alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012138EN.01001801.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/18

---

Action brought on 29 February 2012 — Cytochroma Development v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

(Case T-106/12)

(2012/C 138/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cytochroma Development, Inc. (St. Michael, Barbados) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister and A. Smith, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 December 2011 in case R 1235/2011-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 December 2011 in case R 1235/2011-1; and

| — | Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALPHAREN’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 4320297

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Hungarian trade mark registration No 134972 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5; Lithuanian trade mark registration No 20613 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5; Latvian trade mark registration No M30407 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 1(d)(2) of Commission Regulation No 216/96 in that a member of the Board who took the original decision was also a member of the Board that took the new decision after referral; infringement of Article 65(6) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 1(d)(1) of Commission Regulation No 216/96 regarding the measures taken to comply with the judgment of the General Court; Infringement of Article 76(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to the examination of facts of its own motion in a relative grounds case; infringement of the principle of legal certainty, as well as Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v NATHANIEL DOW, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

8 USCMA 734, 25 CMR 238

No. 11,050

Decided February 21, 1958

*Lieutenant (jg) Joseph A. Calif ano, Jr.,*USNR, was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles H. Beale, Jr.,*USMC, was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

The Government concedes that the staff judge advocate’s advice to the general court-martial’s authority is legally insufficient. Our reading of the advice confirms the concession. Accordingly, the decision of the hoard of review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy for reference to a competent general court-martial authority for further proceedings in accordance with Articles 61, 64, and 65, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 861, 864, and 865. United States v Grice, 8 USCMA 166, 23 CMR 390.
#### James M. C. Bullock v. N. E. Kendall, as *Administrator, etc.*

No. 16,158.

1. Mortgages — *Release by Executor*— *Certificate of Appointment*— Notice. A release of a mortgage of record by an executor held insufficient because not accompanied by a certificate of his appointment.

2. - *Satisfaction.*A claim that a mortgage had been satisfied was not sustained.

3. *-Limitation of Actions.*The statute of limitations was not available as a defense in a foreclosure suit.

Error from Greeley district court; Charles E. Lob-dell, judge.

Opinion filed October 9, 1909.

Affirmed.

*D. R. Beckstrom,*and *W. M. Glenn,*for the plaintiff in error.

*W. H. Russell,*and *Frank U. Russell,*for the defendant in error.

*Per Curiam:*

Neither of the releases set up in the answer was accompanied by a certificate as provided in section 1 of chapter 365 of the Laws of 1903 where a release of a mortgage is made by the executor or administrator of the mortgagee of record, and the court properly held the release insufficient.

Section 4 of chapter 168 of the Laws of 1899 (Gen. Stat. 1901, § 4337) provides that where assignments have not been recorded “the payment of any interest or principal on the debts secured by such mortgages to the mortgagees or the assignees whose assignments appear last of record . . . shall be and constitute a complete defense to any action” thereon. But the finding of the court that Brown paid nothing in satisfaction of either principal or interest on the mortgage is a finding of fact upon conflicting testimony and can not be disturbed. This is a sufficient answer to the claim that the mortgage was satisfied, for, if there was no pay*792ment either on principal or interest, the provision from, which we have just quoted can have no application.

Counsel for the plaintiff in error, however, insist, that the acknowledgment of satisfaction itself constitutes a complete defense to any action, and that such is. the meaning of the' statute. Counsel have doubtless, overlooked the decision of the court in *Mayse v. Williams,*77 Kan. 813, in which this section of the statute was construed to mean that the person paying-should only be entitled to credit for the amount paid.

The defense of the statute of limitations can not avail the defendant. The evidence fails to disclose of' what state the mortgagor, Kirkpatrick, was a resident when the cause of action accrued or where the owner and holder of the mortgage resided at that time, nor was there any attempt in the answer to bring the case within the rule declared in *Bruner v. Martin,*76 Kan. 862.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 3.3

ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT

OF THE

THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

OF

ANSWERTHINK, INC.

Answerthink,
Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida (the Corporation), hereby certifies as follows:

FIRST: That a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation held on November 14, 2007 a Resolution was duly adopted proposing to amend the Articles of Incorporation of this Corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable
and in the best interest of the Corporation and its stockholders, and authorizing the appropriate officers of the Corporation to solicit the consent of the shareholders therefor, which resolutions setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

NOW, THEREFORE IT RESOLVED, that the amendment to these Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation to officially change the name
of the Company to The Hackett Group, Inc. is hereby authorized, adopted and approved.

SECOND: The foregoing amendment to
the Articles of Incorporation was approved at the Corporations Special meeting of Shareholders held on December 21, 2007 by the holders of at least the majority of the outstanding cost of entitled to vote thereon.

THIRD: The foregoing amendment to the Articles of Incorporation was duly adopted and approved in accordance with the requirements of subsection 607.1003
of the Florida Business Corporation Act.

FOURTH: The effective date for the name change shall be 12:00AM January 1, 2008.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused these Articles of Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer, as of the 21st
day of December, 2007.



ANSWERTHINK, INC.By:

/s/ Ted A. FernandezTed A. FernandezChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer




|        |  |                                                              
|------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|ATTEST: |  | /s/ Robert A. Ramirez                                        
|        |  | Robert A. Ramirez                                            
|        |  | Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Advanced Technologies Group, Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2001 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Alex Stelmak, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
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 result of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
19th day of June 2003.


/s/ Alex Stelmak
------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
# C_2012184EN.01001601.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/16

---

Action brought on 10 April 2012 — Adler Modemärkte v OHIM — Blufin (MARINE BLEU)

(Case T-160/12)

2012/C 184/29

Language in which the application was lodged: 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)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Blufin SpA (Carpi, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 February 2012 in Case R 1955/2010-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 February 2012 in Case R 1955/2010-2;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘MARINE BLEU’ for goods in Classes 18, 24 and 25 — application No 6 505 952

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Blufin

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Italian and Community trade mark and the Italian and international trade mark registration ‘BLUMARINE’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25 and 27

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld in part, the application was rejected in part and the case was referred back to the Opposition Division in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
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

# DLA Aviation Commander visits San Diego, promotes Commander

By Leon MooreDLA Aviation Public Affairs

Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. David Sanford made his first trip to DLA Aviation at San Diego, California Sept. 3. Sanford assumed command of DLA Aviation in July.

While there, Sanford met with his Navy customers on Naval Air Station North Island, California, as well as DLA Aviation at San Diego employees. Sanford also got a tour of Fleet Readiness Center Southwest’s depot production lines as well as met with FRCSW Commanding Officer Navy Capt. Anthony Jaramillo.

While in San Diego, Sanford also officiated over the promotion ceremony for DLA Aviation at San Diego Commander Navy Capt. Ernan Obellos. He was promoted to the rank of captain during a ceremony where he was joined by his two sons, who are also Navy officers, as well as his wife and daughter.  

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA Aviation RichmondDLA Aviation San DiegoBrig. Gen. David Sanford
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.
 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
 AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is publishing its annual update to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Fee Schedule pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the Board's regulations.
 EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Grosner, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (202) 694-7060.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FOIA requires each Federal agency covered by the Act to specify a schedule of fees applicable to processing of requests for agency records. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(i). On March 15, 1991, the Board published for comment in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     its proposed FOIA Fee Schedule. 56 FR 11114. No comments were received in response to that notice, and the Board issued a final Fee Schedule on May 6, 1991. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the Board's regulations, the Board's General Manager will update the FOIA Fee Schedule once every 12 months. Previous Fee Schedule updates were published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     and went into effect, most recently, on May 1, 2006, 71 FR 19718. Board Action Accordingly, the Board issues the following schedule of updated fees for services performed in response to FOIA requests: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Schedule of Fees for FOIA Services
[Implementing 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6)]
Search or Review Charge
$72.00 per hour.Copy Charge (paper)
$.08 per page, if done in-house, or generally available commercial rate (approximately $.10 per page).Electronic Media
$5.00.Copy Charge (audio cassette)
$3.00 per cassette.Duplication of DVD
$25.00 for each individual DVD; 
                             $16.50 for each additional individual DVD.Copy Charge for large documents (
                            *e.g.*, maps, diagrams)
Actual commercial rates.
 Dated: May 9, 2007. Debra H. Richardson, Deputy General Manager.


[FR Doc. E7-9665 Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
# C_2014045EN.01004404.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/44

---

Order of the General Court of 13 December 2013 — Automobile Association v OHIM — Duncan Petersen Publishing (Classeurs)

(Case T-508/12) (1)

1

2014/C 45/78

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

1

---
# C_2013026EN.01007101.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/71

---

Action brought on 9 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-113/12)

2013/C 26/144

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, A. Tymen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision not to include the Applicant on the reserve list of the EPSO/AD/204/10 competition.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | To annul the decision of 20 January 2012 not to include the Applicant on the reserve list of the competition EPSO/AD/204/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

To annul the decision of 20 January 2012 not to include the Applicant on the reserve list of the competition EPSO/AD/204/10;

| — | to annul the decision of 6 July 2012 rejecting the Applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

to annul the decision of 6 July 2012 rejecting the Applicant’s complaint;

| — | to order to the Defendant to bear the entire costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

to order to the Defendant to bear the entire costs.

---
#### Gurvis PORTER v. GAYLORD CHEMICAL CORPORATION & CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY.

No. 98-C-2712.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 18, 1998.

IN. RE: Gaylord Chemical Corp.; Continental Casualty Co.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number CA98 0222; Office of Workers’ Compensation Dist. 6 Number 96-05299.

Denied.

VICTORY, J. would grant the writ.

KNOLL, J. not on panel.
#### Ronald BROCK, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 99-0011.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 9, 1999.

Ronald Brock, pro se, petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Sherri Tolar Rollison, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. *Finch v. State,*717 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

BARFIELD, C.J., KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Before the Second Division,

October 16, 1941.

No. 46462.

#### Petition 5934-R of Jordan Marsh Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The weight of the evidence clearly showed that the entry of-the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States, to conceal or misrepresent the facts, or to deceive the appraiser as to the true value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
# C_2013225EN.01008602.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/86

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 May 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-4/12) (1)

1

(Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the period prescribed for bringing proceedings - Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post - Application lodged out of time - Manifest inadmissibility - None)

2013/C 225/199

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: C. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Civil service — Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision refusing the applicant’s request to forward to him all the access codes to the Internet sites accessible to all Commission officials following the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F 41/06, annulling the Commission’s decision to retire him on grounds of invalidity.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 28.

1

---