alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014202EN.01001901.xml

| 30.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2014 — Adler Modemärkte v OHIM — Blufin (MARINE BLEU)

(Case T-160/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MARINE BLEU - Earlier Community word mark BLUMARINE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 202/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Adler Modemärkte AG (Haibach, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Blufin SpA (Carpi, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, 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 Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2012 (case R 1955/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Blufin SpA and Adler Modemärkte AG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Adler Modemärkte AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Adler Modemärkte AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

| 3. | orders Blufin SpA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders Blufin SpA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.

1

---
No. 95-1694.

#### Regents of the University of California et al. *v.*Doe.

C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 518 U. S. 1004.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae*and for divided argument granted.
Order issued Octoberjte , 1997

In The 

## Court nfAppeals 

## 3fifUj Ststrtct ofOkxas at Dallas 3%% No. 05-96-OQS^-CR WAYNE NEAL THORNTON, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 6 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MB94-48351-G
ORDER Because appellant's briefhas not been filed within the time allowed, the trial court is ORDERED to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant's brief has not been filed and in this regard to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellantisindigent, or if not indigent, whetherretained counsel has abandoned the appeal, 

### and to make appropriate findings and recommendations. SeeTex. R. App. P. 38.8(6). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant's presence at the hearing, the trial court 

### shall conduct the hearing in appellant's absence. SeeMeza v. State, 752 S.W.2d 708 (Tex.

### App.--Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.)(per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may 

### be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. We order the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall 

### include written findings and recommendations, to this Courtwithin sixty (60) days of the
date of this order. 

### This appeal isABATED to allow thetrial courttocomplywith theabove order. The appeal shall be reinstatedsixty (60) days from the date ofthis order.

-2- LINDA THOMAS CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Josephine M. Fumerelle, Plaintiff, *v.*Broadway-Fillmore Parking Corporation, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Erie County,

March 17, 1966.

*Adams, Brown, Starrett \db Maloney (T. Alan Brown*of counsel), for defendant. *Gross S Shuman*for plaintiff.

Matthew J. Jasen, J.

Defendant moves for a protective order to vacate a notice of discovery and inspection served pursuant to CPLR 3120.

The notice served demands that the defendant 1 ‘ produce and permit discovery by the plaintiff, or by her attorneys, any and all reports of this accident which were made by the defendant, its employees and agents.”

Discovery procedure in an action for personal injuries requires that a proper notice for discovery must specifically designate the documents sought to be inspected with reasonable particularity.

*475Proper procedure requires that the plaintiff ascertain by means of an examination or otherwise whether there are statements of witnesses, and then to serve a notice to discover specifically identified documents. *(Rios*v. *Donovan,*21 A D 2d 409.)

Only then can a court intelligently and fairly determine whether discovery should be allowed or whether the document sought will be refused as constituting the work product of an attorney or otherwise privileged. (CPLR, 3101, subds. [b], [c].)

Upon the papers submitted the notice to discover and inspect should be vacated. Submit order accordingly.
# Tammi's UnffJfo6e Trave{ 

# * 6941 

# US :J{wy 191 

# * Lewistown, :Jvt.T 59457 406-538-4994 

## * Toll-free 877-953-4994 April2, 2013

Department ofTransportation 190 Terminal Drive Lewistown, MT 59457
Iam writing in support of keeping the Essential Air Service in Lewistown. As atravel agent, Isee the need from all types of people to be able to fly in and out of Lewistown. We have no otherdaily mode oftransportation in and out ofour city. I believe the Denver route would be more popularthan the Billings route is. I booked many more travelers when we had the flight to Denver, than Ido now, to Billings. There are a couple important aspects forthe local airline to consider.
• Having aticketing and baggage agreementwith the major airlines. Right now, SilverAirways does not have a ticketing or baggage agreementwith FrontierAirlines. This means travelers have to claim theirchecked bag in Billings and then go to the ticketing counter, check in with FrontierAirlines and re-check their bag to their destination. FrontierAirlines happens to have the lowest fares a lot oftimes so they end up having to pay higher fares out of Billings on anotherairline, ordrive to Billings and take the cheaper flight on Frontier.
• Having the flight out of Lewistown early enough to connect to the morning flights out of Denver. Iwould like to point out a couple major advantages with the SilverAirways fare structure. The fares are reasonably priced, refundable, and are the same whetheryou purchase 30 days in advance or last minute. Regarding the low boarding numbers, SilverAirways is not listed in the Lewistown phone book. Ithink itwould be beneficial to have the local airline listed in the Yellow Pages underAirlines so the community can find their phone number to book reservations. Every once in awhile, I have a traveler from Lewistown that doesn't know we have airline service in Lewistown. Thank you for your time and consideration. Ifyou have any questions, Ican be reached at406-538-4994. Tammi Crawford Owner/Travel Agent Tammi's Uniglobe Travel
# C_2013377EN.01001302.xml

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International v Commission

(Case T-147/12) (1)

1

(Customs union - Imports of preserved mushrooms from China - Decision finding no justification for the remission of import duties - Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Detectable error on the part of the customs authorities - Obvious negligence on the part of the importer - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Sound administration - Equal treatment)

2013/C 377/30

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Landry and G. Schwendinger, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Keppenne and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 6393 final of 16 September 2011 determining that remission of import duties was not justified in a particular case

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

1

---
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v BERNARD I. SCHWARTZ, Second Lieutenant, U. S. Army, Appellant

8 USCMA 731, 25 CMR 235

No. 11,019

Decided February 21, 1958

*D. George Paston, Esquire,*and *First Lieutenant James G. Garner*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee*and *First Lieutenant Jon R. Waltz*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

HomeR FERGUSON, Judge:

We granted the accused’s petition for review on the single issue of whether the law officer's reference to paragraph 76 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, on the court-martial’s sentence deliberations was prejudicial. The accused had been found guilty of conspiracy to commit larceny, and larceny, in violation of Articles 81 and 121 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 881 and 921, respectively. While instructing the court on sentence considerations, the law officer suggested that those members of the court “who are unfamiliar with the provisions of paragraph 76 of the Manual, appearing on page 121 of the Manual, briefly examine the provisions of paragraph 76 before you *732begin you deliberations on this case.” A similar issue presented in United States v Keyes, 8 USCMA 730, 25 CMR 234, was resolved in favor of the accused. See also United States v Starnes, 8 USCMA 427, 24 CMR 237; United States v Rinehart, 8 USCMA 402, 24 CMR 212.

For the reasons stated in those decisions, the accused’s sentence must be set aside. A rehearing on the sentence is ordered.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

LATIMER, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent. See my separate opinion in United States v Rinehart, 8 USCMA 402, 24 CMR 212.
# Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District

OCTOBER 13, 2015

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b).

1. Case No. SD33466

Re: MAYA ZAPATA GASA,

Movant-Appellant,

vs. STATE OF MISSOURI,

Respondent-Respondent.
Order entered December 19, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01125-CR

BILLY RAY PERKINS JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-00206-T

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On October 22, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why 

appellant’s brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the finding that appellant does not desire to 

pursue the appeal. 

We ORDER the appeal submitted without briefs and without argument as of the date of 

this order to a panel consisting of Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Lewis. See Tex. R. App. P. 

38.8(b)(4), 39.1.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 97 (Monday, May 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9680]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-445-000]


El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Petition for Declaratory 
Order

May 11, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 8, 2007, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El 
Paso) filed a petition for declaratory order pursuant to Rule 207 of 
the Commission's Rules and Regulations (18 CFR 385.207), declaring that 
El Paso's tariff does not permit prior period adjustments for 
measurement and invoicing errors occurring more than six months prior 
to the date that UNS Gas Inc. (UNS) disputed transportation invoices, 
and finding specifically that any erroneous invoices were not the 
result of a mutual mistake of fact.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated 
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or 
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve 
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a3e5e6f1e0eccdcfcacdc6f0d6d3d3ccd1d7e3c5c6d1c08dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cb8d8e998884a5a7a2a5ae98bebbbba4b9bf8badaeb9a8e5aca4bd">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Intervention and Protest Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time, May 30, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9680 Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
October 20, 1942

No. 47656.

#### Protest 965822-G of S. H. Kress & Co.

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
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

# Sustaining the Pack: 8 FW revitalizes base energy utilization

By Senior Airman Stefan Alvarez8th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

                KUNSAN AIR BASE, Republic of Korea  –              **Kunsan Air Base Note: This is the first article in a series designed to highlight innovative efforts, large and small, that are improving infrastructure at Kunsan Air Base. These both save the Air Force money and improve mission readiness for generations of Airmen to come.*Learn more about the Energy Savings Performance Contract.*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Kunsan Air Base website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Kunsan Air BaseEnergy Savings Performance ContractESPCenergy savings8th Civil Engineer SquadronHVACLEDLED lighting
Reap. Dec. 8967.

#### *F. L. Kraemer & Co.*v. *United States.*

[Not published.] Motion by plaintiff.
# C_2012184EN.01002502.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/25

---

Action brought on 2 April 2012 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

(Case F-44/12)

2012/C 184/55

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the proposals to transfer pension rights acquired before entry into service with the Commission on the basis of the calculation taking into account the new GIP entering into force after the applications for transfer by the applicants.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions rejecting the applicants’ complaints and requiring the application of the GIP and the actuarial rates in force when they applied to transfer their pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions rejecting the applicants’ complaints and requiring the application of the GIP and the actuarial rates in force when they applied to transfer their pension rights;

| — | If necessary, annul the decisions concerning the calculation of the pension rights acquired before entry into service with the Commission to be credited; |
| --- | --- |

—

If necessary, annul the decisions concerning the calculation of the pension rights acquired before entry into service with the Commission to be credited;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
```

[115th Congress Public Law 217]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 1546]]

Public Law 115-217
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  567 East Franklin Street in Oviedo, Florida, as the ``Sergeant First 
  Class Alwyn Crendall Cashe Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: July 24, 
                         2018 -  [H.R. 4840]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SERGEANT FIRST CLASS ALWYN CRENDALL CASHE POST OFFICE 
                              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 567 East Franklin Street in Oviedo, Florida, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Sergeant First Class Alwyn Crendall Cashe Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
First Class Alwyn Crendall Cashe Post Office Building''.

    Approved July 24, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4840:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            May 7, considered and passed House.
            June 28, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
No. 55592.

#### M. E. Dey & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 167094-K (Milwaukee).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
# C_2014421EN.01004201.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/42

---

Order of the General Court of 2 October 2014 — MPM-Quality and Eutech v OHIM — Elton Hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949)

(Case T-215/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949 - Earlier international and national marks PRIM - Bad faith - Article 165(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 41 and 56 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

2014/C 421/59

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicants: MPM-Quality v.o.s. (Frýdek-Místek, Czech Republic); and Eutech a.s. (Šternberk, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Gája and D. Botis, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Elton Hodinářská a.s. (Nové Mesto nad Metují, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Matoušek, 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 5 March 2012 (Case R 826/2010-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between (i) MPM-Quality v.o.s. and Eutech a.s. and (ii) Elton Hodinářská a.s.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders MPM-Quality v.o.s. and Eutech a.s to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders MPM-Quality v.o.s. and Eutech a.s to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.

1

---