alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

### Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:07 PM

To: 'jon@strat-aero.com'

Cc: 'mfischer@matrixgrp.net'; Pappas, Rob (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - City of Roswell Coalition [FAA-2014-0732]

Dear Jonathan Adams:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

‐ 2014

‐ 0732). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

• List the maximum aircraft speed proposed for this operation, please include the airspeed type. This

information can be located in the aircraft manual.

 Provide a description of the proposed pilot medical requirements.

• Your petition references a safety pre

‐ flight checklist. Describe the process used to determine if the UAS is

airworthy and in safe condition for operation in the NAS. This information can be located in the aircraft

manual

• Your petition references the materials listed below, however the material were not submitted for the

record. Please provide a copies of the following referenced materials:

o manufacturer's user guide for the SkyRanger UAS

o SkyRanger UAS Operating Manual

o Coalition

‐ prepared UAS Flight Operations Manual

Please submit the additional information (non

‐ proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e

‐ mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov

. If you want us

to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 2/26/2015. If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

‐ 9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202

‐ 267

‐ 9521
# C_2011152EN.01003001.xml

| 21.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/30

---

Action brought on 24 March 2011 — Yordanov v OHIM — Distribuidora comercial del frio (DISCO DESIGNER)

(Case T-189/11)

2011/C 152/53

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Peter Yordanov (Rousse, Bulgaria) (represented by: T. Walter, 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: Distribuidora comercial del frio, SA (Madrid, Spain)

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 14 January 2011 in Case R 803/2010-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 January 2011 in Case R 803/2010-2;

| — | 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: The applicant.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘DISCO DESIGNER’ for goods in Classes 11, 19 and 20.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Distribuidora comercial del frio, SA.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark including the word element ‘DISCO’ for goods in Class 11.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: To uphold the opposition.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: To dismiss the appeal.

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 marks in question and the Board of Appeal incorrectly held that the goods at issue were identical.

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

---
# C_2014009EN.01001402.xml

| 11.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Tevfik Isbir v DB Services GmbH

(Case C-522/12) (1)

1

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Posting of workers - Directive 96/71/EC - Minimum rates of pay - Lump sums and employer contribution to a multiannual savings plan for the benefit of its employees)

2014/C 9/21

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tevfik Isbir

Applicant:

Defendant: DB Services GmbH

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1) — Calculation of the minimum rate of pay — Inclusion of the employer contribution to a multiannual savings plan for the benefit of its employees — Situation in which the employees cannot have access to those assets for several years

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the inclusion in the minimum wage of elements of remuneration which do not alter the relationship between the service provided by the worker, on the one hand, and the consideration which he receives by way of remuneration for that service, on the other. It is for the national court to verify whether that is the case as regards the elements of remuneration at issue in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

1

---
#### § 167.65-25 Steering gear tests.

On all nautical school ships making voyages of more than 48 hours' duration, the entire steering gear, the whistle, the means of communication and the signaling appliances between the bridge or pilothouse and engine room shall be examined and tested by an officer of the nautical school ship within a period of not more than 12 hours before leaving port. All nautical school ships making voyages of less than 48 hours' duration shall be so examined and tested at least once in every week. The fact and time of such examination and test shall be recorded in the log book.
§ 232.3 Chart of accounts. ( a ) *Purpose of accounts.* A contractor shall use this chart of accounts as a guide for preparing the financial statements and for other required financial reports required to be submitted to the Maritime Administration. However, whenever there is a conflict between the meaning of any term used in the Chart of Accounts in this part 232 and that stated in any revision to generally accepted accounting principles, the meaning of the latter shall control and shall be followed.
( b ) *Account numbers.* Contractors are not required to use these account numbers or titles for their internal accounting.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2133-0005) [48 FR 30122, June 30, 1983, as amended at 58 FR 62044, Nov. 24, 1993]
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Central Federal Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuers board of directors:
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date: August 13, 2007
    /s/ Mark S. AllioMark S. AllioChairman of the Board, President
and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 167.45-20 Examination and testing of pumps and fire-extinguishing equipment.

The inspectors will examine all pumps, hose, and other fire apparatus and will see that the hose is subjected to a pressure of 100 pounds to the square inch at each annual inspection and that the hose couplings are securely fastened.
**Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2012 —
Mizuno v OHIM — Golfino (G)

(Case T‐101/11)**

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark G — Earlier Community figurative mark G+ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 68, 73-76)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2010 (Case R 821/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Golfino AG and Mizuno KK. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Mizuno KK to pay the costs. |
§ 27.205 What are the requirements for internal communication systems on towing vessels? ( a ) You must ensure that your vessel is fitted with a communication system between the engine room and the operating station that— ( 1 ) Consists of either fixed or portable equipment, such as a sound-powered telephone, portable radios, or other reliable method of voice communication, with a main or reserve power supply that is independent of the electrical system on your towing vessel; and
( 2 ) Provides two-way voice communication and calling between the operating station and either— ( i ) The engine room; or
( ii ) A location immediately adjacent to an exit from the engine room.
( b ) Twin-screw vessels with operating-station control for both engines are not required to have internal communication systems.
( c ) When the operating-station's engine controls and the access to the engine room are within 3 meters (10 feet) of each other and allow unobstructed visual contact between them, direct voice communication is acceptable instead of a communication system.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                          $         4
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,758
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        1,762
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    12
<BONDS>                               1,750
<COMMON>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          1,762
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.00
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                        ICY SPLASH FOOD & BEVERAGE, INC.
                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 Quarterly Report of Icy Splash Food & Beverage, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles
Tokarz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Icy Splash Food & Beverage, Inc. and will be retained by Icy Splash
Food & Beverage, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

Date:  May 17, 2004

/s/ Charles Tokarz
Charles Tokarz
Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                                  LYCOS, INC.

Computation of Shares Used in Computing Basic and Diluted Net Loss Per Share(1)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Year Ended July 31,
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                           1999          1998         1997
                                       ------------  ------------  -----------
<S>                                    <C>           <C>           <C>
Common stock, beginning of period....    76,565,524    55,186,480   55,171,584
Weighted average common shares issued
 during the period, net..............     9,862,935     6,679,484        7,388
Common stock options and warrants
 using the treasury stock method.....            --            --           --
                                       ------------  ------------  -----------
                                         86,428,459    61,865,964   55,178,972
                                       ============  ============  ===========
Net Loss.............................  $(52,043,564) $(28,439,484) $(6,619,190)
                                       ============  ============  ===========
Basic and diluted net loss per
 share...............................  $     (0.60)  $      (0.46) $     (0.12)
                                       ============  ============  ===========
</TABLE>
--------
(1) Diluted net loss per share has not been separately presented as the amounts
    would not be materially different from basic net loss per share.
§ 204.4 Time limitations on claims. ( a ) A claim can be settled only if presented in writing within two years after it accrues.
( b ) The two year statute of limitations is not tolled until the Office of the Chief Counsel of the Maritime Administration receives from a claimant, or the claimant's duly authorized agent or legal representative, an executed Standard Form 95, “Claims for Damage, Injury, or Death,” or written notification of an incident, together with a claim for money damages in a sum certain, for death, personal injury, or damage to or loss of real or personal property. When a claim is received in any office, mail unit, or other Maritime Administration activity other than the Office of the Chief Counsel, such office, unit or activity shall transmit it to the Office of the Chief Counsel without delay.
[50 FR 25711, June 21, 1985, as amended at 64 FR 54782, Oct. 8, 1999]
#### JAMES McHUTCHINSON, TRADING, ETC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MICHAEL ZAKUTYNSKI, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Submitted May term, 1929

Decided June 21, 1929.

Before Justices Paekee, Black and Bodine.

Por the plaintiff-appellant, *Freeman & Freeman.*

Por the defendant-respondent, *Ghandless & Weller.*

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought in the Pourth Judicial District Court of Bergen county to recover the sum of $159.25 on a book account, viz., Sep. 28, 1926 Dutch Bulbs $133.13

Nov.' 10, 1926 Lily Bulbs 22.50

- $155.62

with interest. A counter-claim was filed setting up the fact that the bulbs were defective and of no value. The plaintiff was notified of that fact, demanding $500 damages. The case was tried by the court without a jury, resulting in a judgment on the counter-claim for the defendant for the sum of $175. There is no appeal as to the amount of' damages assessed If any is to be allowed. The case presents one 'of fact decided by the trial judge based upon the evidence set out in the state of the ease sent up with the appeal. The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed, with costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KRISTINE KEATON,

Plaintiff, Case Number 14-14471

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND

DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Presently before the Court is the report issued on March 11, 2016 by Magistrate Judge Mona

K. Majzoub pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that the Court dismiss this case without

prejudice for failure to prosecute. Although the magistrate judge’s report explicitly stated that the

parties to this action may object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of

service of the report, no objections have been filed thus far. The parties’ failure to file objections

to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of

Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the

magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and

conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [dkt.

#20] is ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure 

2:14-cv-14471-DML-MKM Doc # 21 Filed 03/28/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 636
to prosecute.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: March 28, 2016

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 March 28, 2016.

s/Susan Pinkowski 

SUSAN PINKOWSKI

-2-

2:14-cv-14471-DML-MKM Doc # 21 Filed 03/28/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 637
#### § 185.722 Monthly inspections.

Each survival craft, rescue boat, and launching appliance on a vessel must be inspected monthly, using the manufacturer's instructions to make sure it is complete and in good order.

[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 1005, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58288, Sept. 29, 2014]
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-3, PageID.356 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-3, PageID.357 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 2