alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014052EN.01003402.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Investrónica, SA v OHIM — Olympus Imaging (MICRO)

(Case T-149/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark MICRO - Earlier national figurative mark micro - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Power to alter decisions)

2014/C 52/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Investrónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Olympus Imaging Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: C. Opatz, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2012 (Case R 347/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Investrónica, SA and Olympus Imaging Corp.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 31 January 2012 (Case R 347/2011-4). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 31 January 2012 (Case R 347/2011-4).

| 2. | Allows the opposition with regard to the goods covered by Class 9 and corresponding to the following description: ‘Photographic apparatus and instruments, digital cameras, interchangeable lenses, and parts and accessories therefor as far as included in Class 9’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Allows the opposition with regard to the goods covered by Class 9 and corresponding to the following description: ‘Photographic apparatus and instruments, digital cameras, interchangeable lenses, and parts and accessories therefor as far as included in Class 9’.

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs, together with half of the costs incurred by Investrónica, SA. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs, together with half of the costs incurred by Investrónica, SA.

| 4. | Orders Olympus Imaging Corp. to bear its own costs, together with half of the costs incurred by Investrónica, SA. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Olympus Imaging Corp. to bear its own costs, together with half of the costs incurred by Investrónica, SA.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.

1

---
[WEBSITE  RESULTS  LOGO]


INVOICE

INVOICE  DATE:  06114199

TRAFFIC  INSERTION  ORDER:

Scott  Claverie
GoOn-line.com
25  Main  Street
Chico,  CA  95928

Tel-  530-891-4100
Fax:  530-896-8284

SEARCH  ENGINE  MARKETING  PACKAGE

1.  Keyword  evaluation  by Internet marketing specialist. 2. Creation of search
engine-focused  Smart Pages for multiple keywords/keyword phrases (creation of 4
Smart  Pages  per keyword). 3. Submission and monitoring of Smart Pages to Major
Search  engines  for  indexing  and  subsequent  traffic.

Total  Visitors: 9,000 Per Visitor $.15 Per visitor delivered to client site via
SmartPage  Technology  from  the  major  search  engines  wtih a total number of
visitors  not  to exceed 9, 000 unique visitors Retainer will be prepaid against
traffic  fulfillment  to,  Website  Results, at the agreed upon rate of $.15 per
visitor.  Website  Results and client will evaluate the traffic delivered at the
conclusion  of  this  campaign and create a Phase 11 thereafter. Website Results
services  are  ongoing,  however,  client  reserves  the right to terminate said
services  at  the  conclusion  of  the  "test"  campaign.

Total  Campaign:  $1,295.00  (Now  due  &  payable)

Respectfully,
Jeff  Reynolds
Website  Results
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-55364, Form S-8/S-3 No. 333-34202 and S-8 No. 333-42952)
pertaining to the 1998 Stock Plan, as amended, the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan, the 1999 Directors Option Plan, the Holographix Inc. 1996 Stock Option
Plan, as amended, and the Holographix Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan, as amended,
of Avanex Corporation of our report dated July 31, 2001 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Avanex Corporation included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2001.

                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Jose, California
September 14, 2001
No. 96-6007.

#### Campbell *v.*United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1697-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-1697-DR), dated May 1, 2007, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

May 7, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 1, 2007: 

Denton County for Individual Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

 [FR Doc. E7-9510 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
No. 96-5943.

#### Downs *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terry Youmans, Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 304]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.), rendered November 18, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, upon á jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable' doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court’s charge, when read as a whole, was proper *(see, People v Jordan,*187 AD2d 731; *People v Wise,*135 AD2d 593).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.
#### William E. GRAN, Shirley M. Gran, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.

No. 81-1312.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 17, 1981.

Decided Nov. 23, 1981.

*200William E. Gran and Shirley M. Gran, pro se.

John F. Morray, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, Daniel F. Ross, Stephen Gray, Attys., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before BRIGHT and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIES,* Senior District Judge.

*

The Hon. Ronald N. Davies, Senior United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

William E. and Shirley M. Gran, husband and wife, appeal from a decision of the United States Tax Court upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of deficiencies for the 1977 taxable year.

Taxpayers here, as in *Vnuk v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.,*621 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1980), created a “family trust” to which they transferred certain real and personal property and their lifetime services in an attempt to shift the incidence of taxation to the trust. Taxpayers contend here, as they did in the Tax Court, that conveyance of the “ownership” of their labors, not merely the “use” distinguishes this case from Vnuk, supra. The Tax Court rejected this argument as being without merit and we agree.

The remaining issue is whether Taxpayer could deduct, under § 212(2), the costs of the materials utilized in establishing the trust as an ordinary and necessary business expense or, as the Tax Court held, that none of the property transferred produced, or was intended to produce, income taxable to the Taxpayers and any expenditures were thus nondeductible personal expenses. The findings of fact of the Tax Court are not clearly erroneous and, as we perceive no error of law, the judgment below is affirmed.
_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130400-1 & (50) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

EMILE RIHANI, Individually and as Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Next Friend of DEENA RIHANI, a minor, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant, 

v SC: 130400-1 

 COA: 256921; 256941 

Lapeer CC: 02-031545-NO

L. D’AGOSTINI & SONS, INC., 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

GREELEY & HANSEN OF MICHIGAN, LLC, 

Defendant/Cross-Appellee, 

and 

CITY OF DETROIT,

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court. 

p0522 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

May 30, 2006 

Clerk
# C_2013026EN.01001802.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld (Germany) lodged on 9 October 2012 — NIPPONKOA Insurance Co. (Europe) Ltd v Inter-Zuid Transport B.V.

(Case C-452/12)

2013/C 26/32

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Krefeld

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NIPPONKOA Insurance Co. (Europe) Ltd

Applicant:

Defendant: Inter-Zuid Transport B.V.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 71 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters preclude an interpretation of a convention which is exclusively autonomous or are the objectives and principles of the regulation also to be taken into account when applying such conventions? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 71 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters preclude an interpretation of a convention which is exclusively autonomous or are the objectives and principles of the regulation also to be taken into account when applying such conventions?

1

| 2. | Does Article 71 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters preclude an interpretation of a convention by which an action for a declaration decided in one Member State does not preclude an action for performance brought later in another Member State, where that convention also makes an interpretation possible in that respect under Article 27 of Regulation No 44/2001? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 71 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters preclude an interpretation of a convention by which an action for a declaration decided in one Member State does not preclude an action for performance brought later in another Member State, where that convention also makes an interpretation possible in that respect under Article 27 of Regulation No 44/2001?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements(Form S-3 No. 333-109183, Form S-3 No. 333-110678, Form S-3 No. 333-113192, Form S-3 No. 333-117441, Form S-3 No. 333-117443, Form S-3 No. 333-125901 and Form S-3 No. 333-130091) ofAvanex Corporation and in the related Prospectus and the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-119690, Form S-8 No. 333-109917, Form S-8 No. 333-99645, Form S-8 No. 333-74124, Form S-8No. 333-55364, Form S-8/S-3 No. 333-34202 and Form S-8 No. 333-42952) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Plan, as amended, the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1999 Directors Option Plan, the Holographix Inc. 1996 StockOption Plan, as amended, the Holographix Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan, as amended, and the LambdaFlex, Inc. 2000 Stock Plan of our report dated July 30, 2004 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of AvanexCorporation for the year ended June 30, 2004 included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2006. 

 

/s/    Ernst & Young LLP

 

Palo Alto, California 

September 26, 2006
#### Myott Tharaud Corp. *v.*United States

No. 6508.

Entry No. 36149, etc.

Invoices dated Hanley, England, April 1944, etc.

Certified April 1944, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 9, 1944, etc.

(Decided November 13, 1946)

*B. A. Levett*for the plaintiff.

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

Keefe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 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 importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION






<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 30DC,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2010 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Edward Dale,  Principal
Executive Officer,  President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

         (1) The Report 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 the Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  August 30, 2011


/s/ Edward Dale
--------------------------------------------------
Edward Dale,
Principal Executive Officer, President, Chief Executive Officer

This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# C_2019295EN.01001301.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Italmobiliaire and Others v Commission

(Case T-523/15) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Retail food packaging market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Conditions for the granting of immunity - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Sales value - Ceiling for the fine - Length of the administrative procedure - Reasonable period of time - Ability to pay)

(2019/C 295/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Italmobiliaire SpA (Milan, Italy) and the six other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented initially by M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and A. Bardanzellu, and subsequently by M. Siragusa and F. Moretti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, A. Biolan, F. Jimeno Fernández and T. Vecchi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment, in part, of Commission Decision C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39563 — Retail Food Packaging) or, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fined imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Italmobiliaire SpA and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Italmobiliaire SpA and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Missile chefs: making meals for the missile field

By Airman 1st Class Alyssa M. AkersMinot Air Force Base Public Affairs

                MINOT AIR FORCE BASE, N.D.  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Minot Air Force Base website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Minot Air Force Base5th Bomb Wing91st Missile Wing5th Force Support SquadronfoodSubsistenceinventoryrations
**EXHIBIT
      13.2**





**WRITTEN
      STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


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


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**








In
      connection with the amended annual report of NB Finance, Ltd. (the “Company”), for the
      period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on Form 20-F on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jean Dagenais,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:





(1)  the
      Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/
                Jean Dagenais
              Jean
                Dagenais
              Chief
                Financial Officer




Dated: August 16, 2006





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company, and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.