alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015311EN.01005901.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/59

---

Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Hot-Can Intellectual Property (HotoGo self-heating can technology)

(Case T-407/15)

(2015/C 311/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: 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:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hot-Can Intellectual Property Sdn Bhd (Cheras, Malaysia)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘HotoGo self-heating can technology’ — Application for registration No 11 418 101

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 May 2015 in Case R 1028/2014-5

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;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 February 2014 in Opposition No B2178567; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 February 2014 in Opposition No B2178567;

| — | reject the opposed mark in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposed mark in its entirety;

| — | order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT



I, Ronald Shogren, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Shogi, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of December 31, 2003; and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: December 9, 2004


/s/Ronald Shogren
-----------------------
Ronald Shogren, President
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 78059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25176]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: November 29, 2023, ET.; 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

PLACE: Via Zoom.

STATUS: Meeting of the Advisory Council, open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
[ssquf] Call to Order
[ssquf] Overview of Meeting Rules by General Counsel
[ssquf] FY23 in Review
[ssquf] FY24 Priorities and Opportunities
[ssquf] Ethics Training
[ssquf] Adjournment

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Nicole Stinson, Associate General 
Counsel, (202) 683-7117 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ea84999e8384998584aa838b8cc48d859c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="472934332e29342829072e262169202831">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For Dial-in Information Contact: Nicole Stinson, Associate General 
Counsel, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#99f7eaedf0f7eaf6f7d9f0f8ffb7fef6ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c5abb6b1acabb6aaab85aca4a3eba2aab3">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Inter-American Foundation is holding this meeting under the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.

Nicole Stinson,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2023-25176 Filed 11-9-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7025-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2016048EN.01008201.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/82

---

Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

(Case T-686/15)

(2016/C 048/90)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

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: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in red and white colours containing the word elements ‘Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl’ — Community trade mark No 11 406 915

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015 in Case R 2517/2014-5

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;

| — | consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 915 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705; |
| --- | --- |

—

consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 915 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705;

| — | order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Erroneous interpretation of Article 15(1), 15(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) CTMR. |
| --- | --- |

—

Erroneous interpretation of Article 15(1), 15(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of AXT, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Philip C. S. Yin,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), that, to the best of myknowledge:

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: August 13, 2007 | By:    | /s/ Philip C. S. Yin    |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                   |   | Philip C. S. Yin        |
|                   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
# C_2021278EN.01003901.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Picard v Commission

(Case T-769/16) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Reform of the Staff Regulations in 2014 - Transitional measures relating to certain methods for calculating pension rights - Change in the rules following the signature of a new contract as a member of the contract staff - Definition of ‘being in service’)

(2021/C 278/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maxime Picard (Hettange-Grande, France) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas and M. Bertha, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the reply of the manager of the Pensions Sector of the Commission’s Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 4 January 2016 and, second, in so far as necessary, the decision of 25 July 2016 of the Director of Directorate E of the Commission’s Directorate-General Human Resources dismissing the applicant’s complaint of 1 April 2016 against the decision or lack of decision resulting from the reply of 4 January 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Maxime Picard to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Maxime Picard to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

---
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2013 - 0554 Directorate ID : 2012 - SW - 009 - AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model EC135 P1, EC135 P2, EC135 P2+, EC135 T1, EC135 T2, and EC135 T2+ Helicopters Number of H elicopters (U.S. Operators): 242 Helicopters in the US Registry. Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to detect wear in the main gearbox ( MGB) that could lead to a gear tooth rupture, failure of the MGB, loss of power to the main rotor, and subseque nt loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : With an average labor cost of $85 per work- hour:  Taking oil samples would take 1 work- hour. Assuming 2 samples per aircraft per year, we estimate a total cost of $170. No parts would be needed, so the total co st for the U.S. fleet would be $41,140.  A laboratory analysis of 2 oil samples would cost $200 per helicopter for labor and equipment, for a total fleet cost of $48,400.  Inspecting the oil filter element for a chip would require about a half - hour of labor for a cost per helicopter of about $43. No parts would be needed.  Inspecting certain teeth in the gearbox, performing a ground run, and inspecting for leaking oil would take 8 work- hours for a labor cost of $680. Parts would cost $196, for a total cost p er helicopter of $876.  If the oil sample analysis indicates metal chips, recording the results on the aircraft log card would take a half

- hour for a labor cost of about $43 per helicopter.  Examining the log card for any previously recorded chip indication s would be minimal.  Inspecting the chip detector for deposits would require about 5 minutes of labor for a labor cost of about $7.  Replacing the MGB with an airworthy MGB would require 8 work- hours for a labor cost of $680. Parts would cost $145,000 for to tal cost per helicopter of $145,680.2

Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flex ibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Chinh Vuong
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24873]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


International Product Change--Priority Mail Express 
International, Priority Mail International & Commercial ePacket 
Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a Priority Mail Express 
International, Priority Mail International & Commercial ePacket 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the 
Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.

DATES: Date of notice: November 13, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-
7820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 27, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail 
International & Commercial ePacket Contract 3 to Competitive Product 
List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-28 and 
CP2024-28.

Sarah Sullivan,
Attorney, Ethics & Legal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2023-24873 Filed 11-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v. KENNETH LESLIE JACKSON , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 14

- 0665 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2009

- 177562

- 001 The Honorable Michael W. Kemp , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent
Kenneth Leslie Jackson , San Luis PetitionerSTATE v. JACKSON Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined.

S W A N N , Judge:
¶1 Kenneth Leslie Jackson petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his untimely successive proceeding for post

- conviction relief

. Jackson contends that his counsel in his “of

- right” post

- conviction

relief proceeding was ineffective because he failed to raise an issue under Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). ¶2 We grant review, but we deny relief

. Jackson could have raised his claim in a timely second post

- conviction

- relief proceeding. 1 See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32. 4 (a). Further , Jackson’s “of

- right” counsel could not have raised a Miranda issue because a plea agreement w aives all non

jurisdictional defenses, errors and defects , including deprivations of constitutional rights that occurred before the plea. State v. Moreno , 134 Ariz. 199, 200 (App. 1982); Tollett v. Henderson , 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973).

1 A defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel in an “of

right” post

- conviction

- relief proceeding. State v. Pruett , 185 Ariz. 128, 131 (App. 1995).
##### 



Exhibit 10.1

AMENDMENT NO. 8

TO

LOAN AGREEMENT

AMENDMENT NO. 8 (Amendment No. 8) dated as of May 13, 2003 (the Amendment
Date) to the Loan Agreement dated as of December 30, 1998, as amended (the
Loan Agreement), among HORIZON VESSELS, INC., a Delaware corporation, HORIZON
OFFSHORE CONTRACTORS, INC., a Delaware corporation (together, the Borrowers),
HORIZON OFFSHORE, INC., a Delaware corporation (the Parent Guarantor), THE
CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC., a Delaware corporation (CIT), HELLER
FINANCIAL LEASING, INC., a Delaware corporation, U.S. BANCORP LEASING &
FINANCIAL, an Oregon corporation, SAFECO CREDIT COMPANY, INC., a Washington
corporation, TRANSAMERICA EQUIPMENT FINANCIAL SERVICE CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, PHOENIXCOR, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DEUTSCHE FINANCIAL
SERVICES CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation (collectively, the Lenders) and
CIT as Agent for the Lenders (the Agent).

W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Loan Agreement, the Lenders made available to the
Borrowers a loan facility of up to USD 91,397,845, as repaid and prepaid; and

WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Loan Agreement to amend certain
covenants thereof.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the receipt of a fee of USD 65,917 and
of the above recitals and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to
amend the Loan Agreement as follows:



| | 1. | Section 3.3 (o) of the Loan Agreement is hereby amended for
the calendar year 2003 so that the Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio
shall be:    
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |    | (a)                                                                                                                                     
|
| |    | (b)                                                                                                                                     
|
| |    | (c)                                                                                                                                     
|
| |    | (d)                                                                                                                                     
|
| | 2. | Beginning January 1, 2004, Section 3.3(o) Fixed Charge
Coverage Ratio will be as originally written.                                    
|
| | 3. | THIS AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO LOAN AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY
AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTERNAL LAWS OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK.

1
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 122 

To prevent homeowners from being forced to pay taxes on forgiven mortgage 

loan debt. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 12, 2017 

Mr. HELLER (for himself, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. ISAKSON, and Mr. MENENDEZ) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To prevent homeowners from being forced to pay taxes on 

forgiven mortgage loan debt. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mortgage Debt Tax 

5 Relief Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME 

7 OF DISCHARGE OF QUALIFIED PRINCIPAL 

8 RESIDENCE INDEBTEDNESS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section 

10 108(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amendVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:32 Jan 26, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S122.IS S122

rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 122 IS

1 ed by striking ‘‘January 1, 2017’’ each place it appears 

2 and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2019’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall apply to indebtedness discharged after 

5 December 31, 2016. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
|   | · | This      Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                 |

|   | · | The      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial position and results of operations of Western      Reserve Bancorp, Inc. as of and for the periods  presented. |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|        |   | /s/ Edward      J. McKeon             |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Edward      J. McKeon                      |   |
|   |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |   | November      15, 2010                     |   |

----
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ J. J. FritzName: J. J. FritzTitle: President andChief Executive OfficerDate: May 11, 2009/s/ JoAnn Sannasardo LilekName: JoAnn Sannasardo LilekTitle: Executive Vice President andChief Financial OfficerDate: May 11, 2009