alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012032EN.01003401.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/34

---

Action brought on 1 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — South Pacific Management (Manea Spa)

(Case T-611/11)

2012/C 32/69

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: South Pacific Management (Papeete, Polynesia)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 September 2011 in Joined Cases R 1776/2010-1 and 1886/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 September 2011 in Joined Cases R 1776/2010-1 and 1886/2010-1;

| — | 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: South Pacific Management.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘Manea Spa’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 24, 25, 43 and 44.

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux registrations of the word marks ‘SPA’ and ‘Les Thermes de Spa’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 32 and 42 (now Class 44).

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: partial rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the applicant’s appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in the assessment of the similarity of the marks at issue and as regards the assessment of the importance of the distinctive character acquired by use of the mark ‘SPA’ and of the likelihood of confusion, as well as breach of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 as regards the assessment of the reputation of the marks ‘SPA’ and ‘Les Thermes de Spa’.

Pleas in law:

---
#### Frederick A. Schroeder and another Respondents, *v.*John Lear and another, *Appellants.*

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk July 24, 2012

s0716 

# Order

July 24, 2012

144976

ARTHUR BOGAN,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 144976

AGC: 0213

- 11

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On the order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered,

and relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the

requested relief.
Exhibit 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements on
Form S-3 and  related  Prospectuses  (Registration  Nos.  333-67516,  333-40812,
333-34942, 333-69047, 333-43795 and 333-67625) of V-ONE Corporation, and on Form
S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-61330, 333-38918, 333-61909, 333-52909 and 333-17749)
of our report dated January 29, 2002,  with respect to the financial  statements
and schedule of V-ONE Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


McLean, VA
March 28, 2002
#### § 380.1 Purpose.

To prescribe procedure to be followed for filing applications submitted to the Maritime Subsidy Board/Maritime Administration pursuant to the provisions of section 805(a), Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-08827, 333-08829, 333-08831, 333-24205, 333-47373, 333-
47375, 333-47379, 333-73029, 333-83329, and 333-89379) and on Form S-3 (File
Nos. 333-62689, 333-71333, and 333-79089) of our report dated March 17, 2000,
with respect to the 1999 consolidated financial statements of AXENT
Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1999.

In connection with our audit of the 1999 consolidated financial statements of
AXENT Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries, we have also audited the financial
statement schedule for the year ended December 31, 1999 listed in Item 14(a).
This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management.  Our
responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audit.  In our opinion, the
financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to
the basic financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly in all material
respects the information set forth therein.


                               Ernst & Young LLP

McLean, Virginia
March 28, 2000
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)

**Title:**  Mountain pine beetle
1985,2009rev.

SuDoc: A 13.52:2/
�Item Number: 0082-A (online)
CGP system Number: 000491304
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1

                                SIPEX CORPORATION


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Sipex Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walid Maghribi,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


/s/ Walid Maghribi
------------------
Walid Maghribi
President and
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20089 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

 

D-3 JAMAR HARRIS, 

Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

EX PARTE ORDER ALLOWING COMPUTER AND 

COMPACT DISCS INTO SANILAC COUNTY JAIL

The Court having been advised in this matter that Defendant should be allowed 

to review the discovery materials provided to date, and for the reasons stated below: 

1. Defendant is charged by way of Indictment with Interference with 

Commerce by Robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and Use of a Firearm 

During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence, 18 U.S.C. §924(c). 

2. During the course of this investigation, the government obtained 

surveillance videos from the business establishments which relate to this 

case. It is believed that these videos served as a basis for the instant 

Indictment against the Defendant. 

3. The Defendant has expressed to counsel that he is interested in reviewing 

the discovery as he believes it will assist him in his defense. Counsel 

2:15-cr-20089-MFL-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 04/02/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 88
believes his review of the videos will assist in the preparation of pretrial 

motions and trial. 

4. Counsel intends to download the discovery onto his laptop computer (HP 

Pavilion dv6500, Serial No. CNF7495HV7) IPad (Serial Number 

GB0263KRA90) and onto compact discs. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that attorney Joseph Niskar is permitted to bring 

the above-described laptop computer, IPad and compact discs into the Sanilac County 

Jail in order to allow Defendant, JAMAR HARRIS, the opportunity to review 

discovery provided by the government. 

 /s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: April 2, 2015 

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

and/or counsel of record on April 2, 2015, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:15-cr-20089-MFL-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 04/02/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 89
##### 



Fiscal Year2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005Net earnings (loss)
    
    $
    (735,562
    )
    
    $
    96,461
    
    
    $
    2,551,072Average shares outstanding
    
    
    9,234,313
    
    
    
    9,195,415
    
    
    
    9,121,369Stock options
    
    
    
    
    
    
    428,976
    
    
    
    631,271Warrants assumed converted
    
    
    
    
    
    
    750,000
    
    
    
    750,000Assumed treasury stock buyback
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (652,045
    )
    
    
    (1,077,590
    )Convertible redeemable preferred
stock assumed converted
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Number of shares used in per
common share computation
    
    
    9,234,313
    
    
    
    9,722,346
    
    
    
    9,425,050Basic net earnings (loss) per
share of common Stock
    
    $
    (.08
    )
    
    $
    .01
    
    
    $
    .28Diluted net earnings (loss) per
share of common stock
    
    $
    (.08
    )
    
    $
    .01
    
    
    $
    .27
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Form
10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the unaudited financial
statements contained therein.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,061
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          22,433
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     88,083
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             762
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               775
<LOANS>                                        425,153
<ALLOWANCE>                                     (5,685)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 550,497
<DEPOSITS>                                     356,954
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             17,506
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                     172,928
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 550,497
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 24,073
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,197
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                29,270
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              12,402
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,772
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           16,498
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       90
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 250
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,927
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,965
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      10,965
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,835
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.16
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,478
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 2,375
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    380
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,684
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      120
<RECOVERIES>                                        31
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,685
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,532
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,153


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00677-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.K.M.

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CI-08818

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 6, 2013

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The underlying lawsuit is a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. Appellant seeks 

to appeal from temporary orders and an order on a motion for alternative service. Appellee has 

filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Texas Family Code expressly precludes an interlocutory appeal from a trial court’s 

temporary orders. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 105.001(e) (West 2008). There is no statutory 

authority for an appeal from a family law order providing for alternative service. See CMH 

Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011) (holding, absent statute authorizing 

interlocutory appeal, appellate courts generally have jurisdiction only over final judgments). 

Therefore, on January 10, 2013, this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this 

appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
04-12-00677-CV

- 2 -

On January 24, 2013, appellant filed a response that did not address our jurisdiction over 

the three orders her notice of appeal stated she wished to appeal. Instead, appellant’s response 

alleged: (1) an order denying “the motion to vacate by the Honorable Justice Martha Tanner” 

was final and appealable; (2) the order denying a “second motion to vacate by the Honorable 

Judge Sol Casseb” was final and appealable; and (3) “the order granting sanctions by the 

Honorable Judge Rene McElhaney” was final and appealable. In the alternative, appellant asked 

that she be allowed to amend her pleadings “to constitute a Writ of Mandamus.” We granted 

appellant’s request, and on February 15, 2013, appellant filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

with this court in cause number 04-13-00123-CV. 

Because the challenged orders are not appealable and because appellant has since filed a 

petition for writ of mandamus, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss and dismiss this appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
# C_2013344EN.01003401.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/34

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v GIMLE SA

(Case C-322/12) (1)

1

(Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC - Article 2(3) - Principle that a true and fair view must be given - Article 2(5) - Obligation to depart from that principle - Article 32 - Valuation method based on historical cost - Purchase price manifestly lower than the real value)

2013/C 344/58

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: État belge

Applicant:

Defendant: GIMLE SA

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 2(3), (4) and (5) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11) — Annual accounts of certain types of companies — Principle that a true and fair view must be given — Acquisition price of assets not reflecting their real value and giving a distorted view of the company’s assets — Obligation to depart from the rule that assets are to be entered in the accounts at their acquisition cost and to recognise them immediately as having their resale value

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The principle that a true and fair view must be given, set out in Article 2(3) to (5) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [44(2)(g) EC] on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, does not permit the principle of valuation of assets on the basis of their acquisition price or their production cost, contained in Article 32 of that directive, to be departed from in favour of a valuation on the basis of their real value, where the acquisition price or the production cost of those assets is manifestly lower than their real value.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2381]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice 
and Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States, Committee on Rules of 
Practice and Procedure.

ACTION: Relocation of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The location of the two-day meeting of the Committee on Rules 
of Practice and Procedure has been changed from Washington, DC to San 
Francisco, California. The meeting will be open to public observation 
but not participation. [Original notice of the meeting appeared in the 
Federal Register of March 7, 2007.]

DATES: June 11-12, 2007.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Le Meridien San Francisco, Mercantile Room, 333 Battery 
Street, San Francisco, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: May 9, 2007.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 07-2381 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
§ 173.052 Civilian nautical school ships. Each civilian nautical school ship must comply with part 171 of this subchapter as though it were a passenger vessel. In addition to regular passengers, for the purpose of complying with part 171, the following will also count as passengers; ( a ) A student.
( b ) A cadet.
( c ) An instructor who is not also a member of the crew.
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51045, Nov. 4, 1983. Redesignated by CGD 83-005, 51 FR 924, Jan. 9, 1986]
EXHIBIT 99.15

CONSENT OF EXPERT

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F
(the Form 40-F) of Cameco Corporation (the Corporation) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

I hereby consent to reference to my name and my involvement in the preparation of, or supervision of the preparation of, scientific and
technical information in the following instances:



| | (a) | under the headings Operations and Development Projects  Uranium Operating Properties  Inkai, Mineral Reserves and Resources and
Governance  Interest of Experts in the Corporations Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2011 dated February 24, 2012 for the Inkai property; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | under the heading Mineral Reserves and Resources in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation for the year
ended December 31, 2011 dated February 9, 2012 for the Inkai property,
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(collectively the Technical
Information) in the Form 40-F, and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of information derived from the Technical Information in the Form 40-F.

I also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of such Technical Information in the registration statements (Nos. 333-11736, 333-6180 and 333-139165) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Stock
Option Plan, and registration statement (No. 333-139324) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Employee Share Ownership Plan.

Sincerely,



|                     |  |                                                                                   
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Lawrence Reimann
|Name:                |  | Lawrence Reimann, P. Eng.                                                         
|Title:               |  | Manager, Technical Services, Power Resources, Inc. (operating as Cameco Resources)
|                     | 
|Date:                |  | February 24, 2012