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

- 1 3

- 368

- E June 27, 2013

Exemption No. 10 8 10 Regu latory Docket No. FAA

- 201 3

- 0427

Mr. James Janni Senior Research Manager

Pioneer Hi

- Bred International, Inc.

7300 NW 62 nd Avenue Johnston, IA 50131

- 1004

Dear Mr . Janni :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 8, 2013 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of Pioneer Hi

- Bred International, Inc. for an exemption from § 45.23(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption would allow Pioneer Hi

- Bred International, Inc. to use 1

- inch lettering for the word “Experimental” on its unmanned

aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good c ause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Pioneer Hi

- Bred International, Inc.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition . In Grant of Exemption No

. 10167 (copy enclosed), the FAA

found that due to the small fuselage, a very limited area existed for placing the id entifying

marks on the aircraft . I t is in the public interest to permit Pioneer Hi

- Bred International , Inc.

to use 1

- inch lettering for the word “Experimental” on its unmanned aircraft for conducting research to support agricultural production methods

.

H aving reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—2

• they don’t differ materially from thos e presented by the p etitioner in the enclosed grant of exemption;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to th e situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Pioneer Hi

- Bred International, Inc. an exemption from

14 CFR §§ 45.23(b ) to the extent necessary to allow Pioneer Hi

- Bred International, Inc. to use
1

- inch lettering for the word “Experimental” on its unmanned aircraft. This exemption is subj ect to the conditions and limitations described belo w.

Conditions and Limitations

1. The word “Experimental” must be displayed on the aircraft to inform all parties of the aircraft’s overall operating status.

2. The petitioner may use 1

- inch lettering at the location specified in the petition.

3. This exemption re mains valid for the Manta aircraft, N476XS, as long as the aircraft operates under a current experimental airworthiness certificate

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Frank P. Paskiewicz Deputy Director, Aircraft Certification Service

Enclosure
# C_2016326EN.01002502.xml

| 5.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — Reisenthel v EUIPO (keep it easy)

(Case T-308/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for word mark keep it easy - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 326/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Peter Reisenthel (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: E. A. Busse, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2015 (Case R 2659/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign keep it easy as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Peter Reisenthel to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Peter Reisenthel to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.

1

---
No. 56128.

protest 132159-K/1151 (Chicago).

#### Schenley Import Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. '
#### S. Stern Henry & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6727.

Entry No. 17216, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, March 1946, etc.

Certified March 27, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 22, 1946, etc.

(Decided January 8, 1947)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183 C. A. D. 334.

The agreed set of facts, embodied in the stipulation of submission, establishes that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. •§ 1402 (d)) is the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values of the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made by the importers on entry because of advances in similar cases,
# C_2016335EN.01002201.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 — Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission

(Case C-270/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Aid granted by the Belgian authorities to finance screening tests of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in bovine animals - Selective advantage - Decision declaring that aid incompatible in part with the internal market))

(2016/C 335/29)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, assisted by L. Van den Hende, advocaat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.

1

---
No. 48703.

#### Protest 589708-G of Colon Hat Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

At the trial the plaintiff testified that certain items consist of harvest hats similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). In accordance therewith the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) was sustained as to those items.
No. 53203.

#### J. *&*I. Block Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 140252-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

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

          - [Public Notice 5675] 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 620(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (FAA), and by Executive Order 12163, as amended, I hereby determine that assistance to the Democratic Republic of Congo is in the national interest of the United States and thereby waive, with respect to that country, the application of section 620(q) of the FAA. 

                    This determination shall be reported to Congress and published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

Dated: December 11, 2006. 

Condoleezza Rice, 

Secretary of State,  Department of State.

 [FR Doc. E7-833 Filed 1-19-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-26-P
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                       UGI UTILITIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
        COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES - EXHIBIT 12.1
                             (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three
                                                     Months
                                                     Ended              Year Ended September 30,
                                                  December 31,  ------------------------------------------
                                                      2003        2003        2002      2001       2000
                                                  -----------   --------   --------   --------   --------
<S>                                               <C>           <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
EARNINGS:
Earnings before income taxes                       $ 29,346     $100,599   $ 73,665   $ 79,568   $ 82,882
Interest expense                                      4,547       17,412     16,365     18,724     18,135
Amortization of debt discount and expense                57          244        287        264        218
Estimated interest component of rental expense          341        1,434      1,563      1,541      1,318
                                                   --------     --------   --------   --------   --------
                                                   $ 34,291     $119,689   $ 91,880   $100,097   $102,553
                                                   ========     ========   ========   ========   ========

FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense                                   $  4,547     $ 17,412   $ 16,365   $ 18,724   $ 18,135
Amortization of debt discount and expense                57          244        287        264        218
Allowance for funds used during
       construction (capitalized interest)                5            7         19         12         17
Estimated interest component of rental expense          341        1,434      1,563      1,541      1,318
                                                   --------     --------   --------   --------   --------
                                                   $  4,950     $ 19,097   $ 18,234   $ 20,541   $ 19,688
                                                   ========     ========   ========   ========   ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                     6.93         6.27       5.04       4.87       5.21
                                                   ========     ========   ========   ========   ========
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 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 of United-Guardian, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kenneth H. Globus,  President of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.
 
 
 Date:  August 9, 2010                                                                               By: /s/ Kenneth H. Globus
 Kenneth H. Globus
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 01-50989

WENDY PEET; ROXANNA MORITZ; STACEY MAXWELL

Plaintiffs - Counter Defendants - Appellants

VERSUS

AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN INCOME LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY NON-EXEMPT EMPLOYEES DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION

PLAN; AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY EXEMPT EMPLOYEES 401

(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN 

Defendants - Counter Plaintiffs - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas, Waco

W-99-CV-373

August 12, 2002

Before DAVIS, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Based upon our review of the record in this case and a

consideration of the briefs of the parties and argument of counsel,

we are satisfied that the district court did not commit reversible

error.

AFFIRMED.
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|  | 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. | Information                contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                September 11, 2008 | By:                                                                   | /s/ Rainer                H.                Bosselmann                                  |
|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    | Rainer                H. Bosselmann                                             |
|                                    | Chairman                of the Board and Chief Executive                Officer |

----
# Official Journal L 317/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.317.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 317 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5514 November 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.317.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 317

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5514 November 2012

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Regulation No 41 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor cycles with regard to noise | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Regulation No 41 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor cycles with regard to noise

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# C_2015294EN.01008601.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/86

---

Action brought on 3 July 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-98/15)

(2015/C 294/105)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 18 July 2014, which confirmed the applicant in his post as Head of Unit, in so far as that decision does not provide for retroactive recognition of the status of Head of Unit and the retroactive award of the increase in basic salary for his post (the management allowance), and the claim for damages for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Article 2 of the decision of 18 July 2014, insofar as it provides that the increase in basic salary relating to the appointment of the applicant as Head of Unit will take effect only after a period of nine months; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 2 of the decision of 18 July 2014, insofar as it provides that the increase in basic salary relating to the appointment of the applicant as Head of Unit will take effect only after a period of nine months;

| — | Annul the decision of 20 March 2015, received on 24 March 2015, rejecting the applicant’s claim of 29 August 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 20 March 2015, received on 24 March 2015, rejecting the applicant’s claim of 29 August 2014;

| — | Order compensation for the material and financial damage to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order compensation for the material and financial damage to the applicant;

| — | In any event, order the European Parliament to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.

---
# C_2015346EN.01000201.xml

| 19.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/2 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Državna revizijska komisija za revizijo postopkov oddaje javnih naročil (Slovenia) lodged on 18 June 2015 — Medisanus d.o.o. v Splošna Bolnišnica Murska Sobota

(Case C-296/15)

(2015/C 346/02)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Državna revizijska komisija za revizijo postopkov oddaje javnih naročil

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Medisanus d.o.o.

Defendant: Splošna Bolnišnica Murska Sobota

Question referred

| 1) | Must Directive 2004/18/EC( 1 ), in particular Article 23(2), Article 23(8) and Article 2 thereof, read in conjunction with
—
Directive 2001/83/EC( 2 ), in particular Article 83 thereof, —
Directive 2002/98/EC( 3 ), in particular Article 4(2) thereof, —
the TFEU, in particular Article 18 thereof, | — | Directive 2001/83/EC( 2 ), in particular Article 83 thereof, | — | Directive 2002/98/EC( 3 ), in particular Article 4(2) thereof, | — | the TFEU, in particular Article 18 thereof, |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------ | - | -------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------- |
| — | Directive 2001/83/EC( 2 ), in particular Article 83 thereof, | | | | | | |
| — | Directive 2002/98/EC( 3 ), in particular Article 4(2) thereof, | | | | | | |
| — | the TFEU, in particular Article 18 thereof, | | | | | | |

be interpreted as precluding a specification that industrially manufactured medicinal products must be ‘obtained from Slovenian plasma’, (a specification based on the domestic legislation of the Republic of Slovenia, namely Article 6(71) of the ZZdr-2)?

---

( 1 )  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

( 2 )  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

( 3 )  Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components and amending Directive 2001/83/EC (OJ 2003 L 33, p. 30).

---