, he was to keep it and pay for it. The plaintiffs insisted that the defendant was to purchase the machine, and that if it did first-class work he was to pay for it; if not he was' to notify the plaintiffs, and they were to put it in order. Now, we cannot say that the judge erred in his refusal. If the machine was, as the defendant claimed, only left on trial, and was to be kept only if the defendant was suited with it, we cannot say that the defendant was under any obligation at all to make a trial. 'Such an arrangement gives the expected purchaser the privilege of trying the machine, but it leaves it quite to his own judgment whether he is suited. And if it is for his own judgment to decide whether he *377is suited, then the giving a fair trial is of no consequence. If the bargain had been, that if the reaper worked well the defendant was to keep it, then he might be bound to give it a fair trial. But if the bargain was only, that if it suited him he was to keep it, then the keeping it was left to his choice. He was to determine, and not a jury, whether or not it suited him.”

*Smith dt*Robertson, for the appellants.

*S. S. Taylor*and *David B.*Hill, for the respondent.

Opinion by

Learned, P. J.

Present — Learned, P. J., Osborn and Bumsey, J J.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0                 106,910
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      167                   1,307
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                     (58)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   291                 111,189
<PP&E>                                             585                   7,216
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (188)                 (1,323)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     688                 416,725
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              391                  11,618
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                     715
<OTHER-SE>                                        (289)                402,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       688                 416,725
<SALES>                                          9,905                  27,873
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,905                  27,873
<CGS>                                            3,522                  13,863
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,731                  42,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                     (54)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,174                 (14,268)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,827                   2,951
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,347                 (17,219)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,347                 (17,219)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06                    (.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06                    (.38)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.1

 



DNB   INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE COMMON STOCK CUSIP26484T   10 6 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES   OF THE COMMON STOCK, $0.0001 PAR VALUE, OF Dun & BraDstreet HolDings,   inc. transferable on the books of the Company in Person or by duly authorized   attorney, upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This   Certificate and the shares represented hereby, are issued and shall be held   subject to all of the provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation, as   amended, and the Bylaws, as amended, of the Company (copies of which are on   file with the Company and with the Transfer Agent), to all of which each   holder, by acceptance hereof, assents. This Certificate is not valid unless   countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. WITNESS the   facsimile seal of the Company and the facsimile signatures of its duly   authorized officers. 2018 0000001 Chief Legal Officer Chief Executive Officer   u Exhibit 4.1 


    




 










JT TEN Shares   of the common stock represented by this certificate and do hereby irrevocably   constitutes and appoint Attorney, to transfer the said stock on the books of   the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.
# C_2012217EN.01002101.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2012 — Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam v OHIM — Investimust (COLLEGE)

(Case T-165/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark COLLEGE - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 217/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. van Leeuwen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Investimust SA (Geneva, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2011 (Case R 508/2010-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam and Investimust SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.

1

---
§ 169.319 Washrooms and toilets. ( a ) Sailing school vessels must have one toilet and one washbasin for every 20 persons. Each toilet and washbasin must have adequate plumbing.
( b ) Each washroom and toilet room must properly drain and the scupper to the washroom must be of sufficient size and situated in the lowest part of the space.
( c ) Each sailing school vessel must meet the applicable requirements of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, part 159.
### -79 -78 -77 -76 -75
37 38 39 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲


## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/26 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.97 N 77.02 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●


## ★ ● ● ● ●
# C_2012006EN.01000201.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/2

---

Appeal brought on 28 July 2011 by Jager & Polacek GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09 Jager & Polacek GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Jager & Polacek GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-402/11 P)

2012/C 6/02

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Jager & Polacek GmbH (represented by: A. Renck, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09;

| — | Order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The requirement for effective legal protection demands that the disputed communication of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, by which the appellant’s opposition was declared admissible, be regarded as a decision and that the opposition proceedings be continued. The contrary view of the General Court is legally incorrect and based on judgments of the Court of Justice which do not apply to the present case.

Furthermore, the General Court erred in stating that a communication cannot be a decision. What is correct is, rather, that a decision may also be contained in a communication.

Lastly, the General Court provided insufficient grounds as to why the international registration of the disputed mark is irrelevant as regards the present case.

---
# C_2015046EN.01004301.xml

| 9.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Banco Privado Português and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português v Commission

(Case T-487/11) (1)

1

((State aid - Financial sector - State guarantee accompanying a bank loan - Aid designed to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State - Article 107(3)(b) TFEU - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty - Conformity with the Commission’s notices concerning aid to the financial sector in the context of the financial crisis - Legitimate expectation - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 046/52)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Banco Privado Português, SA (Lisbon, Portugal); and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, SA (Lisbon) (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, F. Pereira Coutinho, M. Esperança Pina, T. Mafalda Santos, R. Leandro Vasconcelos and A. Kéri, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/346/EU of 20 July 2010 on the State aid C 33/09 (ex NN 57/09, CP 191/09) implemented by Portugal in the form of a State guarantee to BPP (OJ 2011 L 159, p. 95).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Banco Privado Português, SA and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, SA to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Banco Privado Português, SA and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, SA to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

1

---
Exhibit 32.01  WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned Principal Executive Officer of Human BioSystems (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the Quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated: May 15, 2009   /s/ Harry Masuda Harry Masuda Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

SRS INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al.,, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF

MICHIGAN

Defendant. 

 /

Case No. 14-cv-14718

ORDER SETTING CONFERENCE

On June 29, 2015, the court held a status conference. The court agreed to allow

the parties an additional month to pursue settlement. A followup conference will be held

on the record on July 29, 2015. Client representatives must be present at this

conference.

IT IS ORDERED that counsel and client representatives shall appear for a status

conference on July 29, 2015 at 4:00pm at the United States District Court in Port

Huron, Michigan.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 2, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, July 2, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\ML\Civil\13-13226.SRS.conference.ml.wpd

2:14-cv-14718-RHC-DRG Doc # 28 Filed 07/02/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 823
# C_2014245EN.01000901.xml

| 28.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2014 — Sarc v Commission

(Case T-488/11) (1)

1

((State aid - Software licence agreement - Decision finding no State aid - Actions for annulment - Competitive position not substantially affected - Inadmissibility - Procedural rights of the interested parties - Admissibility - Failure to initiate formal investigation procedure - No serious difficulties - Advantage))

2014/C 245/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Scheepsbouwkundig Advies- en Rekencentrum (Sarc) BV (Bussum, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Speyart and R. Bolhaar, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, K. Talabér-Ritz and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented initially by C. Wissels, M. Noort and B. Koopman, and subsequently by C. Wissels, M. Noort, J. Langer and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents); and Technische Universiteit Delft (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: R. van den Tweel and P. Huurnink, lawyers).

Interveners in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 642 final of 10 May 2011 relating to the State Aid Proceedings NN 68/2010 — Netherlands, declaring after the preliminary examination stage that the licence agreement for the use of a software source code concluded between Technische Universiteit Delft and Delftship BV does not constitute State aid

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Scheepsbouwkundig Advies- en Rekencentrum (Sarc) BV to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the Technische Universiteit Delft; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Scheepsbouwkundig Advies- en Rekencentrum (Sarc) BV to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the Technische Universiteit Delft;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.

1

---