alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Markoff’s Tavern, Inc., Appellant *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee.

Submitted ou briefs, May 7, 1981,

to President Judge Crumlish and Judges Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three.

*392*Robert E. Lang, Salomon £ Lang,*for appellant.

*J. Leonard Lang an,*Counsel, and *James J. Fitzgerald, III,*Chief Counsel, for appellee.

July 7, 1981:

Opinion by

President Judge Crumlish,

The liquor license of Markoff’s Tavern was revoked by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for selling alcoholic beverages after two o’clock a.m. On appeal to the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court, the decision was affirmed. We now reverse and remand.

Clearly, Markoff’s was serving drinks after hours for it had a special pricing policy after two o’clock a.m.1 We find a procedural error below and must remand.

The trial Court erroneously ruled as irrelevant a line of questioning which was directed at ascertaining the inception date of the Liquor Control Board’s investigation. Admittedly, counsel’s questions were confusing in that they sought not only the inception date but also the identity of the Board member who authorized the investigation.

We have no quarrel with the trial court ruling that the identity of the Board member was irrelevant. However, for purposes of .Section 471 of the Liquor *393Code,2 the Court erred in not permitting Markoff’s to establish at what point in time the investigation began.

Section 471 provides:

> No penalty provided by this section shall be imposed by the Board or any Court for any violations provided for in this act unless the enforcement officer or the Board notifies the Licensee of its nature and of the date of the alleged violation within ten (10) days of the completion *of the investigation which in no event shall exceed ninety (90) days.*(Emphasis added.)

We have held that the purpose of a 90-day limitation on Board investigations is to preclude continuing investigations. *See Becker v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board,*44 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 616, 406 A.2d 1153 (1979). Because of the trial court’s error, Mark-off’s was unable to determine whether the Board investigation went beyond the statutorily-imposed time. Reversed and remanded.

Order

The Allegheny County Common Pleas Court order, dated September 26, 1980, is reversed and remanded to the trial court for proceedings not inconsistent with the decision rendered this date.

1

 This is not the first time Markoff’s has been before this Court. In *Markoffs Tavern v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,*56 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 594, 426 A.2d 172 (1981), we upheld a Board revocation of Markoff’s license for after hours sales.

2

 Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, *as amended,*47 P.S. §4-471.
**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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of 355, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, I, Alex Jen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of 355, Inc. hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:
| 1.     | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of 355, Inc. |

 
| By:    | */s/*   *Alex Jen*

Alex JenChief Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer

  |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
| Dated: | November 17, 2005 |
|--------|-------------------|
# C_2007199EN.01004301.xml

| 25.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/43

---

Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Vitro Corporativo v OHIM — VALLON (V)

(Case T-229/07)

(2007/C 199/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Vitro Corporativo, S.A. de C.V. (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vallon GmbH.

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

Form of order sought

| — | order that the subject matter of the action be registered as a Community trade mark to distinguish goods in class 9. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the subject matter of the action be registered as a Community trade mark to distinguish goods in class 9.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Vitro Corporativo, S.A. de C.V.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark consisting of a letter ‘V’ (application No 2.669.513) for goods and services in classes 1, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 30, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Vallon GmbH.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark No 51.037 (the letter V against a white background), for goods in class 9 (Apparatus for checking and supervising).

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for a Community mark for goods in class 9 rejected.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2007196EN.01000802.xml

| 24.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 196/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 196/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4477 — SES Astra/Eutelsat/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 196/03)

On 25 July 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4477. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4477. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
|    |                                                                                               |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Vera Bradley, Inc.; and |

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

|                      |
|----------------------|
|                      |  |  |
| Date: March 30, 2016 |   | /s/ Kevin J. Sierks |
|                 |   | Kevin J. Sierks |
|                 |   | Chief Financial Officer |
(Reap. Dec. 10535)

#### Unitron Import Corporation (Wiley) *v.*United States

Entry No. 46269.

(Decided June 10, 1963)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement is before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

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

> 1. That the above entitled appeal for reappraisement is limited to the merchandise shipped by Hasegawa Shoten Co., Hasegawa Blind Factory, and Ejima Serin Shokai from Japan.

> 2. That the said merchandise was entered through U.S. Customs on or about May 7, 1959 and was appraised under Section 402(b) of the Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, 2nd Session, said merchandise not being identified in the Final List published in T.D. 54521.

> 3. That at the time of exportation to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, were the unit invoice values net packed.

> 4. That the above entitled appeal for reappraisement as heretofore limited, is submitted on this stipulation.

*505On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165, and that such statutory value therefor is the unit invoice values, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 8900)

Entry No. 10884, etc.

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided July 10, 1957)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted *565for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED that

> 1. The merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of chocolate bars and other chocolate articles exported from Holland, the same in all material respects as those in *Bluefries New York, Inc.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 8470, wherein it was held that cost of production as defined in Sec. 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, was the proper basis of value.

> 2. The record in said Reap. Dec. 8470 may be incorporated herein.

> 3. At the time of exportation of the merchandise involved in the appeals for reappraisement listed in said Schedule A, there was no foreign value or export value or United States value for such or similar merchandise as defined in Sec. 402, Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, and the cost of production is therefore the proper basis of value.

> 4. The cost of production, as defined in Sec. 402 (f), (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, for the chocolate bars and other chocolate articles listed in Schedule B, attached hereto and made a part hereof, is as set forth in said Schedule B.

> 5. The appeals for reappraisement listed in said Schedule A are submitted on this stipulation and are limited to the items set forth in said Schedule B, and abandoned as to all other items.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise listed in schedule “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, and that such values were as set forth in schedule “B.”

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 1 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 2 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 3 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 4 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 5 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 6 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 7 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 8 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 9 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 10 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 11 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 12 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 13 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 14 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 15 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 16 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 17 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 18 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00261-EAS-MRA Doc #: 72 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 19 of 19  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-12T10:48:25-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Timothy P. Lynch, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tercica, Inc.; 

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 16,2004
EXHIBIT 31.1CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERI, Thomas D. Peschio, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Government Properties Trust, 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 of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) 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: November 3, 2005 /s/ Thomas D. Peschio       Thomas D. Peschio   President, Chief Executive Officer 
23
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

38 39 40 41



### ★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/16 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 16 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
# C_2007170EN.01003202.xml

| 21.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/32

---

Action brought on 25 May 2007 — Eurocopter v OHIM (STEADYCONTROL)

(Case T-181/07)

(2007/C 170/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eurocopter (Marignane, France) (represented by E. Soler Borda, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2007 concerning the application for a Community trade mark STEADYCONTROL No 3 560 935 (R 8/2006-4) in its entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2007 concerning the application for a Community trade mark STEADYCONTROL No 3 560 935 (R 8/2006-4) in its entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘STEADYCONTROL’ in respect of goods in Classes 9, 12 and 38 (application No 3 560 935)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of registration in respect of products in Classes 9 and 12

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (1) in so far as, according to the applicant and in contrast to the grounds of the contested decision, the word ‘STEADYCONTROL’ is not descriptive and allows the goods applied for to be distinguished.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994, L 11, p. 1).

1

---