alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9640)

#### Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 757571, etc.

(Decided March 22, 1960)

*Lamb & Lerch*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the Appeals to Reappraisement listed on the annexed schedule and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects to the issues in the case of *United States*v. *Freedman & Slater, Inc.,*39 Cust. Ct. Reports 717, A.R.D. 77, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised unit values of the merchandise involved in the cases listed in the annexed schedule less the percentage addition for shrinkage are equal to 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 the country from which exported 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.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise herein involved, and that such values were the appraised unit values, less the percentage addition for shrinkage in each case.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Exhibit 10.30



ADDENDUM TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT



This Addendum (the Addendum) is entered into as of January 1, 2006, by and between CALIFORNIA RADIATION
THERAPY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a California corporation (MANAGEMENT SERVICES) and 21stCENTURY
ONCOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, A MEDICAL CORPORATION, a California medical corporation (the PC). This Addendum amends Section 3.1 of the Administrative Services Agreement dated August 1, 2003 between the parties (the
Agreement) to adjust the monthly Service Fee of $39,583.33 paid in 2005 to a monthly Service Fee of $184,000.00 and replaces the Addendum of that same Section dated January 1, 2005. From and after the date hereof, Section 3.1
shall read as follows:



3.1. Service
Fee. For the services to be provided hereunder by MANAGEMENT SERVICES, the PC shall pay to MANAGEMENT SERVICES a monthly Service Fee of $184,000.00. The parties agree that the Service Fee represents the fair market value of the services provided
by MANAGEMENT SERVICES hereunder and that the parties shall meet annually to reevaluate the value of services provided by MANAGEMENT SERVICES and shall establish the fair market value thereof for purposes of this Section 3.1.



|          |  |                                                           |  |                             
|--------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Accepted: |  | CALIFORNIA RADIATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC.   
|          |  |                                                          
|          |  | By:                                                       |  | /s/ David Koeninger         
|          |  |                                                           |  | David Koeninger             
|          |  |                                                           |  | Vice President and CFO      
|          | 
|Accepted: |  | 21stCENTURY ONCOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, A MEDICAL
CORPORATION
|          |  |                                                          
|          |  | By:                                                       |  | /s/ Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.
|          |  |                                                           |  | Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.    
|          |  |                                                           |  | Vice President
# C_2012379EN.01001402.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/14

---

Appeal brought on 17 September 2012 by Industrias Alen SA de CV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2012 in Case T-135/11 Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (Cloralex)

(Case C-422/12 P)

2012/C 379/24

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Industrias Alen SA de CV (represented by: A. Padial Martinez, abogada)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: The Clorox Company and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2012 in Case T-135/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2012 in Case T-135/11;

| — | uphold the decision adopted on 16 December 2010 by the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and, consequently, reject the opposition lodged by THE CLOROX COMPANY; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the decision adopted on 16 December 2010 by the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and, consequently, reject the opposition lodged by THE CLOROX COMPANY;

| — | order THE CLOROX COMPANY, the opponent, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order THE CLOROX COMPANY, the opponent, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (1) on the Community trade mark (‘the CTMR’).

1

| — | Error of the General Court in the comparison of the signs CLOROX and CLORALEX. |
| --- | --- |

—

Error of the General Court in the comparison of the signs CLOROX and CLORALEX.

| — | Error of the General Court in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion. |
| --- | --- |

—

Error of the General Court in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

| — | Current coexistence in OHIM’s register of the term CLOR in Classes 3 and 5. |
| --- | --- |

—

Current coexistence in OHIM’s register of the term CLOR in Classes 3 and 5.

| — | Agreements for co-existence of the marks concluded by the parties in relation to the marks CLOROX/CLORALEX in other countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

Agreements for co-existence of the marks concluded by the parties in relation to the marks CLOROX/CLORALEX in other countries.

---

(1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**JEROME WRIGHT, SR. & HEIRS,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**EQUITY INDEXED MANAGED FUND,**
**LLC,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 77 EM 2016** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 20th day of July, 2016, the “Notice of Removal to the King’s** 

**Bench” is** DENIED

**.**
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1425 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to ensure fairness in election 

procedures with respect to collective bargaining representatives. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2011 

Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. RISCH, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. VITTER, 

Mr. HATCH, and Mr. COBURN) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to ensure fairness in election procedures with respect to collective bargaining representatives. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Representation 

5 in Elections Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELA7 TIONS ACT. 

8 Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

9 U.S.C. 159) is amended— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1425 IS

1 (1) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘prior to an 

2 election’’ after ‘‘in each case’’; and 

3 (2) in subsection (c)— 

4 (A) in the flush matter following para5 graph (1)(B)— 

6 (i) by inserting ‘‘of 14 days in ad7 vance’’ after ‘‘appropriate hearing upon 

8 due notice’’; 

9 (ii) by inserting ‘‘, and a review of 

10 post-hearing appeals,’’ after ‘‘the record of 

11 such hearing’’; and 

12 (iii) by adding at the end the fol13 lowing: ‘‘No election shall be conducted 

14 less than 40 calendar days following the 

15 filing of an election petition. The employer 

16 shall provide the Board a list of employee 

17 names and home addresses of all eligible 

18 voters within 7 days following the Board’s 

19 determination of the appropriate unit or 

20 following any agreement between the em21 ployer and the labor organization regard22 ing the eligible voters.’’; and 

23 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

24 ‘‘(6)(A) No election shall take place after the filing 

25 of any petition unless and until— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1425 IS

1 ‘‘(i) a hearing is conducted before a qualified 

2 hearing officer in accordance with due process on 

3 any and all material, factual issues regarding juris4 diction, statutory coverage, appropriate unit, unit in5 clusion or exclusion, or eligibility of individuals; and 

6 ‘‘(ii) the issues are resolved by a Regional Di7 rector, subject to appeal and review, or by the 

8 Board. 

9 ‘‘(B) No election results shall be final and no labor 

10 organization shall be certified as the bargaining represent11 ative of the employees in an appropriate unit unless and 

12 until the Board has ruled on— 

13 ‘‘(i) each pre-election issue not resolved before 

14 the election; and 

15 ‘‘(ii) the resolution, following a hearing con16 ducted in accordance with due process, of each issue 

17 pertaining to the conduct or results of the election.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.2

            PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Donald R. Mayer, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of WorldNet, Inc.
of Nevada;

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

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

4.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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
small business issuer and have:

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

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.


                             /s/ Donald R. Mayer
Date: August 8, 2006         ____________________________________________
                             Donald R. Mayer, Principal Financial Officer
No. 48166.

#### Protests 940919-G, etc., of Eurasia Import Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that some of the hats in question consist of hemp hats the same as those involved in *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218), and others consist of hats the same in all material respects as those involved in Abstract 46498. In accordance therewith they were held dutiable as hats of hemp, straw, grass, or ramie, not blocked or trimmed, and not bleached, dyed, colored, or stained, at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) as claimed.
No. 55559.

#### Albert Bonnier Publishing House, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 167664-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 95 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27835-27836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9513]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1695-DR]


New Hampshire; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-1695-DR), dated April 27, 2007, 
and related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 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 New Hampshire is hereby amended to include the 
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President 
in his declaration of April 27, 2007:

Belknap County for Individual Assistance (already designated for 
Public Assistance.)

Coos County for Public 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

[[Page 27836]]

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. E7-9513 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Charleston blockade: thejournals of John B. Marchand, U.S. Navy, 1861-1862 [electronic resource].**
PDF|Mobi|EPUB|
 
SuDoc Number:D 208.210:2

Item Number: 0408-A-02 (online)

CGP systemNumber:001083159 
October 23, 2018
# C_2014194EN.01002102.xml

| 24.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2014 — Beyond Retro v OHIM — S&K Garments (BEYOND VINTAGE)

(Case T-170/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark BEYOND VINTAGE - Earlier Community word mark BEYOND RETRO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 194/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Beyond Retro Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: S&K Garments, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2012 (Joined Cases R 493/2011-4 and R 548/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Beyond Retro Ltd and S&K Garments, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 January 2012 (Joined Cases R 493/2011-4 and R 548/2011-4) in so far as it concerns the goods covered by the word mark BEYOND VINTAGE in Classes 18 and 25 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 January 2012 (Joined Cases R 493/2011-4 and R 548/2011-4) in so far as it concerns the goods covered by the word mark BEYOND VINTAGE in Classes 18 and 25 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

| 2) | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3) | Orders Beyond Retro Ltd to pay one third of the costs incurred by the parties before the Court and orders OHIM to pay two thirds of those costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders Beyond Retro Ltd to pay one third of the costs incurred by the parties before the Court and orders OHIM to pay two thirds of those costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 30. 6. 2012.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      Sec.1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of O2Diesel Corporation (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “Report”),
      I, Alan Rae, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, David H. Shipman,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      to the best of my knowledge that:




(1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




Date:
      September 26, 2008




By:
            
            /s/
                Alan Rae
            
            By:
            
            /s/
                David H. ShipmanName:
            
            Alan
                Rae
            
            Name:
            
            David
                H. ShipmanTitle:
            
            Chief
                Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
            
            Title:
            
            Chief
                Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)




This
      certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company with the
      requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not
      be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than
      as
      specifically required by law.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to O2Diesel Corporation and will be retained by O2Diesel Corporation
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
# C_2012366EN.01002601.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/26

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy), lodged on 14 September 2012 — Anitrav v Roma Capitale

(Case C-420/12)

2012/C 366/46

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Associazione Nazionale Imprese Trasporto Viaggiatori (Anitrav)

Applicant:

Defendant: Roma Capitale

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Do Article 49 TFEU, Article 3 TEU, Articles 3 TFEU, 4 TFEU, 5 TFEU, 6 TFEU, 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU preclude the application of Articles 3(3), 8(3) and 11 of Law No 21 of 1992 [on the carriage of passengers by public non-scheduled car and coach services] in so far as the latter provisions respectively provide that ‘[t]he registered office of the carrier, and the garage, must be located, exclusively, within the territory of the municipality which issued the authorisation’, that ‘[i]n order to obtain and maintain an authorisation for a car- and driver-hire service it is necessary to have the use, pursuant to a valid legal title, of a registered office, a garage or a vehicle rank located in the territory of the municipality which issued the authorisation’ and that ‘[b]ookings for car- and driver-hire services shall take place at the garage. Each individual car- and driver-hire service must begin and end at the garage located in the municipality in which the authorisation was issued, returning to that garage, although the collection of the user and the user’s arrival at his destination may take place also in other municipalities’?

---