alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Caskey, John [mailto:Joh_Caskey@nema.org] 

Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 10:20 PM 

To: Brian Coffey; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bruce Smith; 

Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Silcox, Clark; Creevy, Jim; 

Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg 

Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; 

Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matt 

Miller; Matthew Nardotti; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Phil 

Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Richard Parker; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; 

Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; 

Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo 

Subject: NEMA transformer section comments regarding DOE negotiated rulemaking process and 

analysis for distribution transformers 

TO: Richard Parker, Brian Coffey, MVDT/LF Committee, LVDT Committee, NEMA Members, DOE

The attached comments are offered to the DOE, Navigant, LBL and the Committee members concerning

the negotiated rulemaking process for distribution transformer energy efficiency standards.

The basic points presented in the comments are:

1. We need to make sure that the analysis results provided by Navigant and LBL are validated

against know data from the manufacturers and users at EACH step of the analysis.

2. Any efficiency levels supported by the committees must provide for the opportunity for multiple

designs, materials and suppliers to meet those levels cost effectively.

3. Detailed technical analysis questions and comments were provided to the facilitator and

consultant directly from the manufacturers.

4. The consultants need to perform sensitivity analyses to better understand what variables are

driving the results of the analysis.

5. The efficiency levels selected by the committees should not disadvantage the small and

medium‐sized transformer manufacturers.  

More detailed comments and recommendations are provided in the attached document.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please let me know if you have any

questions.

Best regards,

John  

  

John F. Caskey, CEM

Assistant Vice President, Industry Operations

National Electrical Manufacturers Assoc. (NEMA)

1300 North 17th Street - Suite 1752 

Rosslyn, VA 22209

john.caskey@nema.org

703-841-3233 Voice

703-841-3333 FAX

703-350-6886 Cell
Register now at http://www.nema.org/illuminations for NEMA's 85th annual meeting, Illuminations 

Weekend, held October 28 and 29 at The Mayflower Renaissance Hotel in Washington, D.C.
# C_2016016EN.01004301.xml

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/43

---

Action brought on 3 November 2015 — Chic Investments v OHIM (eSMOKINGWORLD)

(Case T-617/15)

(2016/C 016/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Chic Investments sp. z o.o. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: K. Jarosiński, lawyer)

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: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘eSMOKINGWORLD’ — Application for registration No 12 581 741

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2015 in Case R 3227/2014-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in its entirety the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 25 June 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in its entirety the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 25 June 2015;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-17-00662- CV
In re Rolando Pablos, Secre tary of State for the State of T exas, and Ke ith Ingram , Direc tor, Texas Elec tions Divisi on of the Secr etar y of S tate

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY

O R D E R
P ER CURIAM

Relators h av e filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emer g ency motion for temporar y relief
. See Tex. R. App. P. 52. 1 , 52.10(a)
. We g rant the emer g ency motion and temporar ily stay all proce eding s in the underl y i n g case , including discovery and the temporar y -injunction hear ing set for October 16, 2017, pending further order of this Court. See id. R. 52.10(b). The Court order s the rea l parties in interest, L eag ue of Women Voters of Texas, Texas State Confere nce of th e Na t ional Association for the Advanc ement of Colored People, and Ruthann Gee r, to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or befor e October 23, 2017.

I t is so ordered O ctober

12, 2017.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Field, a nd Bour land
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEAN and LLOYD COPENHAVER :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4187

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04187-AB Document 8 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 309 Filed 10/15/10 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 309 Filed 10/15/10 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 309 Filed 10/15/10 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 309 Filed 10/15/10 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 309 Filed 10/15/10 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 309 Filed 10/15/10 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 309 Filed 10/15/10 Page 7 of 7
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Timothy D. Regan, Chief Financial Officer of Citizens First Bancorp, Inc., certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Citizens First Bancorp, Inc.;
2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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 information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
**(b) [This paragraph intentionally left blank.]**
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  March 16, 2005 /s/ Timothy D. Regan, CFO   Timothy D. Regan, CFO
Before the First Division,

February 6, 1946

No. 50875.

#### Protest 108038-K of American Import Co. (San Francisco).

*221Opinion by

Olives, P. J.

The merchandise consists of miniature boxing gloves in pairs, measuring about *2%*inches in the greatest dimension, and tied together with colored cord. Plaintiff’s witness testified that the miniature leather boxing gloves were invoiced and sold at wholesale as “leather gloves,” and that while he had seen these or similar articles used for decoration and novelty purposes, he had never seen them worn as costume jewelry. No testimony was introduced by the Government in support of the collector’s classification. At the close of the trial the Government moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that the importer had failed to make out a *prima facie*case. This motion was denied, the court holding that the testimony introduced by the plaintiff, and an examination of the samples, which are potent witnesses, were sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification. It was held that the articles are not commonly or commercially known as jewelry and are properly dutiable as manufactures of leather at 25 percent under paragraph 1531 as modified by T. D. 49753. *(United States*v. *Heinrich Herrmann & Weiss,*30 C. C. P. A. 47, C. A. D. 213, followed.)
No. 61233.

protests 115166-K, etc. (New York).

#### S. Bondar & Co. and William H. Emig et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists, of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *O. Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was, therefore, sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAMAR M. HAUPT, and :

CAROL M. HAUPT : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER :

COMPANY : NO. 02-2717

ORDER

AND NOW, this 21st day of July 2003, upon consideration of the Motion For 

Reconsideration of Defendant Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company’s Motion for Judgment as a 

Matter of Law and New Trial pursuant to Rule 50 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

(Document Number ), and upon recognition of the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 50(b), 50(c)(2), and 59(b), all of which are applicable to the motion at hand, it is 

hereby ORDERED that said motion is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

______________________________

Linda K. Caracappa, U.S.M.J.

Case 2:02-cv-02717-MAM Document 41 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 1 of 1
.app-icon {
    background-image: url(app-icon.svg);
    background-repeat: no-repeat;
    background-size: cover;
    background-position: 50%;
    background-color: #81BB5F;
}
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 9, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10148

Summary Calendar

DAVIE HARRISON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

A. DOMINQUEZ, Doctor; NFN BAXTER; C. C. BELL, Warden;

NFN FILLION; NFN SHORT; K. EVANS, LVN; H. LEDFORD, 

Officer; JESSIE CASTILLO, Officer; NFN BEACH, Captain;

NFN GREMSLEY, Nurse; RICHARD J. ROUCH, Gray County 

District Attorney; JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS 

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION;

JOE NUNN, Assistant Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:02-CV-160

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

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Davie Harrison, Texas prisoner no. 696677, appeals the

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a

claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Harrison argues that the

district court erred in dismissing his claim under FED. R. CIV.

P. 12(b)(6) before issuing service of process and that the court
No. 05-10148

-2-

used the standard of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Harrison’s argument fails

because the district court dismissed his suit pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915 rather than FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). 

Harrison also contends that defendants Dr. Dominguez and

Nurse Evans failed to provide him with adequate medical care and

that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical

needs.

Harrison has failed to allege facts to establish deliberate

indifference to a serious medical need as is required in order to

proceed under the Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See

Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Harrison

also argues that the district court erred in declining to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. 

Because the district court dismissed all of Harrison’s federal

claims, the dismissal of the remaining state claims was not an

abuse of discretion. Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d 234, 246

(5th Cir. 1999). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Harrison’s motions for a preliminary injunction pending appeal, a

temporary restraining order, and request for relocation are

DENIED.
No. 57167.

protests 74874-K, etc. (New York).

#### W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc., and Geo. Bernstein & Bro., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. *Ct.*266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph' 1681 was sustained.

Fobd, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at June 30, 2000 (Unaudited) and the Statement of Operations
for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2000 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      18,170,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,780,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (458,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    258,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,799,000
<PP&E>                                     352,490,000
<DEPRECIATION>                           (143,666,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             253,739,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,941,000
<BONDS>                                    331,774,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  8,290,000
<COMMON>                                       116,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (102,384,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               253,739,000
<SALES>                                     39,973,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,563,000
<CGS>                                       16,929,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,110,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,182,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          21,476,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,474,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,302,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             13,996,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,694,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       9.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     9.94


</TABLE>
No. 54564.

#### Mutual Trading Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 148765-K and 151081-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001051353
<NAME> SOURCE ONE, INCORPORATED

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,158
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,506
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,187
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,292
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,895
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,187
<SALES>                                          7,901
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,901
<CGS>                                            7,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,639
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,438)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,438)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,438)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.000)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.000)


</TABLE>
Department of the Treasury

Bureau of the Fiscal Service

Autorización para divulgar Información

Fax donde debe enviar documento: (314) 418-4121

Centralized Receivables Service (CRS)

1. Para: Departamento del Tesoro, Buró de Servicio Fiscal (Fiscal Service)

DE:

Nombre:(Alias o nombres anteriores) Dirección Postal:(calle, P O Box, ciudad, Estado y código postal)

Número de Seguro Social o Número de Identificación Tributaria Número de Teléfono Número de Fax

Yo autorizo a empleados, agentes y contratistas de Fiscal Service a divulgar mi información a la persona asignada abajo:

REPRESENTANTE:

Nombre del Representante: Dirección Postal:(calle o buzón, ciudad, estado y código postal)

Nombre de Compañía (opcional): Número de Teléfono Número de Fax

Divulgue cualquier y toda la información relacionada con un crédito adeudado por mí del gobierno de los Estados

Unidos.

3. Empleados del Servicio Fiscal, agentes o contratistas autorizados no tienen la obligación de informarme sobre la información divulgada bajo

esta autorización.

4.Esta autorización es solo válida por seis meses a menos que yo la revoque por escrito y la misma sea recibida y procesada por el Servicio

Fiscal en la dirección registrada siguiente:

CRS Servicing, P.O. Box 970014, St. Louis, MO 63197

5.Una fotocopia o facsímil de esta autorización firmada tiene el mismo valor y poder que la original.

La persona nombrada en el párrafo 1 debe firmar abajo. Si firmado por oficial corporativo, socio, tutor, albacea,

receptor, administrador, fideicomisario o partido distinto del contribuyente, certifico que tengo la autoridad para ejecutar este

formulario. Una forma 14 de Fiscal Service debe proporcionarse independiente para cada deudor.

Firma de la persona que autoriza la divulgación Fecha

Nombre y apellido de la persona que autoriza divulgación Título de la persona que autoriza la divulgación

Ley de privacidad: Recopilación de esta información está autorizada por 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a y 7701(c). Esta información se utilizará para identificar sus créditos debidos a las 

agencias federales que utilizan servicios de CRS. Esta información será revelada a personas autorizadas por usted. Divulgaciones adicionales de esta información pueden ser a 

las agencias federales recaudando su deuda o emisión de pagos a usted. El propósito de las divulgaciones adicionales será para verificar la exactitud de la información y para 

desempeñar la aplicación correcta de los pagos a los saldos y búsqueda de la colección de las cantidades restantes no remuneradas. Debido a que el número de identificación 

de contribuyente es su número de Seguro Social, recopilación de esta información es requerida por 31 U.S.C. § 7701(c). Si usted no puede proporcionar la información 

solicitada en este formulario, incluyendo su número de Seguro Social, el Servicio Fiscal no revelará a terceros información relativa a créditos adeudados por usted y a ser 

recaudados a través de CRS.

FS Form 14 (2-16) DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

BUREAU OF FISCAL SERVICE
Before the First Division,

January 28, 1952

No. 56305.

protests 173997-K and 173876-K (New York).

#### Forstner Chain Corp. and Henry L. Goetz *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 59439.

protest 252478-K (New York).

#### Gehrig Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled.