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

Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Torresan v OHIM — Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe (CANNABIS)

(Case T-234/06)

(2006/C 261/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giampietro Torresan (Schonenfels, Switzerland) (represented by: Gianluca Recher, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘CANNABIS’ (application for registration No 1.073.349), for goods and services in Classes 32, 33 and 42.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG.

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: The applicant for the declaration of invalidity does not claim any trade mark right. The declaration of invalidity is applied for in respect of goods in Classes 32 (beer) and 33 (wine, spirits, liqueurs, sparkling wine, champagne).

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for declaration of invalidity partially granted, annulment of the registration of the Community trade mark as regards the products claimed in Classes 32 and 33.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement and misapplication of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and contradiction in the grounds of the contested decision.

----
1

 It is noteworthy that after improperly attempting to serve Mr. Levy at the wrong location

and after being provided his residential address, Plaintiff’s counsel advised the Court in a

conference call that Mr. Levy would be properly served, but failed to do so. 

U:\DOCS\pak\Transoce an-Holt-Marino\Re sponse Mot Rec onsid 10 -17- 03.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

JOSEPH MARINO : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff : NO. 02-4488 

:

v. :

:

SLS, INC. d/b/a HOLT OVERSIGHT AND :

LOGISTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, ET AL. :

:

 Defendants :

DEFENDANTS, SLS, INC. d/b/a HOLT OVERSIGHT AND LOGISTICAL

TECHNOLOGIES, TRANS OCEAN MARITIME SERVICES, INC., AND JOSEPH

LEVY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

NOW COME Defendants, SLS, Inc. d/b/a Holt Oversight and Logistical Technologies,

Trans Ocean Maritime Services, Inc., and Joseph Levy, by and through their counsel, Mattioni,

Ltd., and for the Response for Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment states as follows:

1. Admitted. 

2. Calls for no response from these Answering Defendants.

3. Calls for no response from these Answering Defendants.

4. Denied. There was no Summary Judgment Order entered in favor of Defendant

Joseph Levy to vacate. The Court in its October 3, 2003 Order denied Plaintiff’s Motion for

Default Judgment and dismissed the claim against Joseph Levy for lack of service pursuant to Fed.

R.Civ.P. 4(m).1 The Court did hold as a matter of law that neither SLS, Inc. d/b/a Holt Oversight

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 69 Filed 10/20/2003 Page 1 of 3
U:\DOCS\pak\Transoce an-Holt-Marino\Re sponse Mot Rec onsid 10 -17- 03.wpd

and Logistical Technologies nor Joseph Levy owed a duty of care to Plaintiff (Order, VI, pp. 13-

15; VII, p. 16, footnote 9). As such, the Court concluded that even if Plaintiff had demonstrated

good cause for its failure to serve Mr. Levy, Summary Judgment in favor of Mr. Levy would have

been granted on the grounds set forth in VI of the Memorandum. (Order, VII, p. 16, footnote 9). 

5. Denied. See response to preceding paragraphing.

WHEREFORE, Defendants, SLS, Inc. d/b/a Holt Oversight and Logistical Technologies,

Trans Ocean Maritime Services, Inc., and Joseph Levy, respectfully pray this Honorable Court

dismiss Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, and award costs and reasonable attorney fees to the

extent it deems proper and just.

Respectfully submitted:

MATTIONI, LTD.

BY: 

Faust Mattioni, Esquire

Paul A. Kettunen, Esquire

Mattioni, Ltd.

399 Market Street, 2nd Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19106

(215) 629-1600

Dated: 

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 69 Filed 10/20/2003 Page 2 of 3
U:\DOCS\pak\Transoce an-Holt-Marino\Re sponse Mot Rec onsid 10 -17- 03.wpd

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 69 Filed 10/20/2003 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:04-cv-00956-JAM-AC   Document 119   Filed 01/28/16   Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00956-JAM-AC   Document 119   Filed 01/28/16   Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00956-JAM-AC   Document 119   Filed 01/28/16   Page 3 of 3

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2020-12-21T09:23:57-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
EXHIBIT 12
<TABLE>
                                        INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY                       
                         COMPUTATIONS OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                     (Dollar Amounts in Millions)

                                                             Years Ended December 31,
Fixed charges:                                    1997       1996       1995        1994       1993
  <S>                                           <C>        <C>        <C>         <C>        <C>
  Interest expense...........................   $138.8     $122.4     $ 90.0      $ 46.9     $ 60.2
  Amortization of debt discount and expense..      2.0        1.5        0.8         0.4        0.7
  Rentals (one-third of rentals).............     25.5       22.4       21.6        18.8       19.4
  Capitalized interest.......................      3.3        4.6        3.6         3.2        3.1
Total fixed charges..........................   $169.6     $150.9     $116.0      $ 69.3     $ 83.4

Net earnings ..........................         $380.5     $358.0     $270.3      $211.1     $142.5
Add:   Minority income of majority-
         owned subsidiaries..................     17.3       18.9       14.5        15.1       13.6
       Taxes on income.......................    233.2      210.3      158.9       118.8       90.0
       Fixed charges.........................    169.6      150.9      116.0        69.3       83.4
       Effect of accounting changes..........       --         --         --          --       21.0
Less:  Capitalized interest..................      3.3        4.6        3.6         3.2        3.0
       Undistributed earnings (losses) from
         less than 50% owned affiliates......     16.2      (23.1)      33.3        33.3       40.0
Earnings available for fixed charges ........   $781.1     $756.6     $522.8      $377.8     $307.5

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges ..........     4.61       5.01       4.51        5.46       3.69
Undistributed earnings (losses) from less
    than 50% owned affiliates:
  Equity in earnings (losses)................    $19.4     $ 36.4     $ 36.6      $ 36.6     $ 42.1
    Less:  Amounts distributed...............      3.2       59.5        3.3         3.3        2.1
  Undistributed earnings (losses) from
    less-than 50% owned affiliates...........    $16.2    $ (23.1)    $ 33.3      $ 33.3     $ 40.0

</TABLE>
#### DeWayne GRAYER, Appellant, v. Janet RENO, Attorney General, Appellee.

No. 00-5254.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 29, 2000.

Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, SENTELLE and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. The court has determined that the issues presented occa*7sion no need for an opinion. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed May 24, 2000, be affirmed. Appellant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 constitutes an attack on the validity of his conviction and sentence. A challenge to a conviction or sentence must be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the court that imposed the sentence unless it is shown that the remedy is inadequate or ineffective. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2255. Appellant has not made the requisite showing. Furthermore, even when a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas remedy is available to a federal prisoner, he must seek the writ in the district where his custodian is found. *See Guerra v. Meese,*786 F.2d 414 (D.C.Cir.1986).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

IN RE: IMMODIUM ADVANCED

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

CIVIL ACTION Nos. 

02-4105

02-4149

02-4180

02-4197

02-4362

02-4386

02-4387

02-4476

02-4530

02-6797

02-6993

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2003, upon consideration of the attached request

dated June 25, 2003, it is hereby ORDERED that the eleven cases listed above shall be 

consolidated with Civil Action Number 02-4093 and every pleading filed in the consolidated

Immodium Advanced Class Action shall bear the following caption: “In Re: Immodium Advanced

Antitrust Litigation.

BY THE COURT:

 

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04386-MK Document 10 Filed 06/26/2003 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC WASHINGTON, U

.C _'()460

Mr. AdamM

. Sherman O'Keane Automotive Services P.O . Box 243 - 2312 Gravois High Ridge, M063049 

### Dear Mr . Sherman: 

# = 10 2010 OF FICE (?E RFSOURCE, CONSERVATION ANDRI :COVI :ItY

Thank you for your letter ofNovember 30, 2010 ; to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, regarding the Identification ofNon-Hazardous. Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste (NHSM) proposed rule. In your letter, you express concerns that the rule may impact the current used oil management systemand could have unintended consequences. I appreciate your interest in these important issues.' _ EPA does not want to reduce legitimate recycling of used oil : It is one ofmany non-hazardous secondary materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble specifically discusses the standards for management ofused oil used under 40 CFR Part 279. Used oil that meets the criteria is considered "onspecification;" that which does not meet the criteria, "off-specification:" Under the proposed rule, onspec used oil is considered a "traditional fuel," (i .e., is considered historically managed as a valuable fuel product rather than as a waste material) . Traditional fuels are not considered solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-spec used oil would not be considered a solid waste when burned as a fuel under the proposed rule. Off-spec used oil is considered a solid waste under the proposed rule and combustion units burning it would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe Clean Air Act for solid waste incinerators. This proposed approach would provide an additional measure of control to address the higher level of contaminants that could be present in off-Spec used oil . Under the proposed rule, offspec used oil that is processed into on-spec used oil would not be considered a solid waste: The Agency will promulgate a final rule based on all available comments, information, and data. Your letter will be entered intothe rulemaking docket (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329) : for consideration as the final rule is developed. Again; thankyou for your letter . If you have further questions, please contact George Faison of my staffat (703) 305-7652 or via email at 1'aisoli .george ~je aa. Si :ncerely,

Suzanne Rudzinski, Acting Director 

### Office ofResource Conservation and Recovery

Sustainable Use of Resources - Life Cycle Approach to Managing Chemical Risks " Sate; Environmentally Sound Waste 'vlanagement Internet Address (URL) - http.//w,~N-w .epa.g,ov _
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 96-60064

Summary Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN H. O’BRYANT,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

( 1:95-CR-33-D )

__________________________________________

August 14, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John H. O’Bryant appeals his jury conviction and sentence for

possession of methamphetamine with i ntent to distribute under 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C), possession of marijuana with intent

to distribute under § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(D), and using and carrying

a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense

under § 924(c)(1).2

O’Bryant conten ds that the district court abused its

discretion in refusing to allow him to present the testimony of a

Sheriff and an attorney who repr esented O’Bryant in prior state

drug cases, to support the theory that the state and federal

officers planted the drugs. Of course, review of a district

court’s evidentiary ruling is “high ly deferential”, and we will

generally reverse only for an abuse of discretion. United States

v. Williams

, 993 F.2d 451, 457 (5th Cir. 1993). The court did not

abuse its discretion in concluding that the witnesses’ testimony,

which concerned only the 1992 state drug case against O’Bryant, was

not relevant to the issues of O’Bryant’s guilt as to the charges in

the instant case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM O’Bryant’s convictions

under § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) & (b)(1)(D).

O’Bryant contends that his convic tion under § 924(c)(1) for

using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking

offense should be reversed based on the Supreme Court’s recent

decision in United States v. Bailey , ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 501

(1995). The Government counters that, although the evidence may be

insufficient post- Bailey to support the “use” prong of § 924(c)(1),

it is sufficient to support the “carry” prong.

But, because the jury may have rendered the guilty verdict

based on the pre- Bailey instructions concerning the “use” prong of

§ 924(c)(1), we REVERSE O’Bryant’s § 924(c)(1) conviction and3

REMAND for a retrial based on the “carry” prong. S ee United States

v. Fike, 82 F.3d 1315, 1327-28 (5th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED IN PART

and REVERSED and REMANDED IN PART
**Exhibit32.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersignedhereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of American BankNote Holographics, Inc. (the “Company”), that the Quarterly Report of theCompany on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of theperiod covered by the Report and the results of operations of the Company forthe period covered by the Report.

 

 

By: /s/ Alan Goldstein

AlanGoldstein

VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer and

ChiefAccounting Officer

 

Date:  November 12, 2004

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to AmericanBank Note Holographics, Inc. and will be retained by American Bank NoteHolographics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY ROY KEETON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0697 GEB JFM P

vs.

SERGEANT CAROLL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action. On July 19, 2006, plaintiff filed his third request for the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff's previous requests were filed on June 29, 2004 and April 13, 2006. All requests were

denied. In light of those orders, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 19, 2006 request

for appointment of counsel is denied. 

DATED: August 17, 2006.

/mp

keet0697.31thr

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 70 Filed 08/18/06 Page 1 of 1
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Agency CIRA Report

To view an Agency Check Image and Research Archive (CIRA) report, complete the following 

steps:

1. From the Reports tab, click Check Processing Reports. The View Check Processing 

Reports page appears. 

2. Under Business Reports, click Agency CIRA Report. The Agency CIRA Report 

parameters page appears as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Agency CIRA Report Parameters Page

3. Enter the search criteria for the report you would like to view.

Under Report Filters,

• Select the Date From date

• Select the Date To date

• Click Received Date or Captured Date

• Enter the Batch ID

• Enter the Cashier ID

• Click Yes or No to Include Subordinate OTC Endpoints
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

• Click Yes to generate a report that contains data for the selected OTC Endpoint as 

well as all of the lower level OTC Endpoints. 

• Click the No option to generate a report that contains data only for the selected OTC 

Endpoint.

4. Click an OTC Endpoint to initiate the report. The Agency CIRA Report preview page 

appears.

CHK denotes a check capture OTC Endpoint; TGA denotes a deposit processing OTC 

Endpoint; M denotes a mapped accounting code; an open lock denotes access 

permission; and a closed lock denotes no access permission.

5. Under Export as, 

• Select a PDF, Excel or Word

• Click Download

Or

• Click Print PDF Report

Click Previous to return to the previous page.

Application Tips

Application Tip

Additional Button
#### Nelson CORTES-CASTILLO, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-7034.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 27, 2001.

Before MICHEL, CLEVENGER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.

Nelson Cortes-Castillo moves for leave to treat his “brief of appellant” as his response to this court’s February 2, 2001 order to show cause why Cortes-Castillo’s appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs responds and moves to dismiss as untimely.

A review of the certified list reflects that the Veterans Court dismissed Cortes-Castillo’s case in an order dated July 7, 2000. A motion for reconsideration was filed on July 21, 2000. On August 8, 2000, the Veterans Court denied Cortes-Castillo’s motion for reconsideration and entered judgment. Cortes-Castillo’s notice of appeal was received on November 17, 2000, or 98 days after entry of judgment.

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), review of a final decision by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims “shall be obtained by filing a notice of appeal ... within the time and in the manner prescribed for appeal to the United States courts of appeal from United States district courts.” In district court cases involving the United States, the time period for filing a notice of appeal is within sixty days after entry of judgment. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1). “The time for appeal is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional.’ ” *Kraft, Inc. v. United States,*85 F.3d 602, 604 (Fed.Cir.1996), quoting *Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.,*486 U.S. 196, 203, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 100 L.Ed.2d 178 (1988).

Cortes-Castillo argues that he did not believe that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims had decided all of his pending motions until issuance of the mandate on October 11, 2000. However, under the federal rules, the notice of appeal in this case was due within 60 days after the entry date of judgment by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, i.e., October 10, 2000, and not the date of the mandate. Because the notice of appeal was received on November 17, 2000, 38 days late, this court must dismiss Cortes-Castillo’s appeal as untimely.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Cortes-Castillo’s motion to treat his “brief of appellant” as his response to the order to show cause is granted.

*947(2) The Secretary’s motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed as untimely.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
No. 53528.

protests 144749-K, etc. (New York).

#### The Otto Gerdau Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4137 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to count a period of receipt 

of outpatient observation services in a hospital toward satisfying the 

3-day inpatient hospital requirement for coverage of skilled nursing facility services under Medicare. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 17, 2024 

Mr. BROWN (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to count 

a period of receipt of outpatient observation services 

in a hospital toward satisfying the 3-day inpatient hospital requirement for coverage of skilled nursing facility 

services under Medicare. 

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 ‘‘Improving Access to 

5 Medicare Coverage Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4137 IS

1 SEC. 2. COUNTING A PERIOD OF RECEIPT OF OUTPATIENT 

2 OBSERVATION SERVICES IN A HOSPITAL TO3 WARD THE 3-DAY INPATIENT HOSPITAL RE4 QUIREMENT FOR COVERAGE OF SKILLED 

5 NURSING FACILITY SERVICES UNDER MEDI6 CARE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(i) of the Social Se8 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(i)) is amended by adding at 

9 the end the following: ‘‘For purposes of this subsection, 

10 an individual receiving outpatient observation services 

11 shall be deemed to be an inpatient during such period, 

12 and the date such individual ceases receiving such services 

13 shall be deemed the hospital discharge date (unless such 

14 individual is admitted as a hospital inpatient at the end 

15 of such period).’’. 

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

17 subsection (a) shall apply to receipt of outpatient observa18 tion services beginning on or after January 1, 2024, but 

19 applies to a period of post-hospital extended care services 

20 that was completed before the date of the enactment of 

21 this Act only if an administrative appeal is or has been 

22 made with respect to such services not later than 90 days 

23 after the date of the enactment of this Act. Notwith24 standing any other provision of law, the Secretary of 

25 Health and Human Services may implement such amendVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:03 Apr 26, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4137.IS S4137

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4137 IS

1 ment through an interim final regulation, program in2 struction, or otherwise. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
May 12, 1959

No. 63078.

Suit 4945.

#### United States *v.*Quon Quon Company.

C.D. 1908 affirmed January 9, 1959. C.A.D. 699.