alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 167.45-30 Use of approved fire-fighting equipment. ( a ) Portable fire extinguishers or fire-extinguishing systems which conform to the specifications of the Navy or Coast Guard, or their approved equivalent, may be accepted for use on nautical school ships.
( b ) Use of non-approved fire detection systems may be acceptable as excess equipment provided that: ( 1 ) Components are listed by an independent, nationally recognized testing laboratory as set forth in 29 CFR 1910.7, and are designed, installed, tested, and maintained in accordance with an appropriate industry standard and the manufacturer's specific guidance;
( 2 ) Installation conforms to the requirements of 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter J (Electrical Engineering), especially the hazardous location electrical installation regulations in 46 CFR 111.105; and
( 3 ) Coast Guard plan review is completed for wiring plans.
[CGFR 51-11, 16 FR 3218, Apr. 12, 1951, as amended by USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48294, July 22, 2016]
# C_2013225EN.01004601.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/46

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Mizuno KK v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-341/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Community trade mark - Figurative mark including the letter ‘G’ and the two symbols of gender - Opposition by the proprietor of the figurative mark including the letter ‘G’ and the symbol ‘+’ - Refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal)

2013/C 225/79

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Mizuno KK (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 8 May 2012 in Case T-101/11 Mizuno v OHIM — GOLFINO (G), whereby the General Court dismissed the 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 Mizuno KK and Golfino AG — Figurative sign comprising the letter ‘G’ and the two symbols of gender — Likelihood of confusion with a figurative mark comprising the letter ‘G’ and the symbol ‘+’ — Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

Mizuno

OHIM

GOLFINO (G)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mizuno KK shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mizuno KK shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

1

---
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        12-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>             06-30-1999
<CASH>                        2,341
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,800
<ALLOWANCES>                      0
<INVENTORY>                   5,183
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              9,324
<PP&E>                        1,500
<DEPRECIATION>                 (303)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               10,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        61,581
<BONDS>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       0
<COMMON>                        150
<OTHER-SE>                  (51,210)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 10,521
<SALES>                       2,106
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              2,106
<CGS>                           275
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             11,775
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           (2,095)
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (9,944)
<INCOME-TAX>                 (9,944)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               0
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                 (9,994)
<EPS-BASIC>                   .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .00


</TABLE>
#### MARY RUSH AND MARTIN RUSH, HER HUSBAND, RESPONDENTS, v. COMMERCIAL REALTY COMPANY, APPELLANT.

Submitted October 12, 1928

Decided March 28, 1929.

Before Gtjmmebe, Chief Justice, and Justice Pabkee.

For the appellant, *Stein, McGlynn & Hannoch.*

For the respondents, *William Herda Smith.*

Pee Cuejam.

The case for the plaintiffs was that they were tenants of the defendant, which controlled the house wherein they lived and also the adjoining house, and provided a detached privy for the use o£ both houses; that Mrs. Rush, having occasion to use this privy, went into it and fell through the floor, or through some sort of trap door therein, descended about nine feet into the accumulation at the bottom and had to be extricated by use of a ladder. The defendant denied that there was any pit at all, and claimed the floor was only about nine inches above solid ground. This, like several other features of the case, presented a disputed question of fact for the jury. The two grounds of appeal are that the trial court erred in refusing a nonsuit, and erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant.

*338Taking the facts as the jury were entitled to find them, most favorably for the plaintiffs, the situation was that of a building under the control of the landlord for the use of tenants generally, and maintained by the landlord; a consequent duty of care in maintenance; a defective condition in the floor which the jury might say was due to negligent maintenance by the defendant, and an accident resulting therefrom. In such a situation it would seem that the argument for a nonsuit or for a direction must be restricted to the questions of contributory negligence and assumption of risk. In dealing with these, it should be observed that Mrs. Rush had no choice, when impelled by the calls of nature, but to use the facilities placed at her disposal by the landlord, to wit, a privy with a trap door in the floor, poorly maintained. We hardly think this was the assumption of a risk; she was not required to leave the premises and go elsewhere. Whether it was contributory negligence to step on a floor which she testified was in bad order, was a question for the jury to solve according to its finding of the conditions and her knowledge of them, or what she should have known of them; it does not seem to be a court question.

We conclude that there was no error in denying motions to take the case from the jury, and the "judgment will accordingly be affirmed.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending October 29, 2005

----

EnforcementAmericasBank Corp., Towson, Maryland, and AmericasBank  -- written agreement dated August 3, 2001, terminated October 12, 2005.					-Announced, October 26, 2005 					Primebank, LeMars, Iowa  -- issuance of a consent notice of suspension and prohibition against William R. Kahler, an institution-affiliated party.					-Announced, October 24, 2005 					Ridgedale State Bank, Minnetonka, Minnesota  -- written agreement dated July 29, 2004, terminated October 25, 2005.					-Announced, October 25, 2005 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: November 3, 2005
§ 25.26-5 Commercial fishing industry vessels. ( a ) The owner of a fishing vessel, a fish processing vessel, or a fish tender vessel, 11 meters (36 feet) or more in length, except for vessels described in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, shall ensure that the vessel does not operate on the high seas or beyond three miles from the coastline of the Great Lakes unless it has on board a float-free, automatically activated Category 1 406 MHz EPIRB stowed in a manner so that it will float-free if the vessel sinks.
( b ) The owner of a fishing vessel, fish processing vessel, or a fish tender vessel less than 11 meters (36 feet) in length, or 11 meters or more in length which has a builder's certification that the vessel is constructed with sufficient inherently buoyant material to keep the flooded vessel afloat, shall ensure that the vessel does not operate on the high seas or beyond three miles from the coastline of the Great Lakes, unless it has installed in a readily accessible location at or near the principal steering station— ( 1 ) A manually activated Category 2 406 MHz EPIRB; or
( 2 ) A float-free, automatically activated Category 1 406 MHz EPIRB.
( 3 ) Until February 1, 1998, a 121.5/243.0 MHz EPIRB meeting § 25.26-30.
( c ) The owner of a fishing vessel, fish processing vessel or a fish tender vessel 11 meters (36 feet) or more in length that does not have installed galley or berthing facilities, shall ensure that the vessel does not operate on the high seas or beyond three miles from the coastline of the Great Lakes unless it has on board a float-free, automatically activated Category 1 406 MHz EPIRB stowed in a manner so that it will float free if the vessel sinks.
[CGD 87-016a, 58 FR 13367, Mar. 10, 1993; 58 FR 27658, May 11, 1993, as amended by CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51196, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-1998-4442, 63 FR 52189, Sept. 30, 1998]
§ 327.5 Filing claims. ( a ) Claims may be filed by or on behalf of seamen or their surviving dependents or beneficiaries, or by their legal representatives. Claims shall be filed either by personal delivery or by registered mail.
( b ) The claimant shall send the claim directly to the Chief, Division of Marine Insurance, Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. A copy of each claim shall be filed with the Ship Manager or General Agent of the vessel with respect to which such claim arose.
H. R. 2470 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 19190 

Cochran Boulevard FRNT in Port Charlotte, Florida, as the ‘‘Lieutenant Commander Roy H. Boehm Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LIEUTENANT COMMANDER ROY H. BOEHM POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 19190 Cochran Boulevard FRNT in Port Charlotte, Florida, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lieutenant 

Commander Roy H. Boehm Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Lieutenant Commander Roy H. Boehm Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Jeffrey E. Platt, certify that this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of Penhall International Corp. fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this quarterlyreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the registrant.

 
| Date: May 13, 2005 |   | /s/ Jeffrey E. Platt |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                    |   | Jeffrey E. Platt          |
|                    |   | Chief Financial Officer   |

 

1

----
2:15-cr-20306-GCS-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 1
2:15-cr-20306-GCS-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 2 of 9 Pg ID 2
2:15-cr-20306-GCS-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 3 of 9 Pg ID 3
2:15-cr-20306-GCS-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 4 of 9 Pg ID 4
2:15-cr-20306-GCS-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 5 of 9 Pg ID 5
2:15-cr-20306-GCS-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 6 of 9 Pg ID 6
2:15-cr-20306-GCS-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 7 of 9 Pg ID 7
2:15-cr-20306-GCS-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 8 of 9 Pg ID 8
2:15-cr-20306-GCS-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 9 of 9 Pg ID 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BRADLEY A. ARNDT, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:15-cv-11108 

v. District Judge Paul D. Borman 

 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL REGARDING DOCUMENTS LISTED ON 

DEFENDNANT’S PRIVILEGE LOG AND/OR FOR AN IN CAMERA 

INSPECTION (DE 49) 

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel documents listed on Defendant’s privilege log (DE 49), Defendant’s 

response in opposition (DE 57), Plaintiff’s reply (DE 62) and the parties’ joint list 

of unresolved issues (DE 65.) Plaintiff seeks to compel communications made by 

a human resources team reviewing his ADA request with in-house counsel, 

Anthony W. Dalimonte. Specifically, Plaintiff challenges fifteen items listed in 

Defendant’s privilege log and seeks an in camera review of those items to 

2:15-cv-11108-PDB-APP Doc # 68 Filed 03/24/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1570
2

determine if any of the documents are not protected (or are only partially 

protected) by attorney-client privilege. (See DE 57-1 at 8-9.) 

 This matter came before me for a hearing on March 23, 2016. For the 

reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART. Specifically, I conclude that eleven of the fifteen entries in 

the privilege log lacked sufficient detail as to the subject matter of the 

communications. The four entries containing sufficient detail are: 1) the 3/18-

19/14 communication authored by Maria Conliffe and Kelly Szafranski; 2) the 

4/22/14 communication authored by Joan Treves and Leslie Harris; 3) the 4/24/14 

communication authored by Karen Humes; and 4) the 4/28/14 communication 

authored by Anthony Dalimonte and Karen Humes. (DE 57-1 at 8-9.) As to the 

remaining eleven entries, Defendant is hereby ORDERED to amend its privilege 

log to include sufficient detail as to the subject matter of the communications. 

Defendant shall file its amended privilege log ON OR BEFORE MARCH 30, 

2016 for my review. If I conclude that the privilege log still lacks sufficient detail, 

I will order an in camera review of the relevant documents. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 24, 2016 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2:15-cv-11108-PDB-APP Doc # 68 Filed 03/24/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1571
3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on March 24, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:15-cv-11108-PDB-APP Doc # 68 Filed 03/24/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1572
# C_2011298EN.01002601.xml

| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/26

---

Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Giga-Byte Technology v OHIM — Haskins (Gigabyte)

(Case T-451/11)

2011/C 298/48

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Giga-Byte Technology Co., Ltd (Taipei, Taiwan) (represented by: F. Schwerbrock, 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: Robert A. Haskins (Pennsylvania, USA)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Dismiss the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 May 2011 in case R 2047/2010-2, as well as the decision of the Opposition Division |
| --- | --- |

—

Dismiss the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 May 2011 in case R 2047/2010-2, as well as the decision of the Opposition Division

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Gigabyte’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 5550009

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 4954095 of the word mark ‘GIGABITER’, for services in classes 39, 40 and 42

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested services

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Section 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the contested services in classes 37 and 42 are similar to the opponent’s services in class 42.

Pleas in law:

---
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 236 

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to protect Social Security 

beneficiaries against any reduction in benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2009 

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee 

on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to protect 

Social Security beneficiaries against any reduction in 

benefits. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Security Protec5 tion Act of 2009’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 236 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARIES. 

2 Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 

3 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub4 section: 

5 ‘‘(g) POINT OF ORDER TO PROTECT SOCIAL SECU6 RITY BENEFITS.—(1) It shall not be in order in the House 

7 of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or 

8 joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference re9 port thereon, that— 

10 ‘‘(A) reduces or has the effect of reducing any 

11 current benefits under the old-age, survivors, and 

12 disability insurance programs under title II of the 

13 Social Security Act; or 

14 ‘‘(B) provides for or has the effect of providing 

15 for cost-of-living increases of benefits under the old16 age, survivors, and disability insurance programs 

17 under title II of the Social Security Act that are less 

18 than what would be provided under title II of the 

19 Social Security Act as of the day of consideration of 

20 the applicable measure. 

21 ‘‘(2) As used in paragraph (1), the term ‘current’, 

22 when referring to benefits, means benefits payable as of 

23 the day of consideration of the applicable measure.’’. 

24 SEC. 3. SUPER-MAJORITY REQUIREMENT IN THE SENATE. 

25 Section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 

26 is amended— 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HR 236 IH

1 (1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ‘‘and 

2 312(c)’’ and inserting ‘‘312(c), and 312(g)’’; and 

3 (2) in subsection (d)(3), by striking ‘‘and 

4 312(c)’’ and by inserting ‘‘312(c), and 312(g)’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
**Consent
              of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
 
 
 The
              Board
              of Directors and Shareholders
 Matria
              Healthcare, Inc.:
 
 We
              consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
              (Nos.
              333-100977, 333-90822, 333-72516, 333-72512, 333-69347, 333-42856,
              333-02283,
              333-0117875, 333-01539, 333-126776, 333-126778 and 333-126779) on Form
              S-8 and
              (No. 333-109488 and 333-116200) on Form S-3 of Matria Healthcare, Inc.
              of our
              reports dated March 19, 2007, relating to the consolidated balance
              sheets of
              Matria Healthcare, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December
              31, 2006
              and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’
equity and comprehensive earnings (loss), and cash flows for each of
              the years
              in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, and the related financial
              statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal
              control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness
              of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006,
              which
              reports appear in the 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Matria Healthcare,
              Inc.
              Our report with respect to the financial statements refers to the adoption
              by
              the Company of the provisions of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108, *Considering
              the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying Misstatements
              in
              Current Year Financial Statements* ,
              and
              Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123R, *Share
              Based Payment* ,
              in
              2006.
 
 
 
 
 KPMG
              LLP
 
 Atlanta,
              Georgia
 March
              19,
              2007