alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013026EN.01004202.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2012 — Hopf v OHIM (Champflex)

(Case T-171/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Champflex - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2013/C 26/81

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Jürgen Hopf (Zirndorf, Germany) (represented by: V. Mensing, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2011 (Case R 1514/2010-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Champflex as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 January 2011 (Case R 1514/2010-4) in so far as it concerns the goods ‘syringes’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 January 2011 (Case R 1514/2010-4) in so far as it concerns the goods ‘syringes’;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Mr Hans-Jürgen Hopf to bear his own costs and to pay half the costs of OHIM, and orders OHIM to bear half of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Hans-Jürgen Hopf to bear his own costs and to pay half the costs of OHIM, and orders OHIM to bear half of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

1

---
#### §§ 28.520-28.525 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 23842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2124]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, May 22, 2007, 12:30 p.m. to 
May 22, 2007, 1:30 p.m. National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge 
Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal Register 
on April 16, 2007, 72 FR 19010-19011.
    The meeting will be held May 23, 2007. The meeting time and 
location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: April 19, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2124 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2013225EN.01002702.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/27

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg)) — Kreshnik Ymeraga, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

(Case C-87/12) (1)

1

(Citizenship of the Union - Article 20 TFEU - Right of residence of third-country nationals who are family members of a Union citizen who has not exercised his right of freedom of movement - Fundamental rights)

2013/C 225/44

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kreshnik Ymeraga, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga

Applicants:

Defendant: Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative — Interpretation of Article 20 TFEU and Articles 20, 21, 24, 33 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Citizenship of the Union — Right to family reunification for a citizen of the European Union for the benefit of family members who are third-country nationals, where that person has not actually exercised the right of freedom of movement and does not have a right to reside in a Member State other than that of which he holds the nationality

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from refusing to allow a third-country national to reside in its territory, where that third-country national wishes to reside with a family member who is a European Union citizen residing in the Member State of which he holds the nationality and has never exercised his right of freedom of movement as a Union citizen, provided such refusal does not lead, for the Union citizen concerned, to the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of his status as a Union citizen.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.

1

---
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

11 a.m., Friday, February 23, 2007.

# PLACE:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# STATUS:

Closed.

      ( print page 2496)    

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Surveillance Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,

Acting Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-228 Filed 1-17-07; 11:27 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
§ 15.865 Qualified member of the engine department (QMED). ( a ) Every person serving under the authority of a rating endorsement as QMED on any United States vessel requiring QMED must hold an endorsement as QMED.
( b ) On vessels subject to STCW, certain seafarers meeting the requirement of this section must also hold either an STCW endorsement as able seafarer-engine or rating forming part of an engineering watch or designated to perform duties in a periodically unmanned engineroom (according to § 15.404(c) and (d) of this part), except as noted in § 15.105(g) of this part for vessels on domestic near-coastal voyages.
[USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 78009, Dec. 24, 2013]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN BEVERLY, #835476,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 2:14-CV-14422

HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

WILLIS CHAPMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION/REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING HIS MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s objection to the Court’s dismissal of his pro se

Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the Court construes as a request for reconsideration, as well as his

motion for discovery to include additional defendants in this action.

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration and his motion for discovery must be denied. A

motion or request for reconsideration which presents issues already ruled upon by the Court, either

expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550

(E.D. Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assoc., P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). 

Plaintiff raises such issues in his objection to the Court’s ruling. The Court properly dismissed the

Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as explained in the dismissal

order. Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing a palpable defect by which the Court has been

misled or his burden of showing that a different disposition must result from a correction thereof,

as required by Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for

reconsideration. Given this determination, the Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for discovery. 

The addition of new defendants would not change the Court’s decision to summarily dismiss the

2:14-cv-14422-VAR-PTM Doc # 10 Filed 01/14/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 41
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This case is closed.

IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: January 14, 2015

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

and Kevin Beverly by electronic means or U.S.

Mail on January 14, 2015.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

2

2:14-cv-14422-VAR-PTM Doc # 10 Filed 01/14/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 42
Sec. 21 Delegations of authority. ( a ) The term *authorized representative of the Authority* appears in several of the contract provisions of the NSA-LUMPSUMREP Contract. The respective representatives of the authority are the “authorized representative of the Authority” for the respective contract provisions as set out in this section:
( b ) Articles 1 and 2—Chief, Division of Ship Repair and Maintenance, Coast Directors, Chiefs of District Ship Repair and Maintenance offices, Chiefs of Local Ship Repair and Maintenance offices, and General Agents (within the General Agents' contract limitations); Article 3—Maritime Administration Marine Surveyors, Chief, Division of Ship Repair and Maintenance, Coast Directors, Chiefs of District Ship Repair and Maintenance offices, Chiefs of Local Ship Repair and Maintenance offices; and General Agents (within the General Agents' contract limitations); Article 4—Coast Directors, Chief, Division of Ship Repair and Maintenance, Chiefs of District Ship Repair and Maintenance offices, Chiefs of Local Ship Repair and Maintenance offices, and General Agents; Article 5—Maritime Administration Marine Surveyors and General Agents; Article 6—Coast Directors, Chief, Division of Ship Repair and Maintenance, Chiefs of District Ship Repair and Maintenance offices, Chiefs of Local Ship Repair and Maintenance offices, and General Agents (within the General Agent's contract limitations); Article 7—Chiefs of District Ship Repair and Maintenance Offices, Chiefs of Local Ship Repair and Maintenance Offices, and Maritime Administration Marine Surveyors; Article 18 (d)—Coast Directors; Chief, Division of Ship Repair and Maintenance, Chiefs of District Ship Repair and Maintenance offices, Chiefs of Local Ship Repair and Maintenance offices, and General Agents in connection with work awarded by General Agents; Article 27—Coast Directors, Chiefs of District Ship Repair and Maintenance offices and Chiefs of Local Ship Repair and Maintenance offices.
Note:
Records and supporting documents referred to in the above order, shall be retained until the completion of the audit by the General Accounting Office, at which time the Maritime Administration will take custody of the records.
[SRM-5, Rev., 18 FR 5035, Aug. 22, 1953, as amended at 21 FR 8106, Oct. 23, 1956. Redesignated at 45 FR 44587, July 1, 1980]
# C_2013367EN.01001402.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Lokman Emrek v Vlado Sabranovic

(Case C-218/12) (1)

1

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 15(1)(c) - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Whether jurisdiction limited to distance contracts - Causal link between the commercial or professional activity directed to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile via an Internet site and the conclusion of the contract)

2013/C 367/23

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lokman Emrek

Applicant:

Defendant: Vlado Sabranovic

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Saarbrücken — Interpretation of Article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Situation in which a trader operates an internet site ‘directed’ towards the Member State in which the consumer is resident — Need for a causal link between that activity and the conclusion of the contract by the consumer — Possible restriction of jurisdiction over consumer contracts to contracts which have been concluded at a distance

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that that it does not require the existence of a causal link between the means employed to direct the commercial or professional activity to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile. However, the existence of such a causal link constitutes evidence of the connection between the contract and such activity.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

1

---
§ 172.015 Document of authorization. ( a ) Except as specified in § 172.030, each vessel that loads grain in bulk must have a Document of Authorization issued in accordance with one of the following: ( 1 ) Section 3 of the International Code for the Safe Carriage of Grain in Bulk if the Document of Authorization is issued on or after January 1, 1994. As used in the Code, the term “Administration” means “U.S. Coast Guard”.
( 2 ) Regulation 10 part (a) of the Annex to IMO Assembly resolution A.264(VIII) if the Document of Authorization was issued before January 1, 1994.
( b ) The Commandant recognizes the National Cargo Bureau, Inc., 17 Battery Place, Suite 1232, New York, New York 10004-1110, for the purpose of issuing Documents of Authorization in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
[CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51218, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended by USCG-2007-29018, 72 FR 53968, Sept. 21, 2007]
§ 127.640 Fire-protection requirements. ( a ) Except as provided in this section, each OSV must comply with the fire-protection provisions of chapter II-2 of SOLAS, 1974, as amended (incorporated by reference, see § 125.180) applicable to passenger vessels carrying more than 36 passengers.
( b ) OSVs authorized for carriage of 240 or fewer persons may comply with the fire-protection provisions of chapter II-2 of SOLAS, 1974, as amended, applicable to passenger vessels carrying not more than 36 passengers but need not comply with regulations II-2/21 and II-2/22.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL MILES, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 1:15-cv-11256 

v. 

 Hon. Thomas L. Ludington 

GARLAND LODGE AND Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris 

RESORT LLC, 

 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATED ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE 

In accordance with the parties’ stipulation through their undersigned counsel, and 

this Court being fully advised in the premises; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter shall be, and hereby is, dismissed 

with prejudice and without costs or fees to any party pursuant to the terms of the parties' 

Confidential Settlement and Release Agreement. The Court shall maintain jurisdiction 

solely for purposes of enforcement of the Confidential Settlement and Release 

Agreement and any such matters shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris 

for resolution. 

Dated: April 11, 2017 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Case 1:15-cv-11256-TLL-PTM ECF No. 48 filed 04/11/17 PageID.1179 Page 1 of 2
Approved as to Form and Substance:

/s/ Owen B. Dunn 

Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. 

Law Office of Owen B. Dunn, Jr. 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

/s/ Brett A. Rendeiro 

Brett A. Rendeiro (P64792) 

VARNUM LLP

Attorneys for Defendant 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on April 11, 2017. 

 s/Kelly Winslow for 

 MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager 

Case 1:15-cv-11256-TLL-PTM ECF No. 48 filed 04/11/17 PageID.1180 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

AMBER	R.	COOK,	

	 	 Plaintiff,	 	 	 	 Case	No.	15‐11348	

v	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Judge	Laurie	J.	Michelson	

WELTMAN,	WEINBERG	&	REIS	CO.,	LPA	

	 Defendant.	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 /	

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

	 This	 matter	 having	 come	 before	 this	 Court	 on	 stipulation	 of	

counsel	for	Plaintiff	and	Defendant	and	this	Court	being	fully	advised	in	

the	premises:	

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED	 that	 this	 case	 is	 dismissed	 with	

prejudice	and	without	costs	or	attorney	fees	to	be	assessed	against	any	

party.	

This is a final Order and closes this case.

s/Laurie J. Michelson 

LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 Dated: July 17, 2015 

2:15-cv-11348-LJM-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 07/17/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 28
2 

/s/Stephen A. Thomas 			 /s/ Jeffrey S. Hengeveld		 	

Stephen	A.	Thomas	(P43260)	 	 	 Jeffrey	S.	Hengeveld	(P66029)	

Attorney	for	Plaintiff	 	 	 	 Attorney	for	Defendant	

Open.19910.51497.15679221-1 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served 

on the attorneys and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on 

July 17, 2015. 

 s/Jane Johnson 

Case Manager to 

 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

2:15-cv-11348-LJM-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 07/17/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 29
Exhibit 32.2
 
 
 Certification
 Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 As Adopted Pursuant to
 Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2009 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert M. Little, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
 
 1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 
 
 /s/Robert M. Little, Jr.
 Robert M. Little, Jr.
 Chief Financial Officer
 March 30, 2011


52
EXHIBIT
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of Equicap, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal
      year ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on
      the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, Jason Lu, the Chief Executive
      Officer, certify pursuant to 18 C.F.R. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




Date:
      September 26, 2008





By:
            /s/
                Jason LuChief
                Executive Officer





This
      Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
      18
      C.F.R. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section
      18 of the Securities Act 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report,
      irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
      A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to Equicap, Inc. and will be retained by Equicap, Inc. and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 12 (Friday, January 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-203]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NM-952-06-1420-BJ]


Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The plat of survey described below was officially filed in the 
New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe, New 
Mexico, on January 12, 2007.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: New Mexico Principal Meridian, New Mexico: 
The plat representing the survey of Tracts within the Sebastian Martin 
Grant, accepted December 14, 2006, for Group 1057 New Mexico.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: These plats will be available for 
inspection in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 
and P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-0115. Copies may be 
obtained from this office upon payment of $1.10 per sheet.

    Dated: January 12, 2007.
Stephen W. Beyerlein,
Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 07-203 Filed 1-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P