alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013038EN.01002402.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/24

---

Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Mische v Commission

(Case T-641/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Classification in grade and step - Competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of Officials - Recruitment by the Parliament and simultaneous transfer to the Commission - No need to adjudicate in part - Appeal in part clearly unfounded)

2013/C 38/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Holland, J. Mische and M. Velardo, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent); and Council of the European Union (represented by: A.F. Jensen and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-70/05 Mische v Commission (2011) ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Mische

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the appeal to the extent that it is directed against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-70/05 Mische v Commission (2011) ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 in so far as that judgment dismisses the claims for annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 11 November 2004 because that decision determines Mr Harald Mische’s grade to be A*6; |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the appeal to the extent that it is directed against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-70/05 Mische v Commission (2011) ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 in so far as that judgment dismisses the claims for annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 11 November 2004 because that decision determines Mr Harald Mische’s grade to be A*6;

| 2. | The appeal is dismissed as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The appeal is dismissed as to the remainder;

| 3. | Mr Harald Mische shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Harald Mische shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings;

| 4. | The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

__________________________________________

:

UNITED STATES SECURITIES :

AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, :

:

Plaintiff, :

: CASE NO. 2:14-cv-13902-MOB-MKM

v. :

:

The Estate of VINCENT JAMES SAVIANO, :

And PALMETTO INVESTMENTS, LLC, :

:

Defendants, :

_________________________________________ : 

FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ESTATE OF VINCENT JAMES SAVIANO

The Securities and Exchange Commission having filed a Complaint and Defendant Estate 

of Vincent James Saviano (“Defendant”) having entered a general appearance; consented to the 

Court’s jurisdiction over Defendant and the subject matter of this action; consented to entry of 

this Final Judgment without admitting or denying the allegations of the Complaint (except as to 

jurisdiction); waived findings of fact and conclusions of law; and waived any right to appeal 

from this Final Judgment:

I.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant is liable –

on a joint and several basis with Defendant Palmetto Investments LLC – for disgorgement of 

$4,417,129.20, representing profits gained as a result of the conduct alleged in the Complaint, 

together with prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $145,608.15, for a total of 

$4,562,737.35. To satisfy this disgorgement and prejudgment interest obligation, the Receiver in 

this matter has – and, if necessary, shall continue to – direct payment of assets from the Estate of 

the Receivership Defendant (i.e., Palmetto Investments, LLC) as directed by the Court in its 

orders for distribution until such time as the Court grants a motion to dissolve the Receivership.

2:14-cv-13902-MOB-MKM Doc # 101 Filed 10/06/17 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1214
Upon termination of the Receivership, Defendant’s disgorgement and interest obligation shall be 

deemed satisfied.

II.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Consent is 

incorporated herein with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein, and that Defendant 

shall comply with all of the undertakings and agreements set forth therein.

III.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this Court shall retain 

jurisdiction of this matter for the purposes of enforcing the terms of this Final Judgment.

IV. 

There being no just reason for delay, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the Clerk is ordered to enter this Final Judgment forthwith and without further notice.

SO ORDERED.

Date: October 6, 2017 s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's 

ECF System to their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on 

October 6, 2017.

s/ Kay Doaks 

Case Manager

 

2

2:14-cv-13902-MOB-MKM Doc # 101 Filed 10/06/17 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1215
# C_2011103EN.01002601.xml

| 2.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/26

---

Action brought on 9 February 2011 — Nath Kalsi v OHIM — American Clothing Associates (RIDGE WOOD)

(Case T-80/11)

2011/C 103/45

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dwarka Nath Kalsi and Ajit Nath Kalsi (Agra, India) (represented by: J. Schmidt, 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: American Clothing Associates NV (Evergem, Belgium)

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

Forms of order sought

Forms 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 19 November 2010 in Case R 599/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2010 in Case R 599/2010-1;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dwarka Nath Kalsi and Ajit Nath Kalsi.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative marks containing the word element ‘RIDGE WOOD’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 24 and 25.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: American Clothing Associates NV.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘RIVER WOODS’ and figurative marks containing the word element ‘RIVER WOODS’ und ‘River Woods’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 40.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the two marks at issue; Infringement of Article 15(1) und Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on account of failure to prove use of the earlier marks, and infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the facts presented by American Clothing Associates were insufficient to establish a reputation within the meaning of this Article.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 24270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2154]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Meeting; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act 
Forest Service, (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447)

AGENCY: Pacific Northwest Region, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Pacific Northwest Recreation Resource Advisory Committee 
will meet in Portland, OR. The purpose of the meeting is to review and 
provide recommendations on recreation fee proposals for facilities and 
services offered on lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of 
Land Management in Oregon and Washington, under the Federal Lands 
Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004.

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 16, 2007 from 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. 
and May 17, 2007 from 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m. A public input session will be 
provided at 10:30 a.m. on both days of the meeting. Comments will be 
limited to three minutes per person. The Designated Federal Official 
has discretion to not convene the committee on May 17, 2007, if 
necessary.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be at the Residence Inn by Marriott, Lloyd 
Center, 1710 NE Multnomah St., Portland, Oregon 97232. Send written 
comments to Dan Harkenrider, Designated Federal Official for the 
Pacific Northwest Recreation RAC, 902 Wasco Street, Suite 200, Hood 
River, OR 97031, 541-308-1700 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1e7a767f6c757b706c777a7b6c5e786d30787b7a306b6d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9cf8f4fdeef7f9f2eef5f8f9eedcfaefb2faf9f8b2e9ef">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Harkenrider, Designated Federal 
Official, 902 Wasco Street, Suite 200, Hood River, OR 97031, 541-308-
1700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. 
Recreation RAC discussion is limited to Forest Service and Bureau of 
Land Management staff and Recreation RAC members. However, persons who 
wish to bring recreation fee matters to the attention of the Committee 
may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after 
the meeting. A public input session will be provided and individuals 
who have made written requests by May 9, 2007 to the Designated Federal 
Official will have the opportunity to address the Committee during the 
meeting on May 16 and 17, 2007 at 10:30 a.m.
    The Recreation RAC is authorized by the Federal Land Recreation 
Enhancement Act, which was signed into law by President Bush in 
December 2004.

    Dated: April 26, 2007.
Liz Agpaoa,
Acting Regional Forester, Pacific Northwest Region.
[FR Doc. 07-2154 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 272.2 Scope.

Except as otherwise provided in subpart B, the provisions of this part apply only to vessels operating under an operating-differential subsidy agreement which provides for the payment of M&R subsidy, except that this part does not apply to any vessel operating under an operating-differential subsidy agreement for the carriage of bulk raw and processed agricultural commodities from the United States to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, pursuant to part 294 of this chapter.
Submitted on record and briefs November 17, 1995,

affirmed January 3,

petition for review denied March 6, 1996 (322 Or 645)

#### RUFUS WASHINGTON, *Appellant, v.*Manfred (Fred) MAASS, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, *Respondent.*

(93C-10122; CA A81910)

909 P2d 216

Rufus Washington filed the brief for appellant.

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *Martin v. Baldwin,*138 Or App 296, 906 P2d 868 (1995).
# C_2013260EN.01001201.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Eurofit SA v Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

(Case C-99/12) (1)

1

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Export refunds - Misappropriation of goods intended for export - Exporter’s obligation to reimburse refunds - Failure of the competent authorities to provide information regarding the reliability of a contractor who is suspected of fraud - Force majeure - Absence)

2013/C 260/20

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eurofit SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ L 351, p. 1) — Exporter's obligation to reimburse refunds in the event of misappropriation of goods — Failure of the competent authorities to provide requested information or communication of erroneous information to the exporter, constituting a case of force majeure within the meaning of the Regulation

force majeure

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The failure by the competent customs authorities to inform the exporter of the existence of a likelihood of fraud committed by the exporter’s contractor does not constitute a case of force majeure for the purposes of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994, and, in particular, the first indent of the third subparagraph of Article 11(1) thereof. While such a failure is liable to constitute an exceptional case within the meaning of the second indent of the third subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87, as amended by Regulation No 2945/94, it cannot, however, release that exporter from its obligation to reimburse export refunds unduly received, that exporter being exempted only from having to pay sanctions due under that article.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.

1

---
§ 190.01-15 Special consideration. ( a ) Special consideration will be given to the structural requirements for small vessels or vessels of an unusual design not contemplated by the rules of the American Bureau of Shipping.
§ 197.340 Breathing gas supply. ( a ) A primary breathing gas supply for surface-supplied diving must be sufficient to support the following for the duration of the planned dive: ( 1 ) The diver.
( 2 ) The standby diver.
( 3 ) The decompression chamber, when required by § 197.432(e)(2) or by § 197.434(a) for the duration of the dive and for one hour after completion of the planned dive.
( 4 ) A decompression chamber when provided but not required by this subpart.
( 5 ) A closed bell when provided or required by § 197.434(d).
( 6 ) An open bell when provided or required by § 197.432(e)(4) or by § 197.434(c).
( b ) A secondary breathing gas supply for surface-supplied diving must be sufficient to support the following: ( 1 ) The diver while returning to the surface.
( 2 ) The diver during decompression.
( 3 ) The standby diver.
( 4 ) The decompression chamber when required by § 197.432(e)(2) or by § 197.434(a) for the duration of the dive and one hour after the completion of the planned dive.
( 5 ) The closed bell while returning the diver to the surface.
( 6 ) The open bell while returning the diver to the surface.
( c ) A diver-carried reserve breathing gas supply for surface-supplied diving must be sufficient to allow the diver to— ( 1 ) Reach the surface.
( 2 ) Reach another source of breathing gas; or
( 3 ) Be reached by a standby diver equipped with another source of breathing gas for the diver.
( d ) A primary breathing gas supply for SCUBA diving must be sufficient to support the diver for the duration of the planned dive through his return to the dive location or planned pick-up point.
( e ) A diver-carried reserve breathing gas supply for SCUBA diving must be sufficient to allow the diver to return to the dive location or planned pick-up point from the greatest depth of the planned dive.
( f ) Oxygen used for breathing mixtures must— ( 1 ) Meet the requirements of Federal Specification BB-0-925a; and
( 2 ) Be type 1 (gaseous) grade A or B.
( g ) Nitrogen used for breathing mixtures must— ( 1 ) Meet the requirements of Federal Specification BB-N-411c;
( 2 ) Be type 1 (gaseous);
( 3 ) Be class 1 (oil free); and
( 4 ) Be grade A, B, or C.
( h ) Helium used for breathing mixtures must be grades A, B, or C produced by the Federal Government, or equivalent.
( i ) Compressed air used for breathing mixtures must— ( 1 ) Be 20 to 22 percent oxygen by volume;
( 2 ) Have no objectionable odor; and
( 3 ) Have no more than— ( i ) 1,000 parts per million of carbon dioxide;
( ii ) 20 parts per million carbon monoxide;
( iii ) 5 milligrams per cubic meter of solid and liquid particulates including oil; and
( iv ) 25 parts per million of hydrocarbons (includes methane and all other hydrocarbons expressed as methane).
### Snoden, Barbara (OSn

From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Subject:
Hi Ms. Wolters, 

# c~-- Snoden, Barbara (OSn Tuesday, November 2S,2014 4:26 PM 'JoAnn Wolters' Chief Pilot Information

Canyou please submit astatement noting Mr. Delong's citizenship and his compliance disposition in regards to Section 204.37 Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family! Barbara Barbara A. Snoden Transportation Industry Analyst USDepartment of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC20590 202-366-4834

1
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Stanton Wayne Yates, Appellant

No. 06-16-00012-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 8th District Court of 

Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

1525086). Memorandum Opinion delivered 

by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss

and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Stanton Wayne Yates, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 9, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
# C_2011269EN.01005302.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/53

---

Action brought on 6 July 2011 — Bial — Portela & Ca v OHIM — Isdin (ZEBEXIR)

(Case T-366/11)

2011/C 269/118

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bial — Portela & Ca, SA (São Mamede do Coronado, Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J. M. Pimenta, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, 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 6 April 2011 in case R 1212/2009-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 April 2011 in case R 1212/2009-1;

| — | Order the defendant to refuse the grant of the registration of Community trade mark No 6809008 ‘ZEBEXIR’; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to refuse the grant of the registration of Community trade mark No 6809008 ‘ZEBEXIR’; and

| — | Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ZEBEXIR’, for goods in classes 3 and 5 — Community trade mark application No 6809008

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3424223 of the word mark ‘ZEBINIX’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 42

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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 the trademarks in question were not confusingly similar.

Pleas in law:

---