alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013225EN.01004602.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 (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Lactimilk SA

(Case C-346/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Community word mark MILRAM - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word and figurative marks RAM)

2013/C 225/80

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH (represented by: W. Berlit, Rechtsanwalt)

Applicant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, acting as Agent), Lactimilk SA (represented by: P. Casamitjana Lleonart, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2012 in Case T-546/10 Nordmilch v OHIM — LACTIMILK (MILRAM) by which the General Court dismissed an action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2010 (joined cases R 1041/2009-4 and R 1053/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Lactimilk SA and Nordmilch AG — Likelihood of confusion — Incorrect assessment of the similarity of the marks at issue — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

Nordmilch

OHIM — LACTIMILK (MILRAM)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

1

---
<PAGE>


Exhibit 10.2
LanVision Systems, Inc.

Summary of Fiscal Year 2005 Executive Bonus Plan (as adopted by the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors on January 27, 2005)*

On January 27, 2005, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of
LanVision Systems, Inc. adopted executive bonus arrangements for fiscal year
2005. These arrangements are not contained in a formal written plan, and the
following is a summary of the manner in which executive officer bonuses will be
determined for fiscal year 2005 (the "FY 2005 Executive Bonus Plan"). The FY
2005 Executive Bonus Plan is composed of two separate bonus components, both of
which are considered part of the total targeted compensation for LanVision's
executives.

The first component of the Plan provides for the payment of a target profit
bonus based upon achieving 100% of LanVision's targeted operating profit as
established by the Compensation Committee. Participating executives will be
entitled to payment of 100% of the target profit bonus if LanVision achieves
100% of the targeted operating profit. Executives may receive a reduced profit
bonus, provided that LanVision's actual operating profit is greater than 80% of
the targeted operating profit. If the Company achieves 80% or less of the
targeted operating profit no profit bonuses are earned under this component of
the Plan. At greater than 80% but less than 100% of the targeted operating
profit, the payments are reduced so that, for example, achieving 90% of the
targeted operating profit would result in the payment of 50% of the target
profit bonus. If LanVision exceeds 100% of the targeted operating profit, then
the bonuses are increased by the percentage that the actual operating profit
exceeds the target operating profit. For example, if LanVision achieves 130% of
the targeted operating profit, then the bonuses earned would be 130% of the
target profit bonuses. There is no upper limitation of the payment of the
bonuses for this component that exceed the targeted operating profit amounts.

The second component of the Plan provides for the payment of a target revenue
bonus based upon achieving 100% of targeted revenues, excluding the sale of
third party hardware. If less than 100% of the targeted revenues is achieved,
then no revenue bonus will be earned under this component of the Plan. If 100%
of the targeted revenues is achieved, then the target revenue bonuses associated
with this portion of the Plan will be paid at 100%. If the targeted revenues are
exceeded, than the revenue bonuses are increased by the percentage that the
revenues exceeds the target revenues. For example, if LanVision achieves 130% of
the targeted revenues, then the bonuses earned would be 130% of the target
revenue bonus. There is no upper limitation of the payment of the bonuses for
this component that exceed the targeted revenue amounts.

The Compensation Committee established the target operating profit, target
revenues and target bonuses on January 27, 2005.


                                       8
Order entered September 3, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00214-CR

ANTHONY TERRENCE SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-71255-V

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due May 29, 2014. On August 4, 2014, this Court 

adopted the trial court’s findings that appellant is indigent and desires to pursue the appeal and 

that counsel William Barr represented to the trial court that appellant’s brief would be filed by 

August 18, 2014. We ordered that appellant’s brief be filed by August 18, 2014. We further 

warned counsel William Barr that if the brief was not filed by that date, we would order him 

removed as appellant’s attorney and would order the trial court to appoint new counsel to 

represent appellant in this appeal. To date, Mr. Barr has neither filed appellant’s brief nor 

communicated with the Court regarding the appeal.

Accordingly, we ORDER William Barr removed as appellant’s appointed attorney of 

record.
We ORDER the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent appellant in this appeal 

and to transmit a supplemental record containing the order appointing new counsel to this Court 

within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Lawrence Mitchell, Presiding Judge, 292nd Judicial District Court, and to counsel for 

all parties.

We ABATE the appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal will 

be reinstated fifteen days from the date of this order or when the order appointing new counsel is 

received.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND FROM THE
INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE EPS DATA HAS BEEN RESTATED TO REFLECT THE ADOPTION OF
SFAS 128. 
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          14,787
<SECURITIES>                                    22,359
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,393
<ALLOWANCES>                                       255
<INVENTORY>                                     11,625
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,117
<PP&E>                                          27,811
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,499
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,197
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            85
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,324
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,649
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,311
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,438
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,442
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   255
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,431
<INCOME-TAX>                                       154 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,277
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,277
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3148-3149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-272]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: 45 CFR 1304 Head Start Program Performance Standards.
    OMB No. 0970-0148.
    Description: Head Start Program Performance Standards require Head 
Start and Early Head Start Programs and Delegate Agencies to maintain 
program records. The Administration for Children and Families, Office 
of Head Start, is proposing to renew, without changes, the authority to 
require certain record keeping in all programs as provided for in 45 
CFR part 1304 Head Start Program Performance Standards. These standards 
prescribe the services that Head Start and Early Head Start programs 
provide to enrolled children and their families.
    Respondents: Head Start and Early Head Start grantees and delegate 
agencies.

                                             Annual Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of        Average
                   Instrument                        Number of     responses per   burden hours    Total burden
                                                    respondents     respondent     per response        hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................................           2,590              16            41.8       1,732,192
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:........  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,732,192
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be 
obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, 
Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant 
Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance 
Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the 
information collection. E-mail address: [email protected].
    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of 
this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best 
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of 
publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed 
information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office 
of Management and Budget, Paperwork

[[Page 3149]]

Reduction Project, Attn: Desk Officer for ACF, Fax: 202-395-6974.

    Dated: January 18, 2007.
Robert Sargis,
Reports Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-272 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
```
#### § 45.65 Excess sheer limitations.

The decrease in freeboard allowed in [§ 45.63](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-45.63) is limited as follows:

Sheer Calculation—Table 4

| Station | Actual ordinate | S. M. | Product |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| After Half: | | | |
| AP | | 1 | |
| L/6-AP | | 3 | |
| L/3-AP | | 3 | |
| Midship | | 1 | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |
| Sum of Aft Products | | | |
| After Standard Sheer .2665L + 26.651 | | | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |
| Difference: Sum-STD | | | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ + Excess/−Deficiency |
| AFT Sheer: Diff ÷ 8 | | | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Excess/Deficiency |
| Fwd. Half: | | | |
| FP | | 1 | |
| L/6-FP | | 3 | |
| L/3-FP | | 3 | |
| Midships | | 1 | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |
| Sum of Fwd Products | | | |
| Fwd Standard Sheer .5330L + 53.301 | | | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |
| Difference: Sum-STD | | | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ + Excess/−Deficiency |
| FWD Sheer: Diff ÷ 8 | | | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Excess/Deficiency |
| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 L in Standard Sheer = L or 500 whichever is less. | | | |

*Sheer Summation*

| Aft Sheer± | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |
| Fwd Sheer± | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |
| Net Sheer± | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |
| Mean: Net−2 | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Excess/Deficiency |

(a) In vessels having no enclosed superstructure from 0.1 *L* abaft amidships to 0.1 *L* forward of amidships, no decrease is allowed.

(b) In vessels having enclosed superstructures amidships less than 0.1 *L* before and abaft amidships, the decrease must be reduced by linear interpolation.

(c) If excess sheer exists in the forward half, and the after half is at least 75 percent of standard sheer, the full decrease is allowed. If the after sheer is between 50 percent and 75 percent of standard sheer an intermediate decrease, determined by linear interpolation, is allowed for the excess sheer forward. If the after sheer is 50 percent of standard or less, no decrease is allowed for the excess sheer forward.

(d) Where an enclosed poop or forecastle is of standard height with greater sheer than that of the freeboard deck, or is greater than standard height, an addition to the sheer of the freeboard deck may be made using the following formula:

S=*vL*′/3*L*

Where

*s* = sheer credit, to be deducted from the deficiency or added to the excess of sheer.

*v* = difference between actual and standard height of superstructure at the end ordinate.

*L*′ = mean enclosed length of poop or forecastle up to a maximum length of 0.5 *L.*

The superstructure deck must not be less than standard height above this curve at any point. This curve must be used in determining the sheer profile for forward and after halves of the vessel.

(e) The maximum decreased for excess sheer must be no more than 11⁄2 inches per 100 feet of length.

(f) Where the deck of an enclosed superstructure has at least the same sheer as the exposed freeboard deck, the sheer of the enclosed portion of the freeboard deck cannot be taken into account.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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 on Form 10-K of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2007 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, James T. Riffe, Executive Vice President and Cashier of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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/ James T. Riffe

James T. Riffe

Executive Vice President and Cashier

March 26, 2008
# C_2013344EN.01002502.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/25

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA

(Case C-122/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 74(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) - Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark - Existence of the mark - Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Provision to the contrary - Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)

2013/C 344/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (represented by F. Baujoin, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-152/09 Rintisch v OHIM — Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires, by which the General Court dismissed an action, brought by the proprietor of certain national and Community word marks, a national figurative mark and a business name containing the word ‘PROTI’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32, for the annulment of Decision R 1661/2007-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 3 February 2009, which had dismissed the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by Mr Rintisch against registration of the word mark ‘PROTIACTIVE’ in respect of goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30 — Late submission of documents — Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Rintisch

OHIM — Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

1

---
§ 545.4 Interpretation of Shipping Act of 1984—Unjust and unreasonable practices. 46 U.S.C. 41102(c) is interpreted to require the following elements in order to establish a successful claim for reparations: ( a ) The respondent is an ocean common carrier, marine terminal operator, or ocean transportation intermediary;
( b ) The claimed acts or omissions of the regulated entity are occurring on a normal, customary, and continuous basis;
( c ) The practice or regulation relates to or is connected with receiving, handling, storing, or delivering property;
( d ) The practice or regulation is unjust or unreasonable; and
( e ) The practice or regulation is the proximate cause of the claimed loss.
[83 FR 64480, Dec. 17, 2018]
§ 46.10-30 Subdivision load line certificates. ( a ) Passenger vessels engaged in foreign voyages by sea shall have their subdivision load lines certified on the safety certificate required by the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1960. Safety certificates shall be issued by the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, for a period not to exceed one year. These vessels will also be provided with the load line certificate required by part 42 of this subchapter, the minimum freeboard shown thereon to be not less than the minimum freeboard corresponding to the principal passenger condition. The fact that they are subdivision load lines is to be noted on the load line certificate.
( b ) Passenger vessels engaged on coastwise voyages by sea or Great Lakes voyages shall have the position of their subdivision load lines recorded on a load line certificate in the form required by part 42 or part 45 of this subchapter. The fact that they are subdivision load lines is to be noted on the load line certificate.
( c ) A note shall be added to the load line certificate below the signature of the assigning—authority in the following form: The bulkhead deck used for determining the position of the subdivision load lines certified above is __________________________ (here described bulkhead deck).
( d ) Annual inspections of passenger vessels shall be as required by §§ 42.09-40 and 46.10-15 of this subchapter and renewal of passenger vessels' load line certificates shall be as required by §§ 42.09-15 and 42.09-20.
( e ) Each new passenger vessel which receives its first load line certificate shall also be provided with a copy of the load line survey report as required by § 42.09-1(c) or § 45.01-30 of this subchapter.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16769, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10077, July 12, 1968; CGFR 68-126, 34 FR 9019, June 5, 1969; CGD 80-120, 47 FR 5723, Feb. 8, 1982; CGD 88-070, 53 FR 34534, Sept. 7, 1988]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7715

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GERALD DAMONE HOPPER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr.,

Senior District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-95-119-V)

Submitted: March 9, 1999 Decided: May 21, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Damone Hopper, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Michel Smith, David

Culver Keesler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Damone Hopper appeals from the district court’s order

denying his petition for an order to show cause why two prosecutors

and a government witness should not be held in criminal contempt

and denying his motion for sanctions. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Hopper leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See

United States v. Hopper, No. CR-95-119-V (W.D.N.C. Nov. 12, 1998).

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.

DISMISSED