alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

Action brought on 31 July 2006 — Select Appointments v OHIM — Manpower (TELESELECT)

(Case T-202/06)

(2006/C 224/105)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Select Appointments (Holdings) Ltd. (St Albans, United Kingdom) (represented by: G.R. Fernando, Barrister, C.J. Leech, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Manpower Inc. (Milwaukee, USA)

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Manpower Inc.

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TELESELECT’ for services in classes 35 and 41 (Assessment and training services in the field of telephone call handling)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Select Appointments (Holdings)

Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘SELECT’ for services in classes 35 and 41 — application No 2 111 367 (employment agency, consultancy, information on job opportunities, advertising and personnel management services)

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as, according to the applicant, the likelihood of confusion even in parts of the European Community justified the refusal of registration of the contested mark. Considering the average consumers do not necessarily speak English, the word mark would not have any significant meaning to them, as regards the part ‘SELECT’.

Moreover, the applicant claims that assessment services provided by the contested mark are encompassed by the wider employment agency services covered by its own Community trade mark.

----
# attribtable--OUTPUT

&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout	&"Arial,Bold"&9Draft	&"Arial,Bold"&10April 21, 2021
Before the Second Division,

September 18, 1951

No. 55885.

protests 130546-K and 133782-K (New York).

#### Brian Shipping Co., Inc., and Charles G. Beth Export Corp. *v.*United States,

*319Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the items of merchandise in question consist of watch movements similar in all material respects to those which were the subject of *United States*v. *Helbros Watch Co. et al.*(38 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 430). Upon the agreed statement of facts and the cited authority, the merchandise was held properly dutiable at the base rate of 90 cents each as watch movements more than 1 inch but less than 1.77 inches wide under paragraph 367 (a) (1), as modified, *supra.*
No. 60752.

#### Morey Machinery Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 246382-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that if the customs regulations had been complied with, the merchandise would have been granted free entry under paragraph 1615, as amended, *supra,*and that the plaintiff has now complied with said regulations. In view of the stipulation and following Abstract 57104, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Engineers

We
refer to our report auditing estimates of the natural gas, natural gas liquids and oil reserves attributable to Husky Energy Inc. (the Company) as of December 31, 2016 (the Report).

We hereby consent to the use and reference to our name and the Report described or incorporated by reference in the Companys Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 and the Companys registration statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-187135)
and Form F-10 (File No. 333-208443), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as applicable.



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|Sincerely,                                             
|                                                       
|Sproule Associates Limited                             
|                                                       
|/s/ Cameron P. Six, P. Eng.                            
|Cameron P. Six, P.Eng.                                 
|Vice President Engineering, Chief Engineer and Director
|                                                       
|February 24, 2017                                      
|Calgary, Alberta, Canada
----

----

I Mededelingen

Commissie

----

Mededeling van de Commissie in het kader van de uitvoering van Richtlijn 73/23/EEG van de Raad van 19 februari 1973 betreffende de onderlinge aanpassing van de wettelijke voorschriften der lidstaten inzake elektrisch materiaal bestemd voor gebruik binnen bepaalde spanningsgrenzen

(2006/C 208/01)

(Voor de EER relevante tekst)

(Bekendmaking van titels en referentienummers van geharmoniseerde normen in het kader van de richtlijn)

Voorbeeld: Voor EN 50065-4-2:2001 geldt het volgende:

Deze lijst vervangt de vorige lijsten die in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie gepubliceerd werden.

----

(1)  CEN: rue de Stassart/De Stassartstraat 36, B — 1050 Brussels, tel: (32-2) 550 08 11, fax: (32-2) 550 08 19 (http://www.cenorm.be)

Cenelec: rue de Stassart/De Stassartstraat 35, B — 1050 Brussels, tel: (32-2) 519 68 71, fax: (32-2) 519 69 19 (http://www.Cenelec.org)

ETSI: 650, route des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia Antipolis, tel: (33) 492 94 42 12, fax: (33) 493 65 47 16 (http://www.etsi.org)

----
(Reap. Dec. 10362)

Entry No. 21111, etc.

#### Irving M. Sobin Co. et al. *v.*United States

(Decided November 5, 1962)

*Eugene R. Piclcrell*for the plaintiffs.

*Joseph D. Gtuilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, *for the defendant.*

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the Plaintiffs herein and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. The merchandise marked “A” and initialled AT by Examiner A. Turei consists of Sodium Perborate, exported from West Germany, which was appraised on the basis of foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938.

> 2. It is claimed that there is no foreign value as defined, supra, for such or similar merchandise, and that the merchandise should have been appraised on *437the basis of export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, supra.

> 3. The merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues in *TJ.S.*v. *Philipp Brothers Chemicals, Inc.,*A.R.D. 134 (decided June 13, 196T), wherein it was held that no foreign value as defined in section 402(c), supra, existed for such or similar merchandise, and that the proper basis of appraisement was export value, as defined in section 402(d), supra.

> 4. The record in *U.S.*v. *Philipp Brothers Chemicals, Inc.,*A.R.D. 134, be incorporated in the record herein.

> 5. Based on the affidavits and exhibits in the incorporated record, at the time of exportation of the merchandise marked “A” as aforesaid, the price at which such merchandise was freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principal market of Western Germany, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was that price indicated below for the appropriate period, less ocean freight and insurance:

> Price per 100 kilos Period

> 1952 $27. 56

> 1953 $25.13

> 1954 $30. 86

> 1955 $31. 97

> 1956 $30. 80

6.The appeals enumerated in Schedule “A” hereto annexed may be submitted on this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts and consistent with the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper, basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the prices embodied in the stipulation of submission, as hereinabove set forth.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 28, 2011

d1219 

# Order

December 28, 2011

143757

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143757 COA: 304830 Washtenaw CC: 97-008727-FH WILLIE JAMES McGRAW, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 30, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
Case 2:05-cv-25157-HB Document 6 Filed 10/23/09 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-25157-HB Document 6 Filed 10/23/09 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-25157-HB Document 6 Filed 10/23/09 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-25157-HB Document 6 Filed 10/23/09 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-25157-HB Document 6 Filed 10/23/09 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-25157-HB Document 6 Filed 10/23/09 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-25157-HB Document 6 Filed 10/23/09 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-25157-HB Document 6 Filed 10/23/09 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-25157-HB Document 6 Filed 10/23/09 Page 9 of 9
Part 2

SUPPLEMENT

DRAFT Fiscal Year 2023 Reporting

Section VII

ID

Simple or

 Special Name Type Description Rule

Has

Exception

120 SPECIAL

Restricted Use of USSGL 

422100 on Financing 

Accounts Compound

Reporting USSGL account 422100 

with Financing Account Code "D" or 

"G" is restricted to specific TAS. Fail Y

121 SPECIAL

Restricted Use of USSGL 

Account 421100 and 403500 Compound

The use of USSGL account 421100 is 

and 403500 are restricted to specific 

Department of Defense TAS only. Fail Y

Data Validations - Summary

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Bulletin No. 2022-16 DRAFT VII VSR - 1 IRC Handout 8/17/22
EXHIBIT 23 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our report dated November 4, 1998(except for Note K, as to which
the date is November 24, 1998), accompanying the consolidated financial
statements included in the Annual Report of Innovex, Inc. on Form 10-K for the
year ended September 30, 1998. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Innovex, Inc. on
Forms S-8 (File No. 33-14776, effective June 3, 1987, File No. 33-27530,
effective March 17, 1989, File No. 33-59035, effective May 2, 1995, File No.
333-10045, effective August 12, 1996 and File No. 333-10047, effective August
12, 1996.)




                                           \s\ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
December 23, 1998
No. 63599.

protests 73539-K, etc. (New York).

#### Standard Wine & Liquor Co., Inc. *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.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

v.

THEODORE H. LeBLANC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 

CRIMINAL NO. 05cr416-01

CIVIL NO. 11cv5577

ORDER

AND NOW, this 25th day of January, 2012, upon consideration of defendant Theodore

H. LeBlanc’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (document

no. 100 as to Criminal Action No. 05-416-01) and the government’s response thereto, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DISMISSED as untimely.

 /s/ William H. Yohn Jr., Judge 

William H. Yohn Jr., Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00416-WY Document 108 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 8612)

Entry Nos. 863695; 863287; 863696.

#### Asche Bandor Corp. *v.*United States

(Decided June 27, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto

> That the appeals to reappraisement set forth in Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, cover fancy glass bottles containing an alcoholic cherry beverage exported from Denmark.

> That the said bottles have been advisorily classified by the Appraiser as unusual containers and dutiable at 50% ad valorem under Par. 218 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

> That on or about the date of exportation the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Denmark for home consumption in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was Danish Crowns 2.80 each.

> That on or about the date of exportation the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for export to the United States in the principal markets of Denmark and in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade was no higher.

> That the appeals to reappraisement set forth in Schedule A are submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the fancy glass bottles containing an alcoholic cherry beverage, advisorily classified by the appraiser as unusual containers, and that such value was Danish crowns 2.80 each.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40908

Conference Calendar

ROBERT JESSE SMALLWOOD

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CV-28

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Jesse Smallwood, federal prisoner # 42708-080, filed this petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argues that: (1) his sentence is

unconstitutional in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), Blakely

v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000); and (2) that a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is inadequate and ineffective to

test the legality of his detention.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 24, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-40908

2

Section 2255 provides the primary means of collaterally attacking a

federal sentence based on errors that occurred at or prior to sentencing. Cox v.

Warden, 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990). A § 2241 petition attacking the

imposition of a federally imposed sentence may be considered only where the

petitioner establishes that § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to testthe legality

of his detention.” Id. (internal quotation and citations omitted). Smallwood

bears the burden of showing that a § 2255 motion is an inadequate vehicle in

which to bring his claims into federal court. McGhee v. Hanberry, 604 F.2d 9, 10

(5th Cir. 1979). Claims based on Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker do notfall under

the savings clause of § 2255. Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th

Cir. 2005); Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, Tx., 305 F.3d 343, 346-47 (5th

Cir. 2002). Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing Smallwood’s

§ 2241 petition. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.

2001).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1601 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1601

To amend the Fair Housing Act to establish that certain conduct, in or 
 around a dwelling, shall be considered to be severe or pervasive for 
purposes of determining whether a certain type of sexual harassment has 
            occurred under that Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 20, 2017

Mrs. Shaheen (for herself, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Franken, and Ms. Harris) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
            Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Fair Housing Act to establish that certain conduct, in or 
 around a dwelling, shall be considered to be severe or pervasive for 
purposes of determining whether a certain type of sexual harassment has 
            occurred under that Act, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Combat Sexual Harassment in Housing 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN OR AROUND A DWELLING.

    The Fair Housing Act is amended by inserting after section 807 (42 
U.S.C. 3607) the following:

``SEC. 807A. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN OR AROUND A DWELLING.

    ``(a) Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment.--For purposes of 
determining, under this title, whether unwelcome conduct of a sexual 
nature is sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a 
discriminatory housing practice based on hostile environment sexual 
harassment, any incident of conduct described in subsection (b) that 
occurs in or around a dwelling, shall be considered to be severe or 
pervasive.
    ``(b) Conduct.--The conduct described in subsection (a) consists 
of--
            ``(1) unwelcome touching of a sexual nature or groping; or
            ``(2) any other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that 
        is intended to be coercive, threatening, or intimidating.''.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Office of the Secretary

                    Section 30.18 of the Department of Health and Human Services' claims collection regulations (45 CFR part 30) provides that the Secretary shall charge an annual rate of interest, which is determined and fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury after considering private consumer rates of interest on the date that the Department of Health and Human Services becomes entitled to recovery. The rate cannot be lower than the Department of Treasury's current value of funds rate or the applicable rate determined from the “Schedule of Certified Interest Rates with Range of Maturities” unless the Secretary waives interest in whole or part, or a different rate is prescribed by statute, contract, or repayment agreement. The Secretary of the Treasury may revise this rate quarterly. The Department of Health and Human Services publishes this rate in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

The current rate of 12 1/8%, as fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury, is certified for the quarter ended September 30, 2023. This rate is based on the Interest Rates for Specific Legislation, “National Health Services Corps Scholarship Program (42 U.S.C. 254o(b)(1)(A))” and “National Research Service Award Program (42 U.S.C. 288(c)(4)(B)).” This interest rate will be applied to overdue debt until the Department of Health and Human Services publishes a revision.

David C. Horn,

Director, Office of Financial Policy and Reporting.

[FR Doc. 2023-24568 Filed 11-6-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150-04-P
Exhibit 99


                            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 Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust III (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch  Preferred  Funding III, L.P.
(the "Partnership") for the period ended September 27, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I,
John C. Stomber, Regular  Trustee of the Trust and Senior Vice President and
Treasurer of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General Partner of the Partnership,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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 Trust
    and the Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST III


                              By:  /s/ JOHN C. STOMBER
                              --------------------------------------------
                              Name:   John C. Stomber *
                              Title:  Regular Trustee




                               MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING III, L.P.


                               By: MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner



                               By:  /s/ JOHN C. STOMBER
                               --------------------------------------------
                               Name:   John C. Stomber *
                               Title:  Senior Vice President and Treasurer


Dated: November 7, 2002
_______________________

*  John C. Stomber functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of each of the Trust and the Partnership for
   purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.