alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013046EN.01002101.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/21

---

Action brought on 12 December 2012 — Wedi v OHIM — Mehlhose Bauelemente für Dachrand + Fassade (BALCO)

(Case T-541/12)

2013/C 46/37

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wedi GmbH (Emsdetten, Germany) (represented by: O. Bischof, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mehlhose Bauelemente für Dachrand + Fassade GmbH & Co. KG (Herford, Germany)

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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 September 2012 in Case R 2255/2011-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 September 2012 in Case R 2255/2011-4;

| — | Alternatively, suspend the proceedings in Case R 2255/2011-4 until a final decision has been made on the applicant’s application of 15 November 2012 for a declaration of invalidity of the other party’s Community trade mark No 006095889 Balkogrün; reference No 000007267 C of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively, suspend the proceedings in Case R 2255/2011-4 until a final decision has been made on the applicant’s application of 15 November 2012 for a declaration of invalidity of the other party’s Community trade mark No 006095889 Balkogrün; reference No 000007267 C of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 ‘BALCO’ for goods in Class 19 — Community trade mark application No 9 023 771

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Mehlhose Bauelemente für Dachrand + Fassade GmbH & Co. KG

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word marks ‘Balkogrün’, ‘Balkoplan’ and ‘Balkotop’ for goods in Classes 19, 21 and 27

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

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

Pleas in law:

---
#### Gertrude Schmidt, Plaintiff, *v.*Hugo Schmidt, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special and Trial Term, New York County,

March 2, 1966.

*Louis Brenner*for plaintiff. *Boceo S. Varíese*for defendant.

Oweh McGivern, J.

The plaintiff herein is a widow seeking the return of her husband’s ashes and requesting damages for the wrongful retention of them by her brother-in-law.

The litigation came about by the following facts: The plaintiff, Gertrude Schmidt, was married to one Alfred Schmidt on April 6, 1950. Alfred died on September 5, 1950, while at the home of his mother, at which residence the defendant brother-in-law also lived. Although the plaintiff paid for the funeral expenses of her husband, the arrangements were made by his mother and the defendant brother. These arrangements included cremation, to which the plaintiff consented. At the request of the mother, the plaintiff further consented to leaving the ashes of her husband at the common home of the mother and the defendant brother-in-law.

Following the death of the mother in October, 1960, the plaintiff testified she began her quest for the return of her husband’s ashes. According to her, he, the defendant, however, persisted in putting her off. There is some inconclusive evidence of an understanding that she would find a suitable home, which the defendant would approve, and then he would deliver the urn *499containing the ashes in question, and that meanwhile he would retain the same. Finally, in 1963, the plaintiff purchased a home in New Jersey and she mailed a registered letter requesting again her husband’s ashes. She then visited the defendant, repeating the request. He, however, said the ashes were then at the home of his son.

On balance, the court credits the plaintiff’s story. She, as a witness, proved to be an honest, unlettered woman, gullible, and apparently easily warded off by any plausible story. The defendant, on the other hand, was shrewd, taciturn, uncandid. Not in his favor was his handling of his brother’s death certificate, which he permitted to be filled out in such a manner as would indicate he was “widowed”. His dislike of the plaintiff was thinly veiled. And he himself admitted to the somewhat ghoulish penchant of holding on to the ashes of his kinfolk, now including the urns of his mother, father and, the court believes, those of the plaintiff’s husband, his brother.

The court finds that there has been a wrongful detention of the ashes of the plaintiff’s husband, and she has, not unnaturally, been distressed. The court fixes damages in the sum of $1,000, and directs the return of the ashes to the plaintiff, forthwith.

The legal authority for the foregoing is to be found in an exhilarating volume called “ The Law of Cadavers ” by Percival E. Jackson. (See, also, *Gostkowski*v. *Roman Catholic Church,*262 N. Y. 320; *Lubin*v. *Sydenham Hosp.,*261 App. Div. 499.) Settle judgment.
No. 42102.

#### Protests 906377-G, etc., of Ossola Bros., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the authority of Abstract 40880 the protests were sustained.
No. 46469.

#### Protest 33481-K of Ignaz Strauss & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 41606 the iron pictures in question were held dutiable at. 45 percent under paragraph 397 as claimed.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statement No. 333-153229 and 333-116837 on Form S-8 and 333-126312, 333-126573, 333-127464 and 333-157694 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 24, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statementsand financial statement schedule of Strategic Hotels & Resorts, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the change in accounting for noncontrolling interests) and theeffectiveness of Strategic Hotels & Resorts, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Strategic Hotels & Resorts, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

February 24, 2011
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

# Medical strengthens its partnership with VA to support military, veteran health care 

By Shaun EaganDLA Troop Support Public Affairs

                PHILADELPHIA  –              a FHCC press releasea Government Accountability Office report fiscal 2019-2021 strategic plan

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

## Related Stories

Troop Support volunteers visit patients at local veteran medical center

DLA Troop Supportveterans affairsStrong PartnershipsMedicalFHCCVA Partnership
Exhibit
      32.2





**CERTIFICATION
      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 Amendment #3 of Seychelle Environmental Technologies, Inc.
      (the “Small business issuer”) on Form 10KSB for the year ended February 28, 2006
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      “Report”), I, Jim Place, Chief Financial Officer of the Small business
      issuer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned’s
      knowledge and belief:





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





(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                Small
                business issuer.








/s/
      Jim Place


Jim
      Place


Chief
      Financial Officer





February
      23, 2007
#### Guy B. Barham Co. (Millar & Coe, Inc.), et al. *v.*United States

No. 6862.

Entry No. 5777, etc.

Invoices dated Burslem, England, March 20, 1941, etc.

Certified April 4, 1941, etc.

Entered at Los Angeles, Calif., May 20, 1941, etc.

(Decided February 13, 1947)

*Lawrence, Tuttle & Harper (Frank L. Lawrence*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Presiding 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:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 401 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of tñe value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. CP06-416-002]

Take notice that on April 27, 2007, Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 7, to be effective March 1, 2007.

Northwest states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2007.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-8966 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. ELR ADER B R OW

NING, Jr., De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50644

D.C . No. 2:87-c r-00571-SVW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ste phe n V. W ilson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2015 ** B e fore : FARRIS, WARDLAW , a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Elra de r B rowning, Jr., a

p pe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his m otion for c orre c tion of a n ille ga l se nte nc e unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C rim ina l Proc e d ure 35. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED MAR 17 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B rowning first c onte n ds tha t he is e ntitle d to re lie f unde r R ule 35 be c a

use the d istric t c o urt did not use the phra se “ c ontinuing serie s of viola tions”in its jury instruc tion on the

c ontinuing c rim ina l e nte rprise c ount a t tria l. W e re vie w for a buse o f disc re tion the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the R ule 35 m otion. Se eUnite d State s v . Stump , 914 F.2d 170, 172 (9th C ir. 1990). B rowning’ s a lle gation of a n e rrone ous jury

instruc tion is not a

c ogniz a ble c la im unde r the prior ve rsion of R ule 35, whic h the pa

rtie s a g re e a

pplie s he re . S

e eFe d. R . C rim . P. 35(a ) (1987); Unite d State s v . Montalv o , 581 F.3d 1147, 1151-52 (9th C ir. 2009) (R ule 35 only

a llows for c o rre c tion of a

n ille ga l se nte nc e and is not me a nt to pe rm it re e xam ination of tria l e rrors.). B rowning ne xt c onte n ds tha t his se nte n c e viola

te s the Double Je opa

rdy C la use be c a use he wa s se nte nc e d for both e nga ging in a c ontinuing c rim ina l e nte rprise and the pre dic ate drug tra ffic king offe nse s. Eve n a ssum i ng tha

t suc h a c la im is c ogniz a

ble unde r R

ule 35(a ), B rowning’ s a

rgum e nt is fore c lose d by Garre tt v . Unite d State

s , 471 U.S. 773, 793-95 (1985). B rowning la st c onte nds tha t his life se nte nc e on C ount 37 e xc e e de d the sta tutory m a xim um be c a use the judge , not thejury , de te rm ine d the drug qua ntity . B rowning’ s c onte nt ion is untime ly unde r R ule 35(a ) be c a

use he did not bring this c la im within 120 da

y s of the im

position of his se

nte nc e . Se e Montalv o , 581 F.3d a t
1 3 - 5 0 6 4 4 21153-54. Eve n if R ule 35’ s filing de a d line is subje c t to e quita b le tolling, a s B rowning a

rgue s, he ha s not shown tha t he is e nt itle d to them ore tha n 20 y e ars of tolling ne e de d to re n de r his c l a im tim e ly . AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 5 0 6 4 4 3
# C_2013038EN.01002601.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/26

---

Action brought on 13 December 2012 — Optilingua holding SA v OHIM — Esposito (ALPHATRAD)

(Case T-538/12)

2013/C 38/47

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Optilingua holding SA (Epalinges, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Michele Esposito (Cava de’ Tirreni SA, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

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 8 October 2012 in Case R 444/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2012 in Case R 444/2011-1;

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Figurative mark including the word element ‘ALPHATRAD’ for services in Classes 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark No 617 316

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: Esposito

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for revocation is upheld

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal is dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15(1)(2)(a), in conjunction with Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
PUBLIC LAW 111–101—NOV. 30, 2009 123 STAT. 3013 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1713: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009): 

Sept. 16, considered and passed House. 

Nov. 9, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–101 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To name the South Central Agricultural Research Laboratory of the Department 

of Agriculture in Lane, Oklahoma, and the facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 310 North Perry Street in Bennington, Oklahoma, in honor 

of former Congressman Wesley ‘‘Wes’’ Watkins. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF SOUTH CENTRAL AGRICULTURAL 

RESEARCH LABORATORY, LANE, OKLAHOMA. 

(a) REDESIGNATION.—The South Central Agricultural Research 

Laboratory of the Department of Agriculture in Lane, Oklahoma, 

shall be known and redesignated as the ‘‘Wes Watkins Agricultural 

Research Laboratory’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the South 

Central Agricultural Research Laboratory shall be deemed to be 

a reference to the ‘‘Wes Watkins Agricultural Research Laboratory’’. 

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF WES WATKINS POST OFFICE, BENNINGTON, 

OKLAHOMA. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 310 North Perry Street in Bennington, Oklahoma, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Wes Watkins Post Office’’. 

(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 ‘‘Wes Watkins Post Office’’. 

Approved November 30, 2009. 

Nov. 30, 2009 

[H.R. 1713] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
# C_2012209EN.01001302.xml

| 14.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/13

---

Order of the General Court of 25 May 2012 — Planet v European Commission

(Case T-59/12) (1)

1

2012/C 209/23

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012

1

---