alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012200EN.01000602.xml

| 7.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 20 April 2012 — United Antwerp Maritime Agencies (UNAMAR) NV v Navigation Maritime Bulgare

(Case C-184/12)

2012/C 200/11

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: United Antwerp Maritime Agencies (UNAMAR) NV

Appellant:

Respondent: Navigation Maritime Bulgare

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Having regard, not least, to the classification under Belgian law of the provisions at issue in this case (Articles 18, 20 and 21 of the Belgian Law of 13 April 1995 relating to commercial agency contracts) as special mandatory rules of law within the terms of Article 7(2) of the Rome Convention, must Articles 3 and 7(2) of the Rome Convention, (1) read, as appropriate, in conjunction with Council Directive 86/653/EEC (2) of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, be interpreted as meaning that special mandatory rules of law of the forum that offer wider protection than the minimum laid down by Directive 86/653/EEC may be applied to the contract, even if it appears that the law applicable to the contract is the law of another Member State of the European Union in which the minimum protection provided by Directive 86/653/EEC has also been implemented?

1

2

---

(1)  Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.

2

---
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Deterrence Skills will meet in closed session on May 14-15, 2007; at the Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on Scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess all aspects of nuclear deterrent skills as well as the progress Department of Energy (DoE) has made since the publication of the Chiles Commission report.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        LCDR Clifton Phillips, USN, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at                         *clifton.phillips@osd.mil*, or via phone at (703) 571-0083.                    

Dated: April 27, 2007.

L.M. Bynum, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 07-2175  Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
    As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Form 10-K of Aerial Communications, Inc., of our report dated
January 29, 1997, on the consolidated financial statements of Aerial
Communications, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the "Company") included in the Company's
1996 Annual Report to Shareholders, to the inclusion in this Form 10-K of our
report dated January 29, 1997, on the financial statement schedule of the
Company, and to the incorporation of such reports into the Company's previously
filed S-8 Registration Statements, File No. 333-06471, File No. 333-10199 and
File No. 333-10201.
 
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
 
Chicago, Illinois
March 20, 1997
§ 109.331 Firehoses and hydrants. The master or person in charge shall insure that— ( a ) At least one length of firehose with a combination nozzle is connected to each fire hydrant required by this subchapter, at all times, except that during heavy weather a firehose in an exposed location may be temporarily removed from the fire hydrant and stowed in an accessible, nearby location;
( b ) A fire hose required by this subchapter is not used for any purpose other than firefighting, fire drills, and testing;
( c ) Access to each fire hydrant is not blocked;
( d ) Each firehose, except a firehose temporarily removed from an exposed location, is stowed on a rack or reel required by this subchapter; and
( e ) Each low velocity spray applicator for a fire hose nozzle is attached to the nozzle or stowed next to the fire hydrant to which the fire hose is attached.
# C_2012165EN.01001901.xml

| 9.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2012 — Brainlab v OHIM (BrainLAB)

(Case T-326/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Community word mark BrainLAB - Failure to apply for renewal of the registration of the trade mark - Removal of the trade mark from the register on expiry of registration - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 165/32

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Brainlab AG (Feldkirchen, Germany) (represented by: J. Bauer, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2011 (Case R 1596/2010-4), relating to the application for restitutio in integrum and to the application for the renewal of the registration of the trade mark BrainLAB made by the applicant.

restitutio in integrum

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 15 April 2011 (Case R 1596/2010-4); |
| --- | --- |

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 15 April 2011 (Case R 1596/2010-4);

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7920

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TONY MAURICE HAIRSTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CR-92-85-R, CA-96-346-R)

Submitted: January 27, 1998 Decided: May 19, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan G. Ellis, LAW OFFICES OF ALAN ELLIS, P.C., Sausalito, California, for Appellant. Joseph William Hooge Mott, Assistant United

States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion on Rehearing for limited purpose of amending opinion
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Hairston, Nos. CR-92-85-R;

CA-96-346-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 22, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Jonathan Woodruff, *Respondent, v.*Charles G. Schneider, *Appellant, Impleaded,*etc.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
§ 28.545 Intact stability when using lifting gear. ( a ) Each vessel which lifts a weight over the side, or that uses fishing gear that can impose an overturning moment on the vessel, such as trawls and seines, must meet the requirements of this section if that maximum heeling moment exceeds 0.67(W)(GM)(F/B), in foot-long tons (meter-metric tons), where: W = displacement of the vessel with the lifted weight or the force on the fishing gear included, in long tons (metric tons); GM = metacentric height with the lifted weight or force on the fishing gear included, in feet (meters); F = freeboard to the lowest weather deck, measured at amidships in feet (meters); and B = maximum beam, in feet (meters).
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, each vessel must meet the requirements of § 28.570 or have at least 15 foot-degrees (0.080 meter-radians) of area under the righting arm curve, after correcting the righting arms for the heeling arm caused by lifting or fishing gear, from the angle of equilibrium to the least of the following: ( 1 ) The angle corresponding to the maximum righting arm;
( 2 ) The angle of downflooding; or
( 3 ) 40° (0.7 radians).
( c ) The angle of intersection of the heeling arm curve resulting from the lifting moment or the moment of fishing gear and the righting arm curve must not be at an angle of more than 10° (0.17 radians).
( d ) The heeling arm curve resulting from lifting must be calculated as the resultant of the upright heeling moment divided by the vessel's displacement multiplied by the cosine of the angle of heel.
( e ) For the purposes of this section, the weight of suspended loads must be assumed to act at the tip of the boom unless the suspended load's transverse movement is restricted, such as by the use of sideboards.
( f ) A vessel that operates on protected waters, as defined in § 170.050 of this chapter, must comply with the requirements of this section, except that the area described in paragraph (b) of this section must be at least 10 foot-degrees (0.053 meter-radians).
§ 249.6 Application procedures. ( a ) MARAD may grant specific approval for underwriters described in § 249.5(c) to participate in the writing of marine hull insurance on MARAD program vessels, only in advance of any actual placement.
( b ) Only those foreign underwriters who have obtained a high rating (A or comparable) from an accepted international rating service may apply, and if approved, such approval will be contingent upon continued maintenance of such rating. MARAD will make available to interested parties the names of any accepted international rating service.
( c ) To seek approval, an applicant shall submit to MARAD: ( 1 ) Certified financial data for the five previous years in sufficient detail to enable MARAD to assess the financial strength and solvency of the applicant. Normally, this would be the same data which the underwriter must submit to the regulatory agency in its country of domicile. However, MARAD may request additional data if the applicant's submissions are considered inadequate;
( 2 ) A comprehensive description and English language version of the insurance regulatory regime that is in place in the insurer's country of domicile. (After review, MARAD may contact the foreign national regulatory authorities, as appropriate);
( 3 ) An affidavit in writing, executed by an agent of the applicant who is a domiciliary of the United States, and supported by appropriate documentation, to demonstrate that there is nothing in either law or practice to preclude a U.S. insurer from obtaining the same access to the applicant's home market as the applicant is seeking to the U.S. market, and
( 4 ) The details of its reinsurance program, if it wishes to write any risks in excess of five percent of its policyholders' surplus. These details shall be accompanied by a statement that clearly demonstrates the special circumstances and good cause by which MARAD should be persuaded to modify its general policy on limitation of risk described in § 249.8.
# C_2014052EN.01001101.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV (C-241/12), Belgian Shell NV (C-242/12)

(Joined Cases C-241/12 and C-242/12) (1)

1

(Environment - Waste - Concept - Directive 2006/12/EC - Shipments of waste - Information from the competent national authorities - Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 - Discarding of a substance or object or intention or requirement to discard it)

2014/C 52/16

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank te Rotterdam

Parties in the main proceedings

Parties in the main proceedings

Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV (C-241/12), Belgian Shell NV (C-242/12)

Re:

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank te Rotterdam — Netherlands — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1) and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1) — Concept of ‘waste’ — Shipment of Ultra Light Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) by vessel from the Netherlands to Belgium — ULSD mixed accidentally, when the vessel was being loaded, with Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) — Product no longer corresponding to the specifications agreed upon by the buyer and the vendor — Buyer who became aware of that fact at the time of delivery in Belgium — Diesel taken back by the vendor and shipped to the Netherlands — Purchase price refunded to the buyer — Vendor having the intention of placing the diesel back on the market, whether or not after mixing it with another product — Inclusion or non-inclusion in the concept of waste.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2557/2001, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a consignment of diesel accidentally mixed with another substance is not covered by the concept of ‘waste’, provided that the holder of that consignment does actually intend to place that consignment, mixed with another product, back on the market, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

1

---
§ 28.710 Examination and certification of compliance. ( a ) At least once in every two years each vessel must be examined for compliance with the regulations of this subchapter by the ABS, a similarly qualified organization, or a surveyor of an accepted organization.
( b ) Each individual performing an examination under paragraph (a) of this section, upon finding the vessel to be in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, must provide a written certification of compliance to the owner or operator of the vessel.
( c ) Each certification of compliance issued under paragraph (b) of this section must: ( 1 ) Be signed by the individual that performed the examination;
( 2 ) Include the name of the organization the individual performing the examination represents or the name of the accepted organization the individual belongs to; and
( 3 ) State that the vessel has been examined and found to meet the specific requirements of this chapter.
( d ) A certification of compliance issued under paragraph (b) of this section must be retained on board the vessel until superseded.
( e ) A copy of the certification of compliance issued under paragraph (b) of this section must be forwarded by the organization under whose authority the examination was performed to the Coast Guard District Commander (Attention: Fishing Vessel Safety Coordinator) in charge of the district in which the examination took place.
#### LAKE POCHUNG OUTING ASSOCIATION, DEFENDANT, v. WILLIAM CURRENT, PROSECUTOR.

Submitted May term, 1929

Decided November 7, 1929.

Before Justices Tbenchaed, Lloyd and Case.

Eor the prosecutor, *Theodore E. Dennis.*

For the defendant, *Hugh G. Baldwin.*

Pee Cueiam.

At the suit of the Lake Poehung Outing Association the prosecutor was convicted before a justice of the peace for violation of section 1 of chapter 137, laws of 1913, as amended by chapter 145 of the laws of 1933, entitled “An act concerning trespassing on lands for the purpose of gunning or fishing.”

One of the reasons urged for setting aside the conviction is that “no such action as the action instituted and prosecuted to judgment before said justice of the peace is authorized by the laws of this state, and he had no jurisdiction in such action.” We think this contention is sound and that the judgment of conviction must be set aside.

The act in question forbids trespassing on posted lands for the purpose of gunning or fishing, provides a penalty of $30 and costs for such violation, and that every justice of the peace, police court or recorder shall have jurisdiction to try such offenders and pronounce sentence as therein provided.

*981The record of the proceedings shows that the action was one by the association as plaintiff against the prosecutor as defendant. The witnesses were sworn as between such plaintiff and defendant and the judgment of conviction and commitment to prison in default of payment of the fine imposed followed in sequence.

We think for reasons already stated that the judgment must be set aside. The statute is a penal one and does not lie at the suit of the owner or occupant of the land. The statute contemplates a formal complaint in the name of the State of New Jersey and not litigation between private parties.

The justice of the peace was without jurisdiction to entertain the action, to swear witnesses therein or to enter judgment thereon.

The judgment is therefore reversed.
§ 197.488 Retention of records after casualty. ( a ) The owner, agent, or person-in-charge of a vessel or facility for which a report of casualty is made under § 197.484 shall retain all records onboard that are maintained on the vessel or facility and those records required by this subpart for 6 months after the report of a casualty is made or until advised by the Officer-in-Charge, Marine Inspection, that records need not be retained onboard.
( b ) The records required by paragraph (a) of this section to be retained on board include, but are not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) All logbooks required by § 197.480.
( 2 ) All reports required by § 197.402(a)(2)(ii), § 197.404(a)(4), § 197.410(a)(9).
( c ) The owner, agent, person-in-charge, or diving supervisor shall, upon request, make the records described in this section available for examination by any Coast Guard official authorized to investigate the casualty.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CRESTLINE CAPITAL CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS AS OF THE TWELVE WEEK PERIOD ENDED MARCH 24, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-24-2000
<CASH>                                          29,604
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,310
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         802,710
<DEPRECIATION>                                  64,524
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,005,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        409,776
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           223
<OTHER-SE>                                     404,384
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,005,775
<SALES>                                      1,002,470
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,002,470
<CGS>                                          974,712
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  974,712
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,861
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,252
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,982
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,963
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,019
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,019
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57


</TABLE>
### &-JD 7;-J RULt2:7 - Provision of Sampling 

### and Testing **F~cilities.** 

### Aperson operating 

### orusing an1 article, machine, equipment orother contrivance for . . . which 

### these rules require a permit shall provide and maintain such

**s~r.;pling** c•nd t!!Sting fudlities as **~peclfied** in the Authority to 

### Construct or 

### Permit to **Oper~te.**