alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011238EN.01002702.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/27

---

Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Otto v OHIM — Nalsani (TOTTO)

(Case T-300/11)

2011/C 238/48

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Otto GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Schäuble and S. Müller, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nalsani, SA (Bogota, Colombia)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 March 2011 in Case R 1291/2010-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 March 2011 in Case R 1291/2010-2;

| — | 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: Nalsani, SA

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘TOTTO’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25 — application No 6 212 451

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: the national figurative mark ‘OTTO’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue. The Board of Appeal focused on the wrong factors in assessing the visual similarity of the signs.

Pleas in law:

---
§ 190.10-35 Public spaces. ( a ) In all cases, public spaces having a deck area of over 300 square feet shall have at least two exits. Where practicable, these exits shall give egress to different corridors, rooms, or spaces to minimize the possibility of one incident blocking both exits.
Case 2:14-cv-11700-PDB-SDD ECF No. 384 filed 10/02/18 PageID.16053 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:14-cv-11700-PDB-SDD ECF No. 384 filed 10/02/18 PageID.16054 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

November 6, 2002

NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2002-29 (ERRATA): RECENT DESIGN PROBLEMS IN 

SAFETY FUNCTIONS OF PNEUMATIC

SYSTEMS

Addressees

All holders of operating licenses or construction permits for nuclear power reactors.

Discussion

A typographical error has been identified in Information Notice 2002-29, “Recent Design

Problems in Safety Functions of Pneumatic Systems,” issued on October 15, 2002. The Event

Notification number of the event report submitted by the San Onofre licensee is incorrectly

given as 36980; the correct number is 36960.

If you have any questions about this matter, contact the staff member listed below or the

appropriate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.

/RA/

William D. Beckner, Program Director

Operating Reactor Improvements Program

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

Technical contact: V. Hodge, NRR

301-415-1861

E-mail: cvh@nrc.gov

Attachment: List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

ML023110005
SUPREME COURT.

#### Charles Gaffney *et al.*agt. Joshua G. Bigelow.

*Onondaga Special Term,*

*February,*1875.

*Service by mail—conditional notice on envelope.*

Where service of papers is made by mail, no condition should be reserved; the service must be absolute and complete at the deposit in the post-office.

Where the papers to be served, are inclosed in an envelope which has on its face a notice “ If not called for in five days return to the attorneys ” making the deposit in the post-office, is such a condition or qualification as vitiates the service.

Motion to set aside judgment as being irregularly entered after the service of a demurrer by mail.

*Ruger & Jenney,*for motion.

*S. J. Darrow,*opposed.

Merwin, J.

The defendant’s attorneys in this case, reside at Syracuse and the plaintiffs’ attorney at Utica. On the last day for answering the complaint, the defendant’s attorneys deposited in the post-office at Syracuse, a demurrer properly enveloped and directed to the plaintiffs’ attorney at Utica. Upon the face of the envelope there was printed the following : “If not called for in five days, return to Ruger, Wallace *&*Jenney, attorneys, *&c.,*Syracuse, E. Y.” Upon the following day, this was received by the plaintiffs’ attorney by mail, and he on the same day returned it with a notice that *476he declined to receive it; that it was not sent in time; that the service by mail was bad by reason of the condition or qualification indorsed on the envelope to return if not called for in five days.

The letter not being in fact received until after the expiration of the time to answer, the defendant must rely .upon his service by mail at the time of the deposit at Syracuse, and the question, therefore, is whether the indorsement referred to was such a' condition or qualification as to vitiate the service.

I understand the late Mr. justice Doolittle decided that such service was bad, and I am inclined to concur with him.

Courts have always held to a strict performance on a service of this kind (1 *Hill,*217). The mailing, for instance, must be at the place where the attorney resides (1 *Barb. Ch.,*649; 13 *How.,*57; 4 *How.,*246), although no harm comes from such mailing. If not strictly regular, the mailing party takes the risk of its being received in time.

If an indorsement to return if not called for in *jvoe*days, could be made, the same principle would allow one to be made to return in *one*day.

It seems to me the mailing should be absolute and unconditional. Mo control over it should be reserved in any event. The rule that the service is complete at the deposit, is one that in many cases works hardship to the opposite party. The party getting the benefit of it should, therefore, strictly comply.

The motion is, therefore, denied with costs.-
## JUN 1 7 2016
E K LINDE 

### ORDER DECLINING TO IMPOSE TEMPORARY SUSPEN IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF No. 70439 MATTHEW PAWLOWSKI, BAR NO. 9889. 

# FILE

This is a petition under SCR 111 concerning attorney Matthew Pawlowski, who pleaded nob o contendere to a misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence. After completing certain conditions, the DUI conviction was reduced to misdemeanor reckless driving. The nobo contendere plea to the DUI charge triggered the requirements of SCR 111. 

### See SCR 111(1), (2), (4). Pawlowski self-reported the conviction to the State Bar. Because the crime is not one of those specifically enumerated in SCR 111(6) as a "serious" crime, temporary suspension and referral to the disciplinary board are discretionary with this court. SCR 111(9).

The seriousness of drinking and driving cannot be minimized, however, first offense driving under the influence is not the type of offense for which professional discipline is typically imposed. 2 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., W. William Hodes, & Peter R. Jarvis, 

### The Law of Lawyering, § 69.04, at 69-13 (4th ed. 2015); 

### In the Matter of Respondent I, 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 260, 266 n.6, 272 (Rev. Dept. 1993). And here, Pawlowski completed the conditions of his plea agreement and the charge was reduced to reckless driving. Accordingly, having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we conclude that Pawlowski's offense does

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A IL0

- 

# g o 

# a l_not warrant the imposition of a temporary suspension or referral to a

disciplinary board at this time.

It is so ORDERED.
J. Douglas

cc: C. Stanley Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada Walsh & Friedman, Ltd. Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3039327-JUN-201108:13 AM
#### § 177.1020 Strength.

Each window, port hole, and its means of attachment to the hull or deck house, must be capable of withstanding the maximum load from wave and wind conditions expected due to its location on the vessel and the authorized route of the vessel.
# C_2012200EN.01001602.xml

| 7.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Vakalis v Commission

(Case T-317/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Calculation of years of pensionable service - General implementing provisions - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of the right to be heard - Equal treatment)

2012/C 200/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Ioannis Vakalis (Luvinate, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, agents

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 April 2011, delivered in Case F-38/10 Vakalis v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), requesting that that judgment be set aside.

Vakalis

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ioannis Vakalis to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Commission relating to these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ioannis Vakalis to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Commission relating to these proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Peter E. Williams III, Chief Financial Officer of Saba Software, Inc. (the Company)
hereby certify, as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended February 28, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: April 16, 2007



By:

/s/ PETER E. WILLIAMS IIIPeter E. Williams III Chief Financial Officer
#### Ex Parte E. C. Roberts.

*No. 6624*

*Decided June 12.*

Working Public Roads.—A resident citizen of a city which, under the authority of its charter, exercises exclusive control over the streets, alleys, and public highways within its corporate limits, can not be required to perform labor upon the public roads outside of the said city limits.

Habeas Corpus on appeal from the County Court of El Paso. Tried below before Hon. J. E. Townsend, County Judge.

The opinion fully discloses the case.

*Patterson & Buckler,*for the relator.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Hurt, Judge.

The road overseer, H. H. Dulany, made complaint against the appellant, charging him with wilfully failing and refusing to work a public road. Upon this complaint the justice issued his warrant, by virtue of which he was arrested by the constable and held in custody to answer said charge before the justice. Before the trial, he being in custody of the officer, appellant applied to the county judge for the writ of habeas corpus. The writ issued as prayed for. The constable returned that he held him by virtue of the warrant of arrest and the complaint made by the overseer, and the appellant was remanded to custody.

Upon the trial of the writ the appellant proved that he is a resident citizen of the city of El Paso and has been for more than four years; that said city of El Paso is an incorporated city; that it was such up to March 2, 1889, by virtue of a special act of the Legislature of Texas approved May 17, 1873, and on March 2, 1889, continued to be such by virtue of a special act of the Legislature approved March 2, 1889; that by both of said acts the said city through its city council is given exclusive control and power over all streets, alleys, public grounds, and highways of the *44city, and is given exclusive control and power to open, alter, widen, extend, establish, regulate, grade, clear, and otherwise improve said streets; that when said notice was served on him he was a bona fide resident citizen of El Paso, and had been for four years prior to that time, and is now such, and that during all of that time he has paid his State, county, and municipal taxes; that said city has now, and for sixteen years past has had continuously, and had when said notice was served, a *de jure*municipal ’government under its charter, and was actually and now is actually administering the same in all of its departments.

Roberts being a resident citizen of the city, could he be required to work the road outside of the city limits, the charter of the city conferring upon the city authorities exclusive power and control over the streets, alleys, and public ways therein, and the city having assumed the exercise of such power? This is the only question presented, and it must be answered in the negative. The subject is exhaustively discussed by Judge Gray, the trial judge in The State v. Jones, 18 Texas, 774, and his opinion was adopted by the Supreme Court. See also Sayles’ Civ. Stats., art. 4359a.

The judgment of the county judge is reversed and the applicant ordered discharged.

*Ordered accordingly.*

Judges all present and concurring.
#### § 84.72 Personal devices and services.

This part does not require a recipient to provide to individuals with disabilities personal devices, such as wheelchairs; individually prescribed devices, such as prescription eyeglasses or hearing aids; readers for personal use or study; or services of a personal nature including assistance in eating, toileting, or dressing.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20093 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CHRISTIAN MACGREGOR, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

COMPASSIONATE RELEASE (ECF No. 315) 

On November 17, 2020, Defendant Christian MacGregor filed a motion for 

compassionate release. (See Mot. for Compassionate Release, ECF No. 315.) The 

Court thereafter appointed MacGregor counsel (see Order, ECF No. 317), and 

counsel filed a supplemental brief on MacGregor’s behalf. (See MacGregor Supp. 

Br., ECF No. 321.) 

The Court held a video hearing on MacGregor’s motion on March 12, 2021. 

(See Notice of Hearing, ECF No. 326.) For the reasons explained on the record 

during the hearing, MacGregor’s motion is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 12, 2021 

Case 2:15-cr-20093-MFL-APP ECF No. 335, PageID.2162 Filed 03/12/21 Page 1 of 2
2 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on March 12, 2021, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764

Case 2:15-cr-20093-MFL-APP ECF No. 335, PageID.2163 Filed 03/12/21 Page 2 of 2
§ 173.060 Openings in the side of a vessel below the bulkhead or weather deck. ( a ) Openings in the side of a vessel below the bulkhead or weather deck must comply with the requirements in subpart F of part 171 of this subchapter or § 179.350 in subchapter T of this chapter.
( b ) In addition to the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section, each sailing school vessel which has a mean length greater than 90 feet must comply with the requirements in § 56.50-95 of Subchapter F of this chapter.
[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 924, Jan. 9, 1986, as amended by CGD 85-080, 61 FR 945, Jan. 10, 1996]
# C_2011319EN.01002301.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/23

---

Action brought on 29 August 2011 — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM — dm drogerie markt (360o SONIC ENERGY)

o

(Case T-467/11)

2011/C 319/49

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Company (New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler and G. Schindler, 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: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 May 2011 in case R 1094/2010-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 May 2011 in case R 1094/2010-2; and

| — | Reject the opposition |
| --- | --- |

—

Reject the opposition

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 ‘360° SONIC ENERGY’, for ‘toothbrushes’ in class 21 — Community trade mark application No 6236533

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: International trade mark registration No 842882 of the word mark ‘SONIC POWER’, for goods in classes 3 and 21

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

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 incorrectly found a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

Pleas in law:

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 80 (Thursday, April 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2086]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Name of Agency: Postal Regulatory Commission.

Time and Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 at 10:30 a.m.

Place: Commission conference room, 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, 
Washington, DC 20268-0001.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Docket No. R2006-1--reconsideration of 
aspects of recommended decision for which reconsideration was sought by 
the U.S. Postal Service Governors in their March 19, 2007 decision.

For Further Information Contact: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 
Postal Regulatory Commission, 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, 
Washington, DC 20268-0001, 202-789-6818.

    Dated: April 24, 2007.
Steven W. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-2086 Filed 4-24-07; 3:38 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-M
#### § 188.10-7 Chemical stores.

This term means those chemicals intended for use in the performance of the vessel's scientific activities and is further defined in § 194.05-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
                  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
                  from  Pawnbrokers  Exchange,  Inc.  March 31,  2000  financial
                  statements  and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference to
                  such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                   0001069563
<NAME>                                  Pawnbrokers Exchange, Inc.
<CURRENCY>                              US



<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1.00

<CASH>                                                   3,954
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            24,371
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              60,971
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         89,296
<PP&E>                                                   48,923
<DEPRECIATION>                                           17,921
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           120,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    139,264
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 191,372
<OTHER-SE>                                               (210,338)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             120,298
<SALES>                                                  43,476
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         43,476
<CGS>                                                    17,169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            17,169
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         59,498
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       3,969
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          (33,191)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      (33,191)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             (33,191)
<EPS-BASIC>                                              (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (.02)



</TABLE>