alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011113EN.01001702.xml

| 9.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/17

---

Action brought on 16 February 2011 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NANU)

(Case T-89/11)

2011/C 113/35

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, 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: Vincci Hoteles S.A. (Alcobendas, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 November 2010 in case R 641/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 November 2010 in case R 641/2010-1;

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NANU’, for goods and services in classes 3, 4, 6, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 6218879

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5238704 of the word mark ‘NAMMU’, for goods and services in classes 3, 32 and 44

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition and consequently partly rejected the Community trade mark application for goods and services in classes 3, 4, 16, 21 and 35 and rejected the opposition for goods and services in classes 6, 9, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled in part the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition for goods in classes 4, 16 and 21 and dismissed the appeal for the remainder and confirms the rejection of the Community trade mark application for goods and services in classes 3, 21 and 35

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2013026EN.01004802.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/48

---

Order of the General Court of 27 November 2012 — H-Holding AG v Parliament

(Case T-672/11) (1)

1

(Action for failure to act - Action for damages - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

2013/C 26/96

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: H-Holding AG (Cham, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Závodný, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein and P. Schonard, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for a declaration that the Parliament unlawfully failed to commence infringement proceedings against the Czech Republic and to call upon OLAF to open an investigation relating to a Czech political party, following its petition of 24 August 2011, and, secondly, action for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the Parliament’s alleged failure to act.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | H-Holding AG is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

H-Holding AG is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GOLDEN SKY SYSTEMS, INC. AS OF
JUNE 30, 1999 AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          14,749
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,837
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (728)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,662
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,505
<PP&E>                                          10,730
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,518)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 337,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,775
<BONDS>                                        230,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,460
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   337,418
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,425
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,022
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,303
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,559
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (50,807)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (50,807)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,935)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (53,742)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
No. 99-11275 -1-

* 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. 99-11275 Summary Calendar

GREGORY C. NIEMANN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS WALTER S. SMITH, JR., U.S. District Judge; JOHN PHINIZY, Assistant U.S. Attorney; GEORGE MAYBEN, Department of Public Safety Narcotics Investigator; HOWARD WESTMORELAND, Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department, Investigator; JEFFREY BRZOZOWSKI, ATF agent; RONALD HUDSON MOODY, Attorney, STAN SCHWIEGER, Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:99-CV-994-L

-------------------- June 27, 2000 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Gregory C. Niemann, federal prisoner # 264-68-080, appeals the
dismissal of his suit pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Burea u of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The
district court did not err when it dismissed Niemann’s claims against Jud ge Walter Smith and Assistant United States Attorney
John Phinizy because they are absolutely immune from liability. Boyd v. Biggers , 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C.No. 99-11275 -2-
§ 1915A. Pursuant to H eck v. Hum phrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994),
Niemann’s claims against the remaining defendants have not accrued. Stephenson v. Reno , 28 F.3d 26, 27-28 (5th Cir. 1994) Accordingly,
the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed those claims as frivolous. § 1915A. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.1


 


MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P.


Summary of Director Compensation


 


For 2005, each
non-employee director of the general partner of MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P.
will receive:


 


•                                          an annual retainer of $18,000,


 


•                                          $2,000 regular meeting attendance fee,


 


•                                          $1,000 committee meeting attendance fee, and


 


•                                          500 phantom units


 


The Chair of the Audit Committee will receive an additional
$4,000.  Employee directors receive no
additional compensation for serving as directors.  Directors will be reimbursed for reasonable
expenses incurred in connection with attending board and committee meeting or
performing their duties as directors.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# Date and Time:

Friday, January 26, 2007, 9 a.m. 

# Place:

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Rm. 540, Washington, DC 20425. 

## Meeting Agenda 

I. Approval of Agenda. 

II. Approval of Minutes of December 14, Meeting. 

III. Announcements. 

IV. Adjourn. 

## Briefing Agenda 

No Child Left Behind and Supplemental Educational Services. 
    - Introductory Remarks by Chairman.
    - Speakers' Presentation.
    - Questions by Commissioners and Staff Director.

# Contact Person for Further Information:

Manuel Alba, Press and Communications, (202) 376-8582. 

Kenneth L. Marcus, 

Staff Director. 

[FR Doc. 07-215 Filed 1-16-07; 3:03 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 7326

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CLAUDE SLOAN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Big Stone Gap

. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. ( 2:18

- cr - 00004

- JPJ

- 1 )

Submitted : February 21, 2023 Decided: February 24, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Claude Sloan , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7326 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Claude Sloan appeals the district court’s ord er denying his tenth motion for compassionate release . On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Sloan’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s disposition of this motion , he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. * See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). A ccordingly, we affirm the district court’s order

. United States v. Sloan , No. 2:18

- cr - 00004

- JPJ

- 1 (W.D. Va. Nov. 8, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* To the extent Sloan seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition for actual innocence, that order is not properly before us. Sloan noted this appeal before the district court entered its order denying that petition, and he did not subs equently note an appeal of that order

. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). USCA4 Appeal: 22-7326 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.106-3 Testing, marking, and inspection requirements. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76705 , Sept. 18, 2024.
( a ) Each primary deck covering submitted for type approval must be tested in accordance with the flame spread procedures specified in Part 6 of Annex 1 and the smoke density and toxicity criteria in Part 2 of Annex 1 of the FTP Code (incorporated by reference, see § 164.106-2).
( b ) All testing and inspections required by this subpart must be performed by an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard under subpart 159.010 of this chapter. A list of independent laboratories accepted as meeting subpart 159.010 of this chapter is available online at *http://psix.uscg.mil/EQLabs/Default.aspx*.
( c ) The independent laboratory must perform an initial factory inspection to select the test specimens and establish the materials of construction, chemical make-up, dimensions, tolerances, and other related factors needed to confirm product consistency during follow-up production inspections.
( d ) Production inspections must be performed by the independent laboratory in accordance with subpart 159.007 of this chapter at least annually to confirm that no changes have been made to the product that may adversely affect its fire performance as a primary deck covering.
( e ) The independent laboratory must prepare production inspection procedures and a report of the results of the fire testing program, and must furnish the manufacturer with three copies of each upon completion of the required testing.
( f ) Materials approved under this subpart must be shipped in packaging that is clearly marked with the name of the manufacturer, product designation, date of manufacture, batch or lot number, and Coast Guard type approval number.
###### Editorial Note on Part 160

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 160.151-3 Definitions.

In this subpart, the term:

*Commandant * means the Chief of the Lifesaving and Fire Safety Standards Division. Address: Commandant (CG-ENG-4), Attn: Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509; telephone 202-372-1392 or fax 202-372-1924.

*Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI)* means an officer of the Coast Guard designated as such by the Commandant and who fulfills the duties described in 46 CFR 1.01-15(b). The “cognizant OCMI” is the OCMI who has immediate jurisdiction over a vessel or geographic area for the purpose of performing the duties previously described.

*Servicing* means periodic inspection, necessary repair, and repacking by a servicing facility approved by the Coast Guard. Requirements for periodic inspection and repair of inflatable liferafts approved by the Coast Guard are described in §§ 160.151-35 through 160.151-57.

*SOLAS* means the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended by the International Maritime Organization through the 1988 (GMDSS) amendments, dated 9 November 1988.

*SOLAS A Liferaft* means a liferaft that meets the requirements of this subpart for an inflatable liferaft complying with SOLAS and equipped with a SOLAS A equipment pack.

*SOLAS B Liferaft* means a liferaft that meets the requirements of this subpart for an inflatable liferaft complying with SOLAS and equipped with a SOLAS B equipment pack.

[CGD 85-205, 62 FR 25547, May 9, 1997, as amended by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49237, Sept. 25, 2009, USCG-2010-0048, 76 FR 62996, Oct. 11, 2011; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60159, Sept. 30, 2013]
§ 189.01-5 Posting. ( a ) The original certificate of inspection shall, in general, be framed under glass or other transparent material and posted in a conspicuous place where it will be most likely to be observed. On other vessels such as barges, where the framing of the certificate under glass would be impracticable, the original certificate of inspection shall be kept on board to be shown on demand.
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.161-5 Instruction manual for design, installation, operation, and maintenance. ( a ) The manufacturer must prepare a system instruction manual for design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the system. The manual must be reviewed and accepted by an independent laboratory listed in 46 CFR 162.161-10 and approved by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR 159.005-13.
( b ) The manual must include: ( 1 ) The design information as required in the Design Manual as detailed in UL 2166 (incorporated by reference, see § 162.161-2) for halocarbon systems and UL 2127 (incorporated by reference, see § 162.161-2) for inert gas systems;
( 2 ) Installation, operation, and maintenance instructions as required in the Installation, Operation, and Maintenance Instruction Manual detailed in UL 2166 for halocarbon systems and UL 2127 for inert gas systems;
( 3 ) Identification of the computer program listed or approved by the independent laboratory for designing the system;
( 4 ) A sample diagram and calculation for a marine system for a large inspected vessel with several spaces to be protected by the same system;
( 5 ) The approval number issued by the Coast Guard for the system under 46 CFR 159.005-13;
( 6 ) A parts list with manufacturer's part numbers and a description of each system component;
( 7 ) An index of chapters; and
( 8 ) Issue and revision dates for each page.
( c ) The manufacturer of each system must provide at least one copy of the system manual with each system.
#### § 167.65-5 Flashing the rays of a searchlight or other blinding light.

Flashing the rays of a searchlight or other blinding light onto the bridge or into the pilothouse of any vessel under way is prohibited.
#### GEORGE R. HANN AND ELMER KING, RECEIVERS OF MORRIS COUNTY TRACTION COMPANY, PROSECUTORS, v. STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENT ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Submitted May term, 1929

Decided November 14, 1929.

Before Justices Trenchard, Lloyd and Case.

For the prosecutors, *King & Vogt.*

For the defendants, *Duane E. Minará.*

Per Curiam.

This is on motion for the allowance of a writ of *certiorari*to review the proceedings of the state board of taxes and assessment against the Morris County Traction Company for the 1928 franchise tax. The tax was assessed under the 1906 street railroad corporation franchise tax. The principles involved are similar to those of the proceeding with like title, wherein, at the present term of court, we reviewed, under *certiorari,*the 1928 tax of the Morris County Traction Company assessed on gross receipts of 1927 under chapter 25 of the laws of 1919. We have examined the briefs and proofs submitted under the above caption, and, following the reasoning of the last mentioned proceeding, we have concluded that the writ of *certiorari*shall not be allowed.
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*John Gass, *Respondents, v.*William Morgan Lee, *Appellant*.

Order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Cullen, J.;

Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
§ 169.311 Fire protection. ( a ) The general construction of the vessel must be designed to minimize fire hazards. Each vessel which carries more than 100 persons or has overnight accommodations for more than 49 persons must meet the requirements of subpart 72.05 of this chapter. Each vessel which is certificated to carry 100 persons or less or had overnight accommodations for less than 50 persons must meet the requirements of § 169.323.
( b ) A fire detector, listed by a recognized testing laboratory, must be installed in each unmanned engine space.
( c ) Smoke detectors, listed by a recognized testing laboratory, must be installed in each berthing compartment, sail locker, and public area.
( d ) Internal combustion engine exhausts, boiler and galley uptakes, and similar sources of ignition must be kept clear of and suitably insulated from any woodwork or other combustible matter.
( e ) Lamp, paint, oil lockers and similar compartments must be constructed of metal or wholly lined with metal.
[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 897, Jan. 9, 1986; 51 FR 3785, Jan. 30, 1986]
§ 193.01-1 General; preemptive effect. ( a ) The provisions of this part shall apply to all vessels other than non-self-propelled vessels of less than 300 gross tons.
( b ) Non-self-propelled vessels of less than 300 gross tons shall not be subject to the provisions of this part, except as provided otherwise by §§ 193.01-5 and 193.50-1.
( c ) The regulations in this part have preemptive effect over State or local regulations in the same field.
[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1145, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by USCG-2006-24797, 77 FR 33893, June 7, 2012]
§ 172.130 Calculations. ( a ) Except as provided in § 153.7 of this chapter, each tankship must be shown by design calculations to meet the survival conditions in § 172.150 in each condition of loading and operation assuming the damage specified in § 172.133 for the hull type prescribed in part 153 of this chapter.
( b ) If a cargo listed in Table I of part 153 of this chapter is to be carried, the vessel must be at least the hull type specified in part 153 of this chapter for that cargo.
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51040, Nov. 4, 1983, as amended by CGD 81-101, 52 FR 7799, Mar. 12, 1987]
M E M O R A N D U M  

To:       File  

From:     Scott Bohning, EPA Region IX, Air Quality Analysis Office

Date:    February 7, 2011

Concerning:    EPA Proposed Rule to Partially Approve and Partially Disapprove South Coast and San

Joaquin Valley Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Attainment Plans –Notes from

Teleconference on January 26, 2011

_____________________________

On Wednesday, January 26, 2011, EPA Region 9 staff and managers, as well as staff and managers from

the Office of Ari Quality Planning and Standards(OAQPS), attended a conference call with the California

Air Resources Board (CARB). The purpose of the call was to discuss CARB’s views on issues raised in

EPA’s proposal, concerning PM2.5 modeling documentation and VOC as a PM2.5 plan precursor for the

San Joaquin Valley.  CARB staff stated their intention to follow through with written comments to EPA

on the proposal.  CARB staff outlined their reasoning on why VOC should not be considered a PM2.5 plan

precursor: 1) the PM2.5 implementation rule presumes VOC is not a plan precursor unless there is a

technical demonstration showing that it should be; 2) there can be PM2.5 dis‐benefits from VOC control

at some times and places; and 3) benefits from VOC control seen in some past modeling exercises

occurred at very high PM2.5 concentrations, which have not been observed in the past few years despite

substantial stagnation episodes.

There was no meeting agenda associated with this conference call.