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

# DLA Sexual Assault Prevention and Response office promotes National Denim Day

By DLA Public AffairsDLA Public Affairs

                Fort Belvoir, Virginia  –              
On April 24, millions will don denim to support survivors of sexual assault and raise awareness about all forms of sexual violence. The Defense Logistics Agency SAPR office encourages agency civilians to wear their jeans for a purpose.

The Denim Day campaign was originally triggered after a ruling by the Italian Supreme Court where a rape conviction was overturned because the justices felt that since the victim was wearing tight jeans she must have helped her rapist remove her jeans, thereby implying consent. The following day, the women in the Italian Parliament came to work wearing jeans in solidarity with the victim. The Italian Supreme Court has since overturned their findings, and there is no longer a "denim" defense to the charge of rape.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

National Denim DaySAPRDLA SAPR officejeansSexual Assault and Prevention Awareness Month
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 139 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 139

To provide that certain tax planning strategies are not patentable, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

  Mr. Baucus (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Levin, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
 Wyden, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Kerry) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that certain tax planning strategies are not patentable, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Equal Access to Tax Planning Act''.

SEC. 2. TAX STRATEGIES DEEMED WITHIN THE PRIOR ART.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of evaluating an invention under 
section 102 or 103 of title 35, United States Code, any strategy for 
reducing, avoiding, or deferring tax liability, whether known or 
unknown at the time of the invention or application for patent, shall 
be deemed insufficient to differentiate a claimed invention from the 
prior art.
    (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``tax 
liability'' refers to any liability for a tax under any Federal, State, 
or local law, or the law of any foreign jurisdiction, including any 
statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance that levies, imposes, or 
assesses such tax liability.
    (c) Effective Date; Applicability.--This section shall take effect 
on the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply to any patent 
application pending and any patent issued on or after that date.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
10.27





CapLease,
Inc.


Summary
of Compensation to


Independent
Directors




2009Annual
      cash retainer
                    
                    $
                    35,000Committee
      chair additional retainer
                    
                    $
                    6,000
                    (1)Lead
      independent director retainer
                    
                    $
                    10,000Stock
      award
                    
                    $
                    27,400
                    (2)Board
      attendance fee (in person or telephonic)
                    
                    $
                    1,000
                    per
      meetingCommittee
      attendance fee
                    
                    $
                    500
                    per meeting(3)


(1)Except for our audit committee chair, who receives
$10,000.




(2)Except for our audit committee chair, who receives
$33,700.  The number of shares granted will be determined by dividing
the stock award value by the average closing price for the Company’s common
stock for the 10 trading days immediately prior to the date the committee makes
annual stock awards.  Awards will be effective on the anniversary of
the Company’s initial public offering and will vest in three equal annual
installments beginning on the first anniversary of such date.




(3)Committee attendance fees are not paid for meetings held on the same day
as a Board meeting.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 10855 and # 10856]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 2.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-1694-DR), dated 04/26/2007.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms and Inland and Coastal Flooding.                    

*Incident Period:*                         04/14/2007 through 04/20/2007.                    

*Effective Date:*                         04/30/2007.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         06/25/2007.                    

*Eidl Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         01/28/2008.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of New Jersey, dated 04/26/2007 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

*Primary Counties:*

Camden, Gloucester, Mercer.

*Contiguous Counties:*

New Jersey, Cumberland, Salem, Delaware, New Castle, Pennsylvania and Delaware.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
      ( print page 26443)    
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E7-8831 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Case No. 6,976.

#### HYER et al. v. HYATT et al.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 633.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1825.

Action against Two Defendants — Confession of Judgment by One — Setting Aside for Irregularity — CONSOLIDATION OF CASES.

In an action against two defendants, if one be taken and issue be joined, and plea waived, and judgment confessed against him after the other has been taken, and before the cause is at issue against him, the judgment may be set aside for irregularity, and the two cases consolidated, and the issues made up and set for trial.

This was a joint action against Hyatt and Wilson. Hyatt was first taken. Afterwards, upon an alias capias, Wilson was taken; and, while his case was standing on the im-parlance-docket, judgment was confessed by Hyatt, and accepted by the plaintiff, by mistake, not being aware at the time that Wilson had been taken.

Mr. Key and Mr. Dunlop, for plaintiffs,

now moved that the judgment against Hy-att should be set aside for irregularity, the continuance entered up, agreeably to the act of assembly of Maryland of November, 1787 (chapter 9, § 6), and the actions consolidated and set for trial.

Mr. Jones and Mr. Lee, contra.

THE COURT

(MORSELL, Circuit Judge, absent)

granted the motion.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 3195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-982]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint


Notification of United States Mint Coin Product Price Adjustments

    Summary: The United States Mint is adjusting the prices of 14 of 
its coin products for 2007.
    Some of the United States Mint's annual sets have price increases 
to reflect the inclusion, beginning in 2007, of the Presidential $1 
Coins. Some other products have price decreases to reflect lower costs 
attributable to manufacturing efficiencies and other factors. Effective 
January 19, 2007, the United States Mint will commence selling the 
following products at the prices indicated below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Product                    2006 price    New 2007 price
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 14-Coin Clad Proof Set (10-Coin--            $22.95          $26.95
 2006)..................................
2007 14-Coin Silver Proof Set (10-Coin--           37.95           44.95
 2006)..................................
2007 50 State Quarters Silver Proof Set            23.95           25.95
 (5-Coin)...............................
2007 28-Coin Uncirculated Set (20-Coin--           16.95           22.95
 2006)..................................
Golden Dollar roll......................           35.50           35.95
50 State Quarters 1,000-coin bag........          300.00          309.95
50 State Quarters two-roll set..........           32.00           32.95
50 State Quarters Clad Proof Set (5-               15.95           13.95
 Coin)..................................
Kennedy Half Dollar bag.................          135.00          130.95
Kennedy Half Dollar rolls...............           35.50           32.95
Golden Dollar bag.......................          347.00          319.95
50 State Quarters 100-coin bag..........           35.50           32.95
50 State Quarters FDCC..................           19.95           14.95
Education Set...........................           14.50           11.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Further Information Contact: Gloria C. Eskridge, Associate 
Director for Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 Ninth Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.

    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701.

    Dated: January 19, 2007.
Edmund C. Moy,
Director, United States Mint.
 [FR Doc. E7-982 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-02-P
# C_2012287EN.01002603.xml

| 22.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/26

---

Appeal brought on 19 July 2012 by DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH (formerly Nordmilch AG) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2012 in Case T-546/10 Nordmilch AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-346/12 P)

2012/C 287/51

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH (formerly Nordmilch AG) (represented by: W. Berlit, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Lactimilk, SA

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 (Case T-546/10); |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 (Case T-546/10);

| — | grant in full the applications made at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant in full the applications made at first instance;

| — | order Lactimilk, SA to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in the entire proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Lactimilk, SA to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in the entire proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested decision of the General Court should be set aside because the General Court wrongly found a similarity between the trade mark applied for by the appellant and the trade marks of Lactimilk SA, and thus, in concluding that there is a likelihood of confusion, incorrectly applied Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. The General Court erred in failing to compare the marks actually at issue as written in the manner in which they were applied for or registered (that is in capital letters), instead examining the likelihood of confusion on the basis of both marks written differently. In so doing the General Court distorted the facts. Moreover, the General Court wrongly assumed that the stress in the trade mark applied for falls on the second syllable, notwithstanding the fact that the trade mark applied for is written in capital letters so that, on the basis of the way in which it would be understood in Spanish also, there can be no question of the stress in the trade mark applied for falling only on the second syllable.

---
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 Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration 

                    By Notice dated January 16, 2007, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 23, 2007, (72 FR 2907), Organix Inc., 240 Salem Street, Woburn, Massachusetts 01801, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370), a basic                           ( print page 28077)                        class of controlled substance listed in schedule I.                 

The company plans on manufacturing this controlled substance for sale to its customers. These customers will sell the drug in small quantities for research purposes or as drug standards for forensic laboratories. 

No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Organix Inc. to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Organix Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed. 

Dated: May 14, 2007. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. E7-9630 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1150 

KA 07-02439 

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

RAFAEL L. BELLIARD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (JOSEPH D. WALDORF OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County

(Stephen R. Sirkin, A.J.), rendered September 17, 2007. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession

of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of

a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of

a weapon in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
#### Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. *v.*United States.

No. 6162.

Invoices dated London, England, July 22, 1942, etc.

Certified July 28, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 3, 1942, etc.

Entry No. 21734, etc.

(Decided June 6, 1945)

*John D. Rode (Jacob L. Klingaman*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney)’,, for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule-A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties, hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the issues in these appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in the annexed schedule, are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *United States*v. *Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc.,*Suit No. 4481, C. A. D. 305, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise here involved, less the addition made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the cost of materials and fabrication, manipulation, or other process employed in manufabturing or producing such or similar merchandise at a time preceding the date of exportation of the involved merchandise which would ordinarily permit the manufacture or production thereof in the usual course of business, plus the usual general expenses (not less than 10 per centum of such cost) in the case of such or similar merchandise, plus the cost of all containers and coverings, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, and plus an addition for profit (not less than 8 per centum of the costs of.materials and fabrication or manipulation and general expenses) equal to the profit which ordinarily is added to the cost of merchandise of the same general character by manufacturers or producers in the country of *458manufacture who are engaged in the manufacture of merchandise of the same class or kind.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) 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.