alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011139EN.01002402.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/24

---

Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Zenato Azienda Vitivinicola v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (ZENATO RIPASSA)

(Case T-153/11)

2011/C 139/46

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Zenato Azienda Vitivinicola Srl (Peschiera del Garda, Italy) (represented by: A. Rizzoli, lawyer)

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 of OHIM: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Verona, Italy)

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action, together with the related annexes, admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action, together with the related annexes, admissible;

| — | annul the decision of the Board of Appeal (points 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part) in so far as it upholds the appeal, upholds the opposition and rejects in its entirety the application for registration, and orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the opposing party in the opposition and appeal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Board of Appeal (points 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part) in so far as it upholds the appeal, upholds the opposition and rejects in its entirety the application for registration, and orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the opposing party in the opposition and appeal proceedings;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

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: Word mark ‘ZENATO RIPASSA’ (registration application No 5 848 015), for goods in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: La Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian word mark ‘RIPASSO’ (No 682 213) for goods in Class 33 (‘Wines, spirits and liqueurs’)

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: To uphold the opposition and to reject in its entirety the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/09.

Pleas in law:

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 23837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2123]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property as such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel, NIMH Mood Disorder Research Review.
    Date: May 4, 2007.
    Time: 11 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Christopher S. Sarampote, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Room 6148, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-443-1959, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96f5e5f7e4f7fbe6f9d6fbf7fffab8f8fffeb8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ec8f9f8d9e8d819c83ac818d8580c2828584c28b839a">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 19, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2123 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-07-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
###### Editorial Note on Part 160

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 160.066-10 Expiration date.

Each approved signal must have an expiration date marked on it. That date must not be more than forty-two months from date of manufacture.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF #397) 

 On March 9, 2016, a jury convicted Defendant Curtis Scott of aiding and abetting 

a carjacking, aiding and abetting the use and/or carrying of a firearm during a crime of 

violence, and making a false statement to a federal agent. Following his conviction, 

Scott moved for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. (See ECF ## 144, 162). The Court denied the motion in a written order 

dated May 10, 2018. (See ECF #380.) Scott then filed four motions with the Court: a 

motion for reconsideration of the Court’s May 10, 2018, order denying his motion for 

a new trial (ECF #387), another motion for a new trial (ECF #384), a motion “to see” 

(ECF #383), and a motion for oral argument (ECF #385). On May 31, 2018, the Court 

entered an order denying all four motions (the “Order”). (See ECF #391.) Scott has 

now filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order. (See ECF #397.) 
2 

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule 7.1(h). That rule 

provides: 

Generally, and without restricting the Court's discretion, the 

Court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration 

that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the Court, 

either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant 

must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the 

Court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard 

on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting 

the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. 

E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). The Court has reviewed Scott’s motion for 

reconsideration and concludes that he has not met this standard. Scott has failed to 

persuade the Court that the Order contains palpable defects, and Scott has not shown 

that correction of any of the alleged defects would result in a different disposition of his 

four motions. Accordingly, Scott’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: June 11, 2018 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on June 11, 2018, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40438

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MILJAN VILLALOBOS-ALEMAN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:19-CR-7-1

Before CLEMENT, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Miljan Villalobos-Aleman has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Villalobos-Aleman has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant parts of the record reflected therein. We concur 

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 31, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40438 Document: 00515253903 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/31/2019
No. 19-40438

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-40438 Document: 00515253903 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/31/2019
§ 178.420 Drainage of cockpit vessels. ( a ) Except as follows, the cockpit on a cockpit vessel may be watertight: ( 1 ) A cockpit may have companionways if the companionway openings have watertight doors, or weathertight doors and coamings which meet § 179.360 of this subchapter.
( 2 ) A cockpit may have ventilation openings along its inner periphery if the vessel operates only on protected or partially protected waters.
( b ) The cockpit deck of a cockpit vessel that operates on exposed or partially protected waters must be at least 255 millimeters (10 inches) above the deepest load waterline unless the vessel complies with: ( 1 ) The intact stability requirements of §§ 170.170, 170.173, 171.050, 171.055, and 171.057 in subchapter S of this chapter;
( 2 ) The Type II subdivision requirements in §§ 171.070, 171.072, and 171.073 in subchapter S of this chapter; and
( 3 ) The damage stability requirements in § 171.080 in subchapter S of this chapter.
( c ) The cockpit deck of a cockpit vessel that does not operate on exposed or partially protected waters must be located as high above the deepest load waterline as practicable.
( d ) The cockpit must be self-bailing. Scuppers or freeing ports for the cockpit deck of a cockpit vessel must: ( 1 ) Be located to allow rapid clearing of water in all probable conditions of list and trim;
( 2 ) Have a combined drainage area of at least the area required by § 178.450 of this part; and
( 3 ) If the deck is less than 255 millimeters (10 inches) above the deepest load waterline of the vessel, be fitted with non-return devices.
#### ATLANTIC CITY RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MICHAEL PACKMAN AND SAMUEL PACKMAN, TRADING AS PACKMAN BROTHERS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Decided November 22, 1929.

Before Justices Trenchabd, Kalisoh and Lloyd.

Por the appellant, *Thompson & Hanstein.*

For the appellees, *Endicott & Endicott.*

Pee Curiam.

For the purpose of clarity, the memorandum filed by the court on November 4th, 1929, is supplemented as follows:

We have pointed out that there must be a reversal of the judgment under review, with costs. In view of the law and of the undisputed evidence it is quite apparent that a judgment for the plaintiff below for some amount must be rendered. But because of the presence of the counter-claim (as to the precise extent of which we express no opinion) the amount which plaintiff! is entitled to recover is in dispute. In order that the amount of the palintiff’s recovery may be determined in the trial court, we award a *venire de novo.*
**Exhibit12**

 

 

 

 

**Electronic DataSystems Corporation**

**Computation ofRatio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Unaudited)**

**(dollars inmillions)**

 
|  

**2007**

**2006**

**2005**

**2004**

**2003**

 

 
 

 

 

 

Fixed  charges:

 

 

 

 

 

Interest and  related charges on debt and redeemable preferred stock dividends of  subsidiaries

  $

  225 

  $

  239 

   $

  241 

  $

  321 

  $

  301 

Portion of  rentals deemed to be interest

196 

244 

274 

284 

309 

Total fixed  charges

421 

483 

515 

605 

610 

 

Earnings  available for fixed charges:

Income (loss)  from continuing operations before income taxes and cumulative effect of a  change in accounting principle

  1,089 

  756 

  439 

  (374)

  (517)

Minority  interest in consolidated subsidiaries and (income) losses of equity investees

  (1)

                                        -

  10 

  (7)

  (1)

Total fixed  charges per above

421 

483 

515 

605 

610 

Earnings  available for fixed charges

1,509 

1,239 

964 

224 

92 

 

Coverage  (deficiency)

1,088 

756 

449 

(381)

(518)

 

Ratio of  earnings to fixed charges

3.6 

2.6 

1.9 

                       -

                      -     

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Boeing Various 2009 to Present Other. List below. 

Other/Add itional Information: Discussions with Boeing to investigate and to fix the unsafe 

condition.
§ 196.37-35 Rudder orders. ( a ) At all steering stations, there shall be installed a suitable notice on the wheel or device or in such other position as to be directly in the helmsman's line of vision, to indicate the direction in which the wheel or device must be turned for “right rudder” and for “left rudder”.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Mike L. Wilhelms, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Triad FinancialCorporation, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Triad Financial Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:     a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c. Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the company’s most recent fiscal quarter (the company’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.                                /s/ Mike L. Wilhelms   Mike L. Wilhelms   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   Dated:May 14, 2007
United States Department of the Interior

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Air Resources Division

P.O. Box 25287

Denver, Colorado 80225

IN REPLY REFER TO:

April 29, 2012

Mr. David Lutz

MQAG (C339-02)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Re: Certification of National Park Service, Gaseous Pollutant Monitoring Program Data for 2011

Dear Mr. Lutz:

The National Park Service, Air Resources Division, hereby certifies the NPS Gaseous Pollutant Monitoring 

Program (GPMP) pollutant data (ozone, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide) for the year 2011 that currently reside on 

the EPA AQS. These data have undergone stringent validation procedures and are believed to be a consistent and 

accurate representation of ambient air quality conditions within the monitored NPS units.

Attached are:

• A summary table of NPS units that the NPS intends to certify for 2011.

• AMP450 report (Quick Look Criteria Parameters) for 2011 data.

• AMP255 report (Precision and Accuracy Quality Indicator Summary) for 2011 data.

Please refer to the attached summary table that lists which sites the NPS intends to certify. There are sites 

operated by the NPS that are listed in both the AMP450 and AMP255 that we do not wish to certify because of the 

method used or because the site does not belong solely to the NPS. These sites are not included in the table.

Please note that the AMP255 report indicates that the performance evaluation criteria were not met on the 

ozone monitor at the following site:

• 30-029-8001 (Glacier National Park)

This report is considering the ozone season only. Performance evaluations were performed on all of these instruments 

twice during the year. Some of these performance evaluations fell outside of the ozone seasons and are therefore 

missing from the AMP255 report. The results of all of these performance evaluations are in AQS.

The National Park Service, Air Resources Division has also submitted data certification packets for the years

2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010. We are still waiting on certification of these data and would request that you also certify 

these data in AQS at this time. If the 2006, 2008, 2009 or 2010 certification reports need to be resubmitted please let me 

know and I will provide these reports again. Please contact me (john_d_ray@nps.gov; 303-9969-2820) if you have any 

questions.

Sincerely,

John D. Ray, Ph.D.

JR:jw Program Manager

Cc: John Vimont, NPS ARD

Carol McCoy, NPS ARD

Tim Sharac, EPA CAMD

Lewis Weinstock, Michael Papp, EPA OAQPS
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 17984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1745]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee

    Pursuant to section 10(A)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App.2), notice is hereby given of a meeting 
of the FAA Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) Advisory 
Committee.
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.


ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

    Name: Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee.
    Time and Date: May 2--9 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, 
SW.--Round Room (10th Floor), Washington, DC 20591.
    Purpose: The meeting agenda will include receiving from the 
Committee guidance for FAA's research and development investments in 
the areas of air traffic services, airports, aircraft safety, human 
factors and environment and energy. Attendance is open to the 
interested public but seating is limited. Persons wishing to attend the 
meeting or obtain information should contact Gloria Dunderman at (202) 
267-8937 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#72151e1d001b135c16071c1617001f131c321413135c151d04"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="61060d0e1308004f05140f0504130c000f210700004f060e17">[email protected]</span></a>. Attendees will have to present 
picture ID at the security desk and escorted to the Round Room.
    Members of the public may present a written statement to the 
Committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 4, 2007.
Barry Scott,
Acting Director, Research and Development Office.
[FR Doc. 07-1745 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


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