alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011355EN.01002201.xml

| 3.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/22

---

Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Delphi Technologies v OHIM (INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD)

(Case T-515/11)

2011/C 355/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Delphi Technologies, Inc. (Wilmington, United States of America) (represented by: C. Albrecht and J. Heumann, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 June 2011 in case R 1967/2010-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 June 2011 in case R 1967/2010-2;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD’, for goods in classes 7, 9, 10 and 12 — Community trade mark application No 7072705

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application in its entirety

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) misunderstood the burden of arguments and proof laid down in Article 7(1)(b); (ii) erred in applying the relevant case law of the ECJ for the assessment of distinctiveness of slogans and the possible meaning of the mark applied for; and, (iii) neglected the substantial use and notoriety of the mark which is important for the perception of the slogan by the relevant consumers. Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and the general principles of the administrative proceedings, as the Board of Appeal did not take into account that identical and similar slogans with the word ‘INNOVATION’ have already been registered in the EU and in particular by the OHIM.

Pleas in law:

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 59752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of a Record of Decision

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of Record of Decision (ROD).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that it 
has issued a ROD for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final 
EIS) that evaluated the effects of proposed improvements to runway 
safety areas at the Kodiak Airport. This ROD constitutes the final 
decision of the FAA regarding the proposed action and summarizes the 
Final EIS analyses and selected mitigation measures.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD may be viewed online or during regular 
business hours at the following locations:
    1. Online at www.kodiakairporteis.com.
    2. Holmes Johnson Memorial Library, 319 Lower Mill Bay Road, 
Kodiak, AK 99615. (907) 486-8680.
    3. Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, 222 W. 7th 
Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504. (907) 271-5453.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie Grey, Environmental Protection 
Specialist, FAA, Alaskan Region, Airports Division, address 222 W. 7th 
Avenue Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513. Ms. Grey may be contacted 
during business hours at (907) 271-5453 (telephone) and (907) 271-2851 
(fax), or by email at Leslie.Grey@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ROD, the FAA selected the following 
alternatives for implementation:
     Runway 07/25 Alternative 2 which involves the placement of 
fill off Runway end 25 and installation of an EMAS bed on the newly 
constructed landmass.
     Runway 18/36 Alternative 7 which involves a landmass 
extension to the south beyond Runway end 36, shifting the runway to the 
south, and placing an Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) bed 
to the north beyond Runway end 18.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508.

     Issued in Anchorage, Alaska, on September 18, 2013.
Byron K. Huffman,
Manager, Airports Division, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 2013-23518 Filed 9-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
y

MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-15-00763-CR

DONOVAN DWIGHT SIMMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 230th District Court of Harris County (Tr. Ct. No. 1056045)

TO THE 230TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 13th day of October, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise 

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the opinion of this Court 

that it has no jurisdiction over the appeal. It is therefore CONSIDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered October 13, 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justice Keyes, Massengale, and 

Lloyd. 

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.
December 22, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
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: 6
Federal Reserve Bank of: Atlanta

## Filings received during the week ending July 4, 2009

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## 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       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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
#### Woodbury *v.*Swan *& a.*

The holder of a mortgage cannot defeat a prior mortgage by acquiring a tax title.

Bxll in Equity, for the foreclosure of a mortgage against Swan, the holder of a subsequent mortgage, and for a decree against a tax title acquired by Swan while holding his mortgage. Reported in 58 N. H. 380. Facts found by the court.

Bartlett, for'the •plaintiff.

*O. U.*Bell, for the defendant.

Bingham:, J.

It is a general rule, founded on the requirements of good faith, that any one interested in land with others, all deriving their titles from a common source, cannot acquire an absolute title to the land by a tax deed, to the injury of the others. The payment of taxes by a mortgagee protects his interest, and for the protection of his interest he may acquire a tax title, but he cannot set up that title to defeat a prior mortgage. 1 Jones Mortgages, s. 6§0; Cooley Taxation *348; M. S. Bank*v. Bacharach, 46 Conn. 513.

In the relations of these parties, Swan occupies the position of mortgagor. If the plaintiff had paid the taxes, Swan could not redeem the land from the mortgage held by the plaintiff without payment of the same taxes to the plaintiff; and Swan cannot justly destroy that mortgage by buying the land when sold for taxes, for the payment of which by the plaintiff Swan must indemnify the plaintiff on redemption. But the law of the case rests on a broader ground than this incident of redemption. Mortgagor and mortgagee have a unity of legal interest in the protection of their titles against sale for non-payment of taxes, and against out-standing tax titles; and it is not equitable that either of them should act adversely to the other in the acquisition and use of such titles. Therefore, the mortgage contract comprises an implied agreement, that, while either party may buy a tax title for the preservation of his right in the mortgaged property, neither of them will buy a tax title for the extinguishment of the title, in the maintenance of which they, as well as partners and tenants in common, are in law jointly concerned. The common interest of these parties in the mortgaged property creates a relation of trust and confidence, which limits Swan to an equitable use of the tax title acquired by him under that relation, and does not permit a use by which the entire common interest would be swept away.

*Decree for the plaintiff.*

Allen, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
----

**EXHIBIT      21**

**LIST      OF SUBSIDIARIES OF VYTA CORP**

| **Name**                                                         | **State                of Incorporation** | **Date                of Incorporation** | **Doing                Business As**                             |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                             |                                      |                                     |                                                             |
| NanoPierce                ConnectionSystems,                Inc. | Nevada,                USA                | January 2002                        | NanoPierce                ConnectionSystems,                Inc. |
| ExypnoTech,                LLC                                   | Colorado,                USA              | June 2004                           | ExypnoTech,                LLC                                   |

----
#### § 502.56 Negotiated rulemaking.

The Commission, either upon petition of interested persons or upon its own motion, may establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to negotiate and develop consensus on a proposed rule, if, upon consideration of the criteria of 5 U.S.C. 563, use of such a committee is determined by the Commission to be in the public interest. [Rule 56.]

[58 FR 38649, July 19, 1993, as amended at 64 FR 7808, Feb. 17, 1999]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1995
<CASH>                                          50,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  155,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                    376,879
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               574,397
<PP&E>                                         441,381
<DEPRECIATION>                                 329,734
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 856,252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,112,295
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        8,150,453
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,331,496)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   856,252
<SALES>                                      1,502,668
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,518,564
<CGS>                                        1,158,004
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,959,705
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               507,562
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             464,673
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,427,875)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,590
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,429,465)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,429,465)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
§ 56.75-25 Detail requirements. ( a ) Pipe may be fabricated by brazing when the temperature to which such connections may be subjected does not exceed 425 °F. (For exception refer to § 56.30-30(b)(1).)
( b ) The surfaces to be brazed must be clean and free from grease, oxides, paint, scale, and dirt of any kind.
( c ) After the parts to be joined have been thoroughly cleaned the edges to be brazed must be given an even coating of flux prior to heating the joint as a protection against oxidation.
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18843, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65184, Oct. 31, 2008]
#### Edwin Simpson, *Respondent, v.*New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, *Appellant.*

—Judgment reversed, with costs. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.;

Landon, J., not acting.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1554 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1554

  To direct the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to 
establish a regional office in a community in the United States located 
 not more than 10 miles from the border between the United States and 
                                Mexico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 1995

 Mr. Coleman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to 
establish a regional office in a community in the United States located 
 not more than 10 miles from the border between the United States and 
                                Mexico.

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

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION REGIONAL 
              OFFICE ON U.S.-MEXICO BORDER.

    (a) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration shall establish a regional office of the Small Business 
Administration in a community in the United States located--
            (1) not more than 10 miles from the border between the 
        United States and Mexico; and
            (2) as close as practicable to the point that is halfway 
        between San Diego, California, and Brownsville, Texas.
    (b) Regional Administrator.--The head of the office established 
under this section shall be the Regional Administrator of the Small 
Business Administration for the region of the United States located 
generally along the border between the United States and Mexico.
    (c) Functions.--The Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration shall delegate to the Regional Administrator referred to 
in subsection (b) the functions of the Administrator relating to 
administering activities conducted by the Small Business Administration 
in the region of the United States located generally along the border 
between the United States and Mexico.
                                 <all>
```
August 3, 2015

Mr. Jonathan Rupprecht

Rupprechet Law P.A.

324 Datura Street, Suite 200

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Dear Mr. Rupprecht:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 15, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1693), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
§ 52.25-10 Organic fluid vaporizer generators (modifies PVG-1 through PVG-12). ( a ) Organic fluid vaporizers must meet the requirements of PVG-1 through PVG-12 of Section I of the ASME BPVC (incorporated by reference; see § 52.01-1).
( b ) The Commandant must approve the application and end use of organic fluid vaporizer generators.
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18815, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65161, Oct. 31, 2008]
Exhibit 32

                            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 CERBCO,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form  10-KSB  for the  fiscal  year  ending  June 30,  2003,  as filed  with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned  hereby certify,  pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 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.



September 29, 2003
                                        /s/ Robert W. Erikson
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Robert W. Erikson
                                        President

September 29, 2003
                                        /s/ George Wm. Erikson
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        George Wm. Erikson
                                        Chairman & General Counsel

September 29, 2003
                                        /s/ Robert F. Hartman
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Robert F. Hartman
                                        Vice President, Secretary & Treasurer
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: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending January 31, 2009

|Filer                  | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                             
|---------------------- | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|INDEPENDENT BANK CORP. | * 3A5* 3A3    | Application by Independent Bank Corp., Rockland, MA to merge with Benjamin Franklin Bancorp, Inc.,and thereby acquire its subsidiary bank Benjamin Franklin Bank, both of Franklin, MA pursuant to sections 3(a)(3)/3(a)(5) of the BHC Act. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:02/20/2009
|Newspaper:             | Not available
|Federal Register:      | 02/20/2009   

## 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       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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
#### John W. Blauvelt, *as Executor, Respondent, v.*William B. Slocum, *Appellant, Impleaded, etc.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
[J-111-2014] 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellant 

 v. 

MICHAEL RYAN BUDKA, 

 Appellee 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

107 MAP 2014 

Appeal from the Order of the Superior 

Court dated 4/3/14 at No. 26 MDA 2014 

affirming the PCRA order of the York 

County Court of Common Pleas, Criminal 

Division, at No. CP-67-CR-2219-2009 

dated 12/14/12 

SUBMITTED: December 5, 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM DECIDED: March 25, 2015 

The appeal is dismissed as having been IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.