alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED MAY 4,2010 

^.ri U: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09NM0013 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-1040 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On November 13, 2009, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter referred 

to as "Complainant") filed a Complaint. On October 30, 2009, Frontier Airlines, Inc. 

(hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") filed a Request for Hearing. 

On April 30, 2010, Respondent withdrew its request for hearing, citing settlement. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Respondent's Request to Withdraw Request for Hearing be and is hereby 

granted; and 

kThis DjQceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachments - Service List 

m n u 
FAA Docket No. CP09NM0013 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Jennifer E. Trock, Respondent's Counsel 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 

2300 N Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20037-1122 

TEL: 202-663-9179 

FAX: 202-663-8007 

Scott R. Morris, Complainant's Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, WA 98057-3356 

TEL: 425-227-1417 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202 366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
No. 59443.

protest 257970-K (New York).

#### Rohner Gehrig & Co., Inc., and Ro Art Linen Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hot plate mats of wood the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 57261, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
BEFORE THE SECOND DIVISION,

December 12, 1956

No. 60411.

protest 284789-K (Baltimore).

#### Samuel Shapiro & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Pord, J.

The protest was dismissed.
# C_2015190EN.01001702.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/17

---

Action brought on 24 March 2015 — Aurora v CPVO — SES-VanderHave (M 02205)

(Case T-140/15)

(2015/C 190/21)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Aurora Srl (Finale Emilia, Italy) (represented by: L. Buchman, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SES-VanderHave NV/SA (Tienen, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO

Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community plant variety right at issue: Community Plant Variety Right No EU 15118, variety denomination M 02205

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 26 November 2014 in Case A10/2013

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare that CPVR No EU 15118 is null and void; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that CPVR No EU 15118 is null and void;

| — | order CPVO to pay the costs, including the cost of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order CPVO to pay the costs, including the cost of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 2100/94; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 2100/94;

| — | Misinterpretation of Article 87(4) of Regulation No 2100/94; |
| --- | --- |

—

Misinterpretation of Article 87(4) of Regulation No 2100/94;

| — | Infringement of the principle of legal certainty insofar as the conditions of the granted CPVR were retrospectively changed; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of legal certainty insofar as the conditions of the granted CPVR were retrospectively changed;

| — | Infringement, to a certain extent, of the principle of legitimate expectation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement, to a certain extent, of the principle of legitimate expectation;

| — | Infringement of the principle of transparency and of the right of public access to documents insofar as the Examination process was not carried out in a transparent manner as the Applicant did not have access to fundamental documents. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of transparency and of the right of public access to documents insofar as the Examination process was not carried out in a transparent manner as the Applicant did not have access to fundamental documents.

---
Before the Third Division,

November 24, 1959

No. 63536.

protests 731135-G, etc. (Baltimore).

#### Wm. H. Masson *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2015155EN.01003401.xml

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/34

---

Action brought on 18 March 2015 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Grup Supeco Maxor (Supeco)

(Case T-126/15)

(2015/C 155/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grup Supeco Maxor, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Supeco’ — Application for registration No 10 884 741

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 in Case R 1112/2014-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 4 December 2014 of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 1112/2014-5 in so far as in upholding in part the appeal brought by the applicant for the trade mark at issue, it overturned the Opposition Division’s decision upholding in part Opposition B 2 0 54  040 and refusing in part Community trade mark No 10 884 741 ‘Supeco’ (figurative); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 4 December 2014 of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 1112/2014-5 in so far as in upholding in part the appeal brought by the applicant for the trade mark at issue, it overturned the Opposition Division’s decision upholding in part Opposition B 2 0 54  040 and refusing in part Community trade mark No 10 884 741 ‘Supeco’ (figurative); and

| — | order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2015328EN.01003501.xml

| 5.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/35

---

Action brought on 12 August 2015 — L’Oréal v OHIm — LR Health & Beauty Systems (LR)

(Case T-475/15)

(2015/C 328/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Dissmann, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘LR’ — Community trade mark No 11 047 578

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2015 in Case R 1143/2014-1

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partly annul the contested decision as far as the Board of Appeal rejects under point 2 the Plaintiff’s request for proof of use of the Intervener’s earlier trademarks as belated; |
| --- | --- |

—

partly annul the contested decision as far as the Board of Appeal rejects under point 2 the Plaintiff’s request for proof of use of the Intervener’s earlier trademarks as belated;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the court as well as the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the court as well as the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 57(2), (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 in connection with Rule 40 of Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 57(2), (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 in connection with Rule 40 of Regulation No 2868/95.

---
Before the Third Division,

October 29, 1952

No. 56917.

#### United Sales Agency *v.*United States,

protests 116139-K, etc. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 12.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Jacques Espinasse, Chief Financial Officer of Vivendi Universal S.A., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Vivendi Universal S.A. (the“Registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: June 29, 2005 /s/ Jacques Espinasse   Jacques Espinasse   Chief Financial Officer
VT4e

B First South Bank me °°
4

Ms. Cynthia L. Johnson, Director

Cash Management Policy & Planning Division

Financial Management Service, Room 420

401 14th Street, SW

Washington, D.C. 20227 August 18, 1999

Re: Proposed Amendment to Treasury Tax & Loan Rate of Interest

Dear Ms. Johnson:

Should the Treasury decide to begin using a published overnight repurchase agreement
rate to establish the interest rate charged on TT&L balances, this bank would revert to a
remittance option depository. Since TT&L balances are invested in overnight fed funds, I
would find it a little difficult to justify earning a lower, or even similar, interest rate than
the bank would be paying for these funds.

If the Treasury is truly considering this change to approximate the market interest rate for
collateralized lending, maybe some consideration should be given also to a realistic
reimbursement to financial institutions for their cost of collection, processing, and
remittance of TT&L payments.

Yours truly,

| feos ek,

V. Lewis Shuler
Executive Vice President / CFO

P. O. Box 1928 = Spartanburg, South Carolina 29304-1928 = (864) 573-9955 = Fax (864) 573-0093
# Official Journal C 350A/2011

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2011.350.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 350A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 541 December 2011 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2011.350.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 350A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 541 December 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2011/C 350A/01 | Notice of open competitions — EPSO/AST/118/11 — Assistants (AST 3) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2011/C 350A/01

Notice of open competitions — EPSO/AST/118/11 — Assistants (AST 3)

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 19 | (PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 24 | |
| 35 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 37 | (PL/RO) |
| 60 | |
| 68 | |
| 76 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 82 | |
| 91 | |
| 98 | |
| 114 | (DA) |
| 121 | (DA) |
| 122 | |
| 135 | |
| 140 | (BG/ET/HU/MT/PL/SL/SV) |
| 142 | |
| 146 | |
| 147 | (EN/IT/MT/SV) |
| 155 | (EN/ES/ET/FR/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |
| 156 | |
| 157 | |
| 162 | |
| 169 | (EN) |
| 177 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 180 | (BG/RO) |
| 181 | (DA) |
| 183 | (SL) |
| 185 | |
| 193 | (BG/RO) |
| 198 | (CS/HU/LT/MT/PL/SK) |
| 206 | (CS/ES/LV/MT/SV) |
| 208 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 221 | |
| 222 | (BG/RO) |
| 223 | |
| 229 | |
| 257 | |
| 258 | |
| 270 | |
| 271 | |
| 278 | (EN) |
| 279 | (FR) |
| 281 | (DA) |
| 284 | (DE) |
| 285 | (LT) |
| 286 | (NL) |
| 292 | (RO) |
| 294 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 303 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 304 | (DA/EN) |
| 307 | |
| 309 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 312 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 315 | |
| 321 | (EN/FR) |
| 324 | |
| 330 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 334 | |
| 336 | (EL/EN/ET/FI/FR/GA/HU/IT) |
| 339 | |
| 344 | |
| 350 | |

19

(PL)

24

35

(DE/EN/FR)

37

(PL/RO)

60

68

76

(DE/EN/FR)

82

91

98

114

(DA)

121

(DA)

122

135

140

(BG/ET/HU/MT/PL/SL/SV)

142

146

147

(EN/IT/MT/SV)

155

(EN/ES/ET/FR/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

156

157

162

169

(EN)

177

(DE/EN/FR)

180

(BG/RO)

181

(DA)

183

(SL)

185

193

(BG/RO)

198

(CS/HU/LT/MT/PL/SK)

206

(CS/ES/LV/MT/SV)

208

(DE/EN/FR)

221

222

(BG/RO)

223

229

257

258

270

271

278

(EN)

279

(FR)

281

(DA)

284

(DE)

285

(LT)

286

(NL)

292

(RO)

294

(DE/EN/FR)

303

(DE/EN/FR)

304

(DA/EN)

307

309

(DE/EN/FR)

312

(DE/EN/FR)

315

321

(EN/FR)

324

330

(DE/EN/FR)

334

336

(EL/EN/ET/FI/FR/GA/HU/IT)

339

344

350

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
No. 59965.

#### Ore Reduction Company *v.*United States,

protest 204796-K (Nogales).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

As to 10 of the 18 entries covered by the protest herein, the provisions of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1514), were not complied with. Accordingly, the protest, insofar as it related to entries 68, 87, 101, 138, 167, 168, and 169, not having been filed within the 60-day statutory *451period, was dismissed. There being nothing in the record tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification of the collector, the protest was overruled as to entries 132, 144, 155, 156, 246, 265, 344, and 387.
No. 50328.

#### Protest 97089-K of James C. Gabriel (New York).

Ekwall, Judge:

This is a protest directed against the refusal of the collector of customs at the port of New York to reliquidate an entry of merchandise in conformity with the judgment of this court rendered upon a petition for the remission of additional duties under section 489, Tariff Act of 1930. The facts as they appear from the record are as follows:

The plaintiff herein in making entry failed to include an item representing export duty in his entered value. The appraiser found the item was properly a part of the entered value and upon appeal to reappraisemént that action was sustained (Reap. Dec. 4659).

Thereafter the importer, the plaintiff herein, attempted to file a petition for remission with the collector. He was advised by the customs authorities that such petition was not in the proper form and not properly filed and further that if he would call at either the collector’s office or the office of the clerk of the Customs Court, the proper form and method of filing a petition would be explained to him.

The importer apparently misunderstood this advice and failed to take 'advantage of it within the time allowed by the statute for filing of petitions for remission. However, he did file a petition with the court at a later date, which was granted- (Abstract 45414). More than a year after this decision of the court was rendered, the Government filed a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment rendered and that a new judgment be entered dismissing the petition. The court denied the motion on the ground that it was filed too late in that the court no longer had jurisdiction over the subject matter, and in the order denying the motion stated that the collector’s failure to reliquidate was proper. (See C. D. 671.)

From the statements of the plaintiff at the hearing of the instant protest it is apparent that the customs officials attempted to assist him in filing his petition for remission but that he had no attorney and misunderstood the advice given him. While such a situation is unfortunate there is no relief that can be granted under the circumstances. We are therefore constrained to overrule the protest.

Judgment will be rendered for the defendant.
# Map            Bosnia and Herzegovina.
# C_2015414EN.01003302.xml

| 14.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/33

---

Action brought on 5 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM (Representation of a peace symbol)

(Case T-583/15)

(2015/C 414/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a peace symbol) — Application for registration No 11 363 611

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 July 2015 in Case R 2788/2014-2

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | remit the Applicant’s case back to the Second Board of Appeal for a decision on the substance of the Restitutio Application in relation to the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 11 December 2013 in Case R 1285/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the Applicant’s case back to the Second Board of Appeal for a decision on the substance of the Restitutio Application in relation to the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 11 December 2013 in Case R 1285/2013-1;

| — | order OHIM to pay their own costs and those of the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay their own costs and those of the Applicant.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 58, 65(5), 75, 81(1) and 81(4) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 58, 65(5), 75, 81(1) and 81(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Rule 65 of Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rule 65 of Regulation No 2868/95.

---
No. 54551.

#### The University of Chicago *v.*United States,

protest 153177-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protest was dismissed.