alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 24272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8372]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 4-2007]


Foreign-Trade Zone 121 - Albany, New York, Application for 
Subzone, MPM Silicones, LLC, Extension of Comment Period

    The comment period for the application for subzone status at the 
MPM Silicones, LLC facility in Waterford, New York, submitted by the 
Capital District Regional Planning Commission (72 FR 6518, 2/12/07), is 
being extended to June 6, 2007 to allow interested parties time to 
comment on new information to be submitted to the FTZ Board in response 
to questions stemming from the April 18, 2007, hearing held in this 
case. Rebuttal comments may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day 
period, until June 21, 2007. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall 
be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at: Foreign-Trade Zones 
Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2814B, 1401 Constitution Ave. 
NW, Washington, DC 20230.
    For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9cd9f0f5e6fdfef9e8f4c3cbf4f5e8f9f1fdf2dcf5e8fdb2f8f3ffb2fbf3ea"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c184ada8bba0a3a4b5a99e96a9a8b5a4aca0af81a8b5a0efa5aea2efa6aeb7">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: April 24, 2007.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8372 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2016156EN.01003802.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (BIMBO)

(Case T-33/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark BIMBO - Absolute grounds for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 156/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2014 (Case R 251/2014-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign BIMBO as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SECOND
QUARTER REPORT TO SHAREHOLDERS THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       6,836,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              124,722,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,766,000)
<INVENTORY>                                108,912,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           253,115,000
<PP&E>                                     113,555,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (58,010,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             371,073,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      115,005,000
<BONDS>                                     28,550,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   145,415,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  69,954,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               371,073,000
<SALES>                                    129,552,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           129,634,000
<CGS>                                       84,907,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              106,955,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,012,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,074,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             16,593,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,823,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,770,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,770,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
        

</TABLE>
PROMISSORY NOTE


         For consideration received, Coaching Institute, Inc., 112 West Business
         Park Drive, Draper, UT 84020 (Borrower) agrees to pay Lona J. Hendricks
         (Lender) according to the following terms:


         Principal amount:                    $40,000

         Annualized Interest Rate:            9.75%

         Term:                                3 years

         Payment Terms:                       Monthly payments of principal and
                                              interest amortized over 36 months.

         Date of Loan:                        April 1, 1999


         This  promissory  note is secured  by the  general  credit of  Coaching
         Institute,  Inc., and at the option of the Lender, a security  interest
         may be filed securing the loan with the assets of the borrower.


         /s/ Craig J. Hendricks, Pres.               /s/ Lona J. Hendricks
         -----------------------------               ---------------------
         Coaching Institute, Inc.                    Lender
         Borrower
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 12, 2020

Order 

Clerk

February 12, 2020

159676(75)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 159676

v COA: 338418 

Macomb CC: 2015-001559-FC

CURTIS LEE HAMPTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time 

for filing his supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted 

as timely filed if submitted on or before March 16, 2020.
(Reap. Dec. 8419)

Entry No. N-1131, etc.

#### Spratts Patent (America), Ltd. *v.*United States

(Decided April 21, 1955)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

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

*486Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, present the question of the proper value of certain metal bird cages and stands imported from England.

The respective parties have submitted said appeals for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the metal bird cages and stands, and the issues, are the same in all material respects as those before the court in *Spratts Patent America, Ltd.*v. *United States,*32 Cust. Ct. 583, Reap. Dec. 8285, the record in which case has been incorporated herein. It has been further agreed that there is no foreign, export, or United States value, as those values are defined in section 402 (c) (d) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c) (d) and (e)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, for such or similar merchandise, and that the statutory cost of production of the subject importations is equal to the invoice prices less discounts of 2 per centum and 2K per centum.

On the agreed facts, I find that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (f)), is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the metal bird cages and stands here involved, and that such value is equal to the invoice prices less discounts of 2 per centum and *2}{*per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc., by W. J. Byrnes *&*Co. of N. Y., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 7419.

Invoices dated Stoke on Trent, England, February 8, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 5, 1946, etc.

Entry No. 750525, etc.

*280(Decided October 24, 1947)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

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

Johnson, Judge:

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

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) 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 are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Case No. 13,362.

#### The STEPHEN CROWELL.

[Cited in The Mary E. Taber, Case No. 9,209. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
March 11, 1955

Reap. Dec. 8404.

#### *A. N. Deringer, Inc.*v. *United States.*

Entered at Rouses Point, N. Y. Reap. Dec. 8390. Motion by plaintiff.
### Surface water supply of the United States, 1961-65, Part 13. Snake River basin

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1934

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 06-795V

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

*

ROBERT BEVILL *

and JANICE BEVILL, *

as parents of VB, a minor, *

*

Petitioners, * 

* Filed: August 18, 2015

v. *

* Decision on Attorneys’

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Fees and Costs

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DECISION (ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,1I issued a 

Decision on March 11, 2015. On July 30, 2015, Petitioners filed an Application for award of 

attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter. Petitioners’ Application requests a total payment of 

$4,351.18, representing attorneys’ fees and costs of $2,401.80, and $1,949.38 of costs expended 

by Petitioners. 

Respondent has not filed any objection to Petitioners’ Application for award of attorneys’ 

fees and costs.

I find that this Petition was filed and pursued in good faith and with a reasonable basis. 

Thus, an award for fees and costs is appropriate at this time, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) 

and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amounts seem reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I 

hereby award the following attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and 

(e)(1):

 

1 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2006). 
• a lump sum of $2,401.80, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioners 

and Petitioners’ counsel, Richard Gage, on account of services performed by 

counsel’s law firm. 

• a lump sum of $1,949.38, in the form of a check payable to Petitioners, 

which represents Petitioners’ own litigation expenses in this case.

In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of the 

Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in 

accordance herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED

 /s/ George L. Hastings, Jr.

 George L. Hastings, Jr.

 Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing the 

right to seek review.
No. 65739.

#### E. Dillingham, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 214319-K, 273648-K, and 214320-K (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Eord, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in use to thrown silk not more advanced than singles, tram, or organzine and following the principles set forth in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 71-6625.

#### Holt *v.*City of Richmond et al.,

408 U. S. 931. Motion to dissolve injunction granted by this Court on April 24, 1972 [406 U. S. 903], granted.

Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 01-2734

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

TWENTY ONE ITEMS VALUED AT $24,663.12;

TAG NO. BFX 264; TAG NO. BDS 136,

Defendants,

_____________________

ALFONSO CARDONA-ARREDONDO,

Claimant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Boudin, Chief Judge,

Torruella and Howard, Circuit Judges.

Alfonso Cardona Arredondo on brief pro se.

Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Jose Javier Santos

Mimoso, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

November 7, 2002
-2-

Per Curiam. As the government argues, claimant's attempt to

recover interest on funds and property which the government had

seized when claimant was arrested but which were ultimately

returned to him is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity as

explained in a decision issued during the pendency of this appeal.

Larson v. United States, 274 F.3d 643 (1st Cir. 2001); see also 28

U.S.C. § 2465. The version of the statute in effect when this

proceeding was commenced did not permit an award of any interest.

Id. at 647. Although a new version of the statute now provides for

the recovery of interest, the new version applies prospectively

only. Id.

 Claimant's argument that we previously mandated an award of

interest to him when we remanded the matter to the district court

is based on a misapprehension of the remand order (which permitted

the district court to explore anew the question of interest) and a

misunderstanding of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Since

sovereign immunity deprives the federal court of jurisdiction, it

may be raised at any time during the proceedings regardless of

prior orders in the case and regardless of a party's failure to

object on that ground. Id. at 648.

Claimant's arguments regarding his motion for the return of an

automobile which was not registered in his name, and his attempt to

obtain sanctions against the government are frivolous. 

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated above.
### Geohydrology of Finney County, southwestern Kansas

By: Walter Richard MeyerEdwin D. GutentagDavid H. Lobmeyer

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1891

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Case No. 8,610.

#### LUTHER v. The MERRITT HUNT.

[1 Newb. 4.] 1

District Court, D. Michigan.

1852.

Ex parte Deposition? — When- not Received.

1. An ex parte deposition, taken under the act of congress [1 Stat. 73]. de bene esse, will not be received unless all the provisions of the act be strictly followed.

2. When the officer taking the deposition ex parte, did not certify that the witness was “cautioned” as well as “carefully examined and sworn,” as provided by law, the deposition will not be received.

[This was a libel by Job S. Luther. A. A. Smalley intervening, against the schooner Merritt Hunt.]

Barstow & Lockwood, for Smalley.

Hunt & Newberry, for respondent.

WILKINS, District Judge.

When fhis case was called for hearing, the counsel for libel-ants, to sustain their case, offered to read certain ex parte depositions taken at Green Bay, Wisconsin. To this objection was raised, that the depositions were inadmissible, because the provisions of the act of congress [1 Stat. 73] were not complied with.

That part of the judiciary act providing for the taking of ex parte depositions, has ever been construed strictly. The act requires, that the witnesses “shall be carefully examined and cautioned and sworn,” &c. The act requires that the witness shall be cautioned as well as sworn. It does not appear from the certificate of the officer before whom the deposition was taken, that this was done.

The objection is sustained, and the deposition rejected. The cause will be continued, to allow the libelant to retake the deposition.
1 

## No. 04

- 15

- 00 519- CV

__________________________________________ I N THE C OURT OF A PPEALS OF T EXAS F OURTH J UDICIAL D ISTRICT S AN A NTONIO , T EXAS

__________________________________________ 

### EL CABALLERO RANCH, INC. and LAREDO MARINE, L.L.C., Appellants

,

vs. 

### COUNTY OF LA SALLE,

Appellee

.

__________________________________________ 

## MOTION TO DISMISS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

To the Honorable Justices:

Appellants El Caballero Ranch, Inc. and Laredo Marine, L.L.C.

respectfully request the Court dismiss this interlocutory appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

K ELLER S TOLARCZYK , PLLC 234 West Bandera Road #120 Boerne, Texas 78006 Tele: 830.981.5000 Facs: 888.293.8580 /s/Kimberly S. Keller Kimberly S. Keller SBN: 24014182 kim@kellsto.com Counsel for Appellants ACCEPTED 04-15-00519-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 11/9/2015 2:08:14 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On November 9 , 2015, I served a copy of this Motion on the

following via e

- service/e mail or f irst class mail:

Donato D. Ramos Donato D Ramos, Jr. L AW O FFICES OF D ONATO D. R AMOS Texas Community Bank Building

6721 McPherson P.O. Box 452009 Laredo, Texas 78045 Counsel for Appellee

Steven C. Haley M OORMAN , T

ATE , U RQUHART , H ALEY , U PCHURCH & Y ATES , L.L. P. 207 East Main Street P. O. Box 1808 Brenham, Texas 77834

- 1808

John H. Patterson, Jr. M ONTEZ & P ATTERSON 508 Thorton, Suite 4 Cotulla, Texas 78014 Co unsel for Non

- Party to this appeal, Grace River Ranch

/s/Kimberly S. Keller Kimberly S. Keller

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000102438
<NAME> USP REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST

<S>                             <C>           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,616,567
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  537,027
<ALLOWANCES>                                   202,459
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,165,800
<PP&E>                                      34,617,710
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,185,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,597,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,074,806
<BONDS>                                      9,449,202
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,880,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,193,522
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,597,530
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,470,229
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,577,468
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               348,518
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             640,126
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                904,117
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            904,117
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   904,117
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23

</TABLE>