alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013225EN.01004301.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/43

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah v Three-N-Products Private Ltd, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-14/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Application for registration of the Community word mark AYUURI NATURAL - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word and figurative marks AYUR - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

2013/C 225/73

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah (represented by: M. Chapple, Barrister)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: Three-N-Products Private Ltd (represented by: C. Jäger, Rechtsanwältin), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 in Case T-313/10 THREE-N-PRODUCTS PRIVATE v OHIM — SHAH (AYUURI NATURAL), by which that Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 1 June 2010 in Case R 1005/2009-4 annulling the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the application for registration of the word mark ‘AYUURI NATURAL’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5 in the opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the Community figurative and word marks including the word element ‘AYUR’ in respect of goods in Classes 3 and 5 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs

THREE-N-PRODUCTS PRIVATE

OHIM — SHAH (AYUURI NATURAL)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Sheilesh Shah and Mr Akhil Shah shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Sheilesh Shah and Mr Akhil Shah shall pay the costs.

| 3. | The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.

1

---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 9
Federal Reserve Bank of: Minneapolis

## Filings received during the week ending March 3, 2007

|Filer                      | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                                 
|-------------------------- | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|BLACKRIDGE FINANCIAL, INC. | * 3A3          | BlackRidge Financial, Inc., Fargo, North Dakota, to acquire 100 percent of BlackRidgeBANK, Fargo, North Dakota, a de novo bank.                                                                                                                             | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available 
|Newspaper:                 | Not available 
|Federal Register:          | Not available 
|CITIZENS BANCORP, INC.     | * 3A1          | Citizens Bancorp, Inc., Cadott, Wisconsin, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Citizens State Bank, Cadott, Wisconsin.                                                                                                             | Newspaper:03/03/2007Federal Register:03/16/2007       
|Newspaper:                 | 03/03/2007    
|Federal Register:          | 03/16/2007    
|STATE BANK FINANCIAL       | * 18C* Branch  | State Bank Financial, La Crosse, Wisconsin, proposes to purchase the assets and assume the liabilities of the Sparta, Wisconsin, branch of Acuity Bank, Tomah, Wisconsin, and incident thereto establish a branch at 203 West Wisconsin, Sparta, Wisconsin. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                 | Not available 
|Federal Register:          | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
NEW YORK COMMON PLEAS.

#### Jonathan N. Havens agt. Christian Klein.

*Equity Term,*

*June,*1875.

*The law of easements.*

An adjoining owner of lots has no right to close up his neighbor’s rear windows of his dwelling-house, although they open upon the owner’s rear yard, where the neighbor’s house covers his entire lot.

*Nelson, Smith & Leavitt,*for plaintiff.

Among cases just tried before chief justice Halt, at the equity term of the ■ common pleas, was an important one involving the law of easements. The plaintiff, Jonathan N. Havens," a lumber merchant, owned the French flat No. 125 East Fiftieth street, which was sixty feet west of Lexington avenue, his lot being twenty feet wide by forty-nine feet deep, and his house extending over the whole of the lot. The defendant, Christian Klein, owned a house and lot on Lexington avenue, which was forty-nine feet north of Fiftieth street, his lot being twenty feet wide by eighty feet deep, and his house being sixty feet deep, so that' the corners of the two houses just touched each other, and Klein’s yard, twenty feet square, was just back of Havens’ house. Havens’ rear windows, fifteen in number, looked out on Klein’s yard; the shutters opened out over Klein’s yard, and in the angle of the buildings were fire-escapes to each story, intended for the use of each house, access being had through the windows of each. In November last, Klein thought he would stop Havens’ tenants from looking into his back yard, and from *96opening their shutters out over his land, and from getting any light and air into their hack rooms. Perhaps the cooking of five breakfasts and five dinners every day so close to his property was offensive to his nostrils; and, perhaps, if he could do this, it would make Havens’ property so worthless that he could buy it in for a small amount and then take away the obstructions, restoring the property to its original value and making a very nice little speculation. So he put up a scaffolding, forty-five feet high and twenty feet wide, on his own land, up against Haven’s house, and nailed boards to it opposite each window, having first closed Havens’ shutters, so that each window had a cap on, which fitted so tight and made Havens’ rooms as dark as Erebus, that, although it was broad daylight, they might well be called nightcaps. Havens obtained an injunction restraining Klein from keeping the scaffolding up, and on Wednesday judge Halt rendered final judgment in Havens’ favor, deciding that Havens has a right to light and air through his rear windows, and to open his shutters over Klein’s yard, and to use the fire-escapes as occasion requires. Klein’s attempt to speculate in real estate is not so far a success. He is entitled to the honor of being the first to discover, a new way of “ bearing ” real estate, but it is likely to prove expensive. Hot only does he have to pay his carpenter for putting up the scaffold, but also for tearing it down, as well as the costs of the action to compel him.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-13-01026-CR

Style: Hersson Stanley Orellana

v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: April 14, 2014

Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: January 20, 2014

Number of previous extensions granted: 1 Current Due date: April 2, 2014

Date Requested: April 14, 2014

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: April 14, 2014

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: April 22, 2014
; 

V.

Lower Court Case No. 15-101900-CZ

CITY OF FLINT, a municipal entity, and CITYOF FLINT ADMINISTRATOR, NATASHAHENDERSON, in her official capacity,

Defendants.

I

Trachelle C. Young (P63330) Anthony Chubb (P72608)Attorney for Plaintiff William Y. Kim (P7641 1)2501 N. Saginaw Street CITY OF FLINT Law DepartmentFlint, MI 48505 Attorneys for Defendants(810) 239-6302 1101 5. Saginaw Street, 3~ FloortracheIIeyoung(2l~umai1.com Flint, MI 48502

(810) 766-7146

achubb cit o fin .comwkirn c cit offlin .com

I

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit A: Summons, Complaint, and Exhibits attached thereto, filed in 7th Circuit Court,

State of Michigan, case no. 15-101900-CZ

Exhibit B: Motion for Injunctive ReliefExhibit C: Plaintiffs Brief in Support of Motion for Injunctive Relief

S:\AChubb\Active Litigation Civil Cases Coalition for Clean Water v. COF. N. Henderson REMOVAL DOCUMENTS Notice of Removal.docx

4
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 16.1

                                                   October 22, 1996

Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, DC 20549

                                        Re: SunStar HealthCare, Inc.
                                            (the "Company")

Ladies and Gentlemen:

        We have read Item 8 of the annual report on Form 10-KSB for the
Company's fiscal year ended July 31, 1996 and are in agreement with the
statements contained therein except for matters relating to KPMG Peat Marwick,
LLP as to which we have no knowledge.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        /s/ Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP
§ 308.501 Cargoes on which coverage is available. The Maritime Administrator will be prepared to provide marine insurance against loss or damage by the risks of war under approved clauses on shipments of cargoes coming within one or more of the following categories: ( a ) Shipped or to be shipped on any American vessel, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 53901;
( b ) Shipped or to be shipped on any foreign flag vessels owned by citizens of the United States;
( c ) Owned by citizens or residents of the United States, its Territories or possessions;
( d ) Imported to, or exported from, the United States, its Territories or possessions, under contracts of sale or purchase by the terms of which the risk of loss by war risks or the obligation to provide insurance against such risks is assumed by or falls upon a citizen or resident of the United States, its Territories or possessions;
( e ) Sold or purchased by citizens or residents of the United States, its Territories or possessions, under contracts of sale or purchase by the terms of which the risk of loss by war risks or the obligation to provide insurance against such risks is assumed by or falls upon a citizen or resident of the United States, its Territories or possessions;
( f ) Shipped between ports in the United States, or between ports in the United States and its Territories and possessions, or between ports in such Territories or possessions; and
( g ) Shipped or to be shipped on any foreign flag vessels, whether or not owned by citizens of the United States, if such vessels are engaged in transportation in the water-borne commerce of the United States or in such other transportation by water or such other services as may be deemed by the Maritime Administrator to be in the interest of the national defense or the national economy of the United States, when so engaged.
#### Hayman Defrin, an Infant, by Max Defrin, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, *v.*Joseph H. Goldstein, Appellant.

*Defrin*v. *Goldstein,*129 App. Div. 895, affirmed.

(Submitted January 7, 1910;

decided January 25, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 27, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action by an employee to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the defendant’s negligence.

*E. Clyde Sherwood*and *Frank V. Johnson*for appellant.

*Clinton B. Taylor*and *Eugene I. Yuells,*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Yann, Willard Bartlett, His-cock and Chase, JJ. Dissenting: Werner, J., on the grounds, first, that the plaintiff has failed to make out his charge of negligence against defendant, and, second, that the Employers’ Liability Act is entirely insufficient. Absent: Edward T. Bartlett, J.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending August 19, 2006

|Filer                         | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                      | End of Comment Period                                
|----------------------------- | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------
|DEARMIN BANCORP, INC.         | CIC           | Notice by Dearmin Investment Holdings Business, L.P., Odon, Indiana, to gain control of Dearmin Bancorp, Inc., Odon, Indiana.        | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                    | Not available
|Federal Register:             | Not available
|TEXICO BANCSHARES CORPORATION | CIC           | Notice by Lori and Craig Glattly, both of Lake Forest, Illinois, to gain control of Texico Bancshares Corporation, Texico, Illinois. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                    | Not available
|Federal Register:             | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### Mary E. McGuire, *by Guardian, etc., Respondent, v.*William Spence, *Appellant*.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS 

ASSOCIATION, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, 

LLC 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 2:15-cv-10137-LJM-SDD 

Hon. Laurie Michelson 

STIPULATED ORDER 

2:15-cv-10137-LJM-SDD Doc # 43 Filed 01/09/17 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 769
 This matter came before the Court upon stipulation of the parties, as 

evidenced by the signatures below, and the Court being otherwise fully advised. 

The required depositions in this matter needed to be scheduled shortly before the 

original deadline at the deponents’ request which required this modification to the 

Court’s Scheduling Order, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following deadlines shall be set with 

regard to the deadlines related to the Summary Judgment Motion on Functionality 

and Exhaustion Defenses: 

Event Deadline 

Defendant to file Opposition to Summary Judgment 

Motion on Functionality and Exhaustion Defenses 

1/31/17 

Close of All Discovery on functionality and patent 

exhaustion issues including any Expert Discovery 

2/21/17 

ABPA to file Reply to Summary Judgment Motion on 

Functionality and Exhaustion Defenses 

2/28/17 

(or 3 weeks after 

deposition of Defendant 

expert if taken) 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/Laurie J. Michelson 

 LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

Dated: January 9, 2017 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

2:15-cv-10137-LJM-SDD Doc # 43 Filed 01/09/17 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 770
2 

Approved as to form and substance: 

BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. 

By: /s/ Marc Lorelli 

Marc Lorelli (P63156) 

Frank A. Angileri (P45611) 

Linda D. Mettes (P69182) 

Amy C. Leshan (P69328) 

1000 Town Center, 

Twenty-Second Floor 

Southfield, Michigan 48075 

Tel: (248) 358-4400 

Fax (248) 358-3351 

Email: mlorelli@brookskushman.com 

 fangileri@brookskushman.com 

 lmettes@brookskushman.com 

 aleshan@brookskushman.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Ford Global 

Technologies LLC 

OAKE LAW OFFICE 

By: /s/ Robert G. Oake, Jr. w/ consent 

Robert G. Oake, Jr. 

Texas State Bar No. 15154300 

825 Market Street, Suite 250 

Allen, Texas 75013 

Tel: (214) 207-9066 

Email: rgo@oake.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

 

2:15-cv-10137-LJM-SDD Doc # 43 Filed 01/09/17 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 771
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**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 Onyx Acceptance Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,John W. Hall, President, CEO and Principal Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.     /s/ JOHN W. HALL
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-40563

UNITED STATES of AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

PAULIN SANCHEZ-ROCHA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(L-95-16-01)

April 8, 1996

Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Pauline Sanchez-Rocha was charged with three counts of

inducing aliens to enter the United States illegally, in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(D). Sanchez-Rocha moved to suppress

evidence obtained after the stop of his vehicle by border patrol

agents. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court

denied the motion, holding that the agents had sufficient

reasonable suspicion to justify the stop, and alternatively that2

the agents had an objectively reasonable good faith belief that

they were justified in making the stop. Sanchez-Rocha entered a

conditional plea of guilty to the first count of the indictment

pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2), preserving

his right to appeal the district court’s ruling on the motion to

suppress. The district court sentenced Sanchez-Rocha to 175 days

of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $200

fine. Sanchez-Rocha timely appealed.

In his brief to this court, Sanchez-Rocha attacks the district

court’s conclusion that the agents had reasonable suspicion to stop

him. He does not, however, assert error as to the district court’s

alternative conclusion th a t the agents possessed a reasonably

objective good faith belief that the stop was justified. While

this court construes briefs liberally when determining the issues

presented for review, issues not raised at all are waived. U nited

States v. Bullock

, 71 F.3d 171, 178 (5th Cir. 1995); United States

v. Musa

, 45 F.3d 922, 925 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Bermea

,

30 F.3d 1539, 1572 (5th Cir. 1994), certs. denied

,

__ U.S.

__, __,

115 S.Ct. 1113, 1825 (1995). See also United States v. Miles , 10

F.3d 1135, 1137 n.3 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[W]e caution counsel to state

specifically in the opening brief the issues raised on appeal; the

failure to do so will usually result in our not considering

them.”). Accordingly, because Sanchez-Rocha has failed to raise as

error in this court the application of the good-faith exception to

the exclusionary rule, we do not review this portion of the2 To raise the issue would not have aided Appellant’s cause since

the issue is foreclosed by United States v. Ramirez-Lujan

, 976 F.2d

930 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied , 507 U.S. 987 (1993).

3 district cour t’s ruling. 2 Thus, the denial of Sanchez-Rocha’s

motion to suppress is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                       EXHIBIT
                                       ITEM 11

                  Statement Reference Computation of Per Share Earnings


     Primary earnings (loss) per share amounts were computed on the basis of
the weighted average number of shares of common stock and common stock
equivalents outstanding during the year.  Common stock equivalents included
employee stock options.  For this computation, the net income for 1992  was
decreased by $21,000, the amount of preferred stock dividends earned but not
declared on the outstanding preferred stock.  The weighted average number of
shares used for this computation was 1,022,402, 1,044,684, 1,012,773,
1,034,972, and 757,203 in 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993 and 1992, respectively.

     Fully diluted earnings per share amounts were computed assuming the
preferred stock had been converted to common shares as of January 1,1991,
resulting in weighted average number of shares of 1,022,402, 1,044,684,
1,012,773, 1,034,972, and 901,998 in 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, and 1992,
respectively.