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

###### Agricultural Research Service 

# AGENCY:

Agricultural Research Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of intent. 

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Osprey Biotechnics Inc. of Sarasota, Florida, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 6,447,770, “Biocontrol Agents for Take-All”, issued on September 10, 2002. 

# DATES:

Comments must be received by June 1, 2007. 

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Osprey Biotechnics Inc. of Sarasota, Florida has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. 

Richard J. Brenner, 

Assistant Administrator. 

 [FR Doc. E7-8385 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 1 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 1

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 8, 2007

   Recieved and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     Regarding consent to assemble outside the seat of government.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That pursuant to clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, 
during the One Hundred Tenth Congress the Speaker of the House and the 
Majority Leader of the Senate or their respective designees, acting 
jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House

 and the Minority Leader of the Senate, may notify the Members of the 
House and the Senate, respectively, to assemble at a place outside the 
District of Columbia if, in their opinion, the public interest shall 
warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 4, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# C_2017014EN.01003301.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/33

---

Order of the General Court of 26 October 2016 — Vitra Collections v EUIPO — Consorzio Origini (Shape of a chair)

(Case T-455/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 014/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vitra Collections AG (Muttenz, Switzerland) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented: initially by P. Bullock, subsequently by D. Hanf and finally by D. Hanf and S. Bonne, acting as agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Consorzio Origini per l’Internazionalizzazione (Florence, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2015 (Case R 664/2011-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Consorzio Origini and Vitra Collections AG.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Vitra Collections AG and Consorzio Origini per l’Internazionalizzazione shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Vitra Collections AG and Consorzio Origini per l’Internazionalizzazione shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  
  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

---
# C_2017104EN.01004701.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Sales)

(Case T-517/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Sales - Lack of distinctive character - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 104/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1972/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Limbic® Sales as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1972/2014-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1972/2014-1);

| 2. | Orders that EUIPO shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that EUIPO shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 128 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.128
                                                  Agreed to May 23, 2007

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. COMMEMORATIVE DOCUMENT AUTHORIZED.

    (a) In General.--A commemorative document in memory of the late 
President of the United States, Gerald Rudolph Ford, shall be printed 
as a House document, with illustrations and suitable binding, under the 
direction of the Joint Committee on Printing.
    (b) Contents.--The document shall consist of the eulogies and 
encomiums for Gerald Rudolph Ford, as expressed in the Senate and the 
House of Representatives, together with the texts of each of the 
following:
        (1) The funeral ceremony at Palm Desert, California.
        (2) The state funeral ceremony at the Rotunda of the United 
    States Capitol.
        (3) The national funeral service held at the Washington 
    National Cathedral in the District of Columbia.
        (4) The interment ceremony at the Gerald Ford Presidential 
    Museum, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

SEC. 2. PRINTING OF DOCUMENT.

    In addition to the usual number of copies printed of the 
commemorative document under section 1, there shall be printed the 
lesser of--
        (1) 32,500 copies, of which 22,150 copies shall be for the use 
    of the House of Representatives and 10,350 copies shall be for the 
    use of the Senate; or
        (2) such number of copies that does not exceed a production and 
    printing cost of $600,000, with distribution of the copies to be 
    allocated in the same proportion as described in paragraph (1).
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
No. 53175.

#### Chong Kee Jan & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 984909-G, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
June 20, 1960

No. 64353.

Suit 4988.

#### Star-Kist Foods, Inc. *v.*United States (Bruno Scheidt, Inc., Party in Interest).

C.D. 2043 affirmed December 15, 1959. C.A.D. 728.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Wade Haufschild, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Liberty Expedia Holdings, 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 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 and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

c)    disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent 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 officers 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 function):

a)    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control 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 the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

|                                     |              |
|------------------------------------------|-------------------|
| Date:                                    | February 14, 2018 |
|                                     |              |
| /s/ WADE HAUFSCHILD                 |
| Wade Haufschild

Chief Financial Officer |

 

			 		

----
# C_2015429EN.01003003.xml

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/30

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2015 — GK and GH v Commission

(Case F-80/15) (1)

1

(2015/C 429/42)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24/8/2015, p. 58.

1

---
# C_2017382EN.01003701.xml

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Aanbestedingskalender and Others v Commission

(Case T-138/15) (1)

1

((State aid - Financing measures granted by the Netherlands authorities for the creation and introduction of the TenderNed electronic procurement platform - Decision finding no State aid - Non-economic services of general interest))

(2017/C 382/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Aanbestedingskalender BV (Ede, Netherlands), Negometrix BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), CTM Solution BV (Breukelen, Netherlands), Stillpoint Applications BV (Amsterdam), Huisinga Beheer BV (Amsterdam), (represented by: C. Dekker and L. Fiorilli, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and M. Noort, acting as Agents) and Slovak Republic, (represented by B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 9548 final of 18 December 2014 on State aid SA.34646 (2014/NN) (ex 2012/CP) — The Netherlands E-procurement platform TenderNed.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV and Huisinga Beheer BV to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV and Huisinga Beheer BV to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Slovakia to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Slovakia to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.

1

---
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOSEPH A. SMITH, Airman Second Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

10 USCMA 549, 28 CMR 115

No. 12,915

Decided July 24, 1959

*Lieutenant Colonel Robert O. Rollman*and *Captain John H. Leonard*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Robert W. Michels, Lieutenant Colonel Francis R. Coogan,*and *Major Timothy G. O’Shea*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

*550Opinion of the Court

GEORGE W. LatimeR, Judge:

A special court-martial convicted accused of assault with a means likely to produce grievous bodily harm, and being drunk in quarters, violations, respectively, of Articles 128 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 928 and 934. Intermediate authorities having affirmed the findings, we granted review limited solely to the propriety of an instruction given to the court members by the president.

Accused’s contention is directed against the same instruction which we considered in United States v Simpson, 10 USCMA 543, 28 CMR 109; United States v Blackwell, 10 USCMA 550, 28 CMR 116; United States v Davault, 10 USCMA 551, 28 CMR 117; United States v Tisdall, 10 USCMA 553, 28 CMR 119; and United States v Shomler, 10 USCMA 555, 28 CMR 121, all decided this date. As in those cases, we conclude that when the instructions are considered as a whole, there is no risk that the court-martial used an improper measuring rod in its deliberations. Accordingly, we hold that accused was not prejudiced by the president’s instruction.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

FERGUSON, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Simpson, 10 USCMA 543, 28 CMR 109, decided this day.
(Reap. Dec. 8389)

Entry *No.*1462, etc.

#### Charles H. Hornburg, Jr., et al. *v.*United States

(Decided February 10, 1955)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

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 here involved, and that such values were as set forth in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 54266.

#### Air Express Int’l Agency, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 154043-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 9821)

#### H. W. Robinson & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 803739, etc.

(Decided October 27, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson é Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

OlivbR, Chief Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the Schedule hereto annexed and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as the issues in *Paramount Import Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9697 and that the record in said ease may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS EURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in the cases listed in the Schedule hereto annexed less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Czechoslovakia in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, packed ready for delivery, and that the foreign values of such or similar merchandise were no higher.

In the incorporated case, it was held that the amount paid a foreign commissionaire for services rendered in connection with the purchase of merchandise in the foreign market, and which amount did not inure to the benefit of the seller, was a buying commission and, therefore, was not part of the dutiable value of the merchandise.

On the agreed facts and following my cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the appraised values, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### McKinney *versus*Page.

An award, made by referees, without notice to one of the parties, of their meeting to examine into the subject-matter referred, is' not binding upon such party.

The appointment of a person *“*to see whether” certain work was according to previous contract, does not confer the powers of a referee; and the opinion he might give would not be conclusive, but may be controlled by evidence.

Exceptions, from the District Court.

Assumpsit. It had been agreed in writing, that the plaintiff should build for defendant a barn of specified dimensions.

The defendant had made several partial payments, and this suit was brought to recover the balance for building the barn. *514The defendant introduced much evidence to show that the barn, had not been built in such manner as the contract required. Upon that point, it appeared for the plaintiff, *that*one Averill and one Morrell had been selected by the parties *“*to examine the barn and see if it was finished according to the contract,” “ to see whether the contract had been complied with”; *that*they made the examination in presence of the parties, and decided, that the barn was not done as the contract required; *that*they pointed out many deficiencies ; *that*sometime afterwards, without any notice to the defendant, or knowledge by him, they again examined the barn in company with the plaintiff, and indorsed upon the contract that it had been fulfilled by the plaintiff.

A witness also testified, that the defendant on a subsequent occasion, stated the matter to have been submitted to *referees,*by whom the point had been decided against him.

The Judge was requested to instruct the jury that, if the supposed referees, after having determined that the contract was not fulfilled, made a second examination without notice to the defendant and entirely *ex parte,*the defendant is not bound by their award. The Judge declined to give that instruction, but did instruct the jury, that if the referees made their award without fraud, and did not exceed the authority given them, their decision was binding and conclusive on the defendant though not present at the last examination.

Verdict was for plaintiff and the defendant excepted.

*W. Hubbard,*for the defendant.

*H. Ingalls,*for the plaintiff.

All the presumptions of law are in favor of supporting an award. An award of referees can be impeached only for corruption or partiality or for transcending their authority. 6 Greenl. 21; 13 Maine, 41-49 ; 17 Maine, 52, 54; 10 Pick. 348 ; 1 Peters, 222—22S; 13 Johns. 27.

Howard, J.,

orally.—The persons selected to see if the contract was fulfilled seem to be viewed by the counsel, as having the power of referees. If so, they could not without *515notice to the defendant, lawfully proceed to the examination, upon which their decision was to be founded. But they are not considered by the court to have been invested with the power of referees, and their doings therefore are not conclusive. Their opinion was subject to be controlled by evidence.

*Exceptions sustained.*