alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013026EN.01005201.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/52

---

Action brought on 5 November 2012 — Coca-Cola v OHIM — Mitico (Master)

(Case T-480/12)

2013/C 26/105

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, D. Stone and L. Ritchie, Solicitors)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) (Damascus, Syria)

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 29 August 2012 in case R 2156/2011-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 August 2012 in case R 2156/2011-2; and

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Master’, for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 9091612

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 8792475 of the figurative mark ‘Coca-Cola’; Community trade mark registration No 3021086 of the figurative mark ‘Coca-Cola’; Community trade mark registration No 2117828 of the figurative mark ‘Coca-Cola’; Community trade mark registration No 2107118 of the figurative mark ‘Coca-Cola’; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2428468 of the figurative mark ‘C’

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1755 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for coverage under the 

beneficiary travel program of the Department of Veterans Affairs of 

certain disabled veterans for travel for certain special disabilities rehabilitation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 20, 2011 

Mr. TESTER (for himself and Mr. BEGICH) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for coverage under the beneficiary travel program of the Department of Veterans Affairs of certain disabled veterans 

for travel for certain special disabilities rehabilitation, 

and for other purposes. 

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


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1755 IS

1 SECTION 1. COVERAGE UNDER DEPARTMENT OF VET2 ERANS AFFAIRS BENEFICIARY TRAVEL PRO3 GRAM OF CERTAIN DISABLED VETERANS FOR 

4 TRAVEL FOR CERTAIN SPECIAL DISABILITIES 

5 REHABILITATION. 

6 Section 111(b)(1) of title 38, United States Code, is 

7 amended by adding at the end the following new subpara8 graph: 

9 ‘‘(G) A veteran with vision impairment, a vet10 eran with a spinal cord injury or disorder, or a vet11 eran with double or multiple amputations whose 

12 travel is in connection with in-patient care in a spe13 cial disabilities rehabilitation program of the Depart14 ment.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned, David Rothstein, the Chief Executive Officer of DCI USA, Inc.
      (the
      "Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for
      the
      purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
      Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
      contained in that Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:
                August 20, 2007
            
            
            /s/
                David RothsteinDavid
                RothsteinChief
                Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)

















A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1



                                CERTIFICATION OF
                           CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                               OF NATCO GROUP INC.
           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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2003 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Nathaniel A. Gregory, Chief Executive Officer of NATCO Group Inc. (the
"Company"), and, I, Richard W. FitzGerald, Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

                                                /s/ Nathaniel A. Gregory
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Name:  Nathaniel A. Gregory
                                                Date:  March 15, 2004


                                                /s/ Richard W. FitzGerald
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Name: Richard W. FitzGerald
                                                Date: March 15, 2004
SCWC-15-0000040

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

________________________________________________________________

RICHARD STAR, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-15-0000040; S.P.P. NO. 14-1-0017; CR. NO. 94-1549)

AMENDED ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and 

Circuit Judge Ahn, in place of Pollack, J., recused)

Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant Richard Star’s 

application for writ of certiorari filed on December 24, 2015, 

is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February 3, 2016.

Lila Barbara Kanae /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

for petitioner 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

Diane K. Taira

for respondent /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Karen S. S. Ahn

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-15-0000040

03-FEB-2016

10:23 AM
No. 54394.

#### Foresta Factors *v.*United States,

protests 136522-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question consists of sawed lumber similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 53917, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. Counsel for the plaintiff having abandoned protest 141763-K on April 17, 1950, insofar as it covered entry No. 789818, said protest was dismissed as to the enumerated entry.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1945 

To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 5, 2011 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. GRASSLEY, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. CORNYN, and 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 45 of title 28, United 

5 States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘§ 678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings 

8 ‘‘The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage 

9 of all open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, 

10 by a vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such 

11 coverage in a particular case would constitute a violation 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1945 IS

1 of the due process rights of 1 or more of the parties before 

2 the Court.’’. 

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The chapter analysis 

4 for chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, is amended 

5 by inserting at the end the following: 

‘‘678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.’’. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Case No. 5,618.

#### GORDON et al. v. The MARY VAUGHAN.

[8 Int. Rev. Rec. 114.]

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

1868.

Colusión — Loss or Property — Measure op Damages.

[Where property is lost through a collision, the measure of damages is the value of the article at the port of shipment.]

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York.]

In this case both parties appealed from* the decision of Judge Blatchford in the court below [Case No. 9,217]; the libelants [John Gordon and others], on the question of damages; and the respondents [the propeller Mary Vaughan and the steamboat Telegraph] upon the collision.

Mr. Lyon, for libelants.

Mr. Van Santvoord, for the Vaughan.

Mr. Fithian, for the Telegraph.

NELSON, Circuit Justice.

This libel was filed by Gordon and others to recover damages for the loss of a quantity of barley shipped from Canada to New York. The barley was in a canal boat at Troy, and taken in tow by the propeller Mary Vaughan for transportation to the city, and, as alleged in the libel, was lost by a collision through the carelessness and mismanagement of the navigation of the Mary Vaughan and the steamboat Telegraph, on its way down the North river. The court below, after a careful examination of the proofs, which are very voluminous, condemned the two vessels, and referred the case to a commissioner, to hear evidence and report the amount of the damages. We concur in this decree, as fully supported by the proofs. But, as at present advised, we are unable to concur in the rule adopted by the court in the estimate of these damages. We agree that the value of- the article at the port of shipment is the rule established by authority, but doubt as to the principle which has been adopted in carrying it into effect. The value of the barley at the time of the loss at Montreal was seventy cents per bushel, Canada currency. The estimate of value in the present case is according to. this currency, denying the right to convert it into the currency of the United States, where the loss occurred and the damages are to be paid. The result is, upon this view, the owner and sufferer fails utterly in his indemnity, as, at the time this barley was purchased and shipped, $1 in Canada currency was equivalent to ?2.16 in our currency. So much the purchaser had to pay of our currency per bushel. The indemnity is less than half the actual loss, according to the rule as applied in the case. So great an injustice, and such an inequitable result, would seem strongly to argue some defect in the principle as *816applied. At all events, before we can agree to it, we desire a further argument upon the point, and will hear the counsel in the case some day in the coming term of the court
#### F. W. Myers Company, Inc. (F. H. Leggett & Co.) *v.*United States

No. 8088.

Entry Nos. A-6372; A-6495; A-6630.

First Division, Appellate Term

(Order dated February 15, 1952)

*Marlow & Hines-, John D. Rode,*associate counsel; for the appellant.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Guy Gilbert Ribaudo*and *Daniel I. Auster,*special attorneys), for the appellee.

Before Olivek, Cole, and Mollison, Judges

ORDER

Upon the court’s own motion, and counsel for the respective parties being cognizant thereof and in agreement with same, the Order of the Court made on February 7, 1952, be and the same hereby is vacated.

It is further ordered that appellant’s motion for rehearing be set down for argument before the Division on March 13, 1952.
(Reap. Dec. 9706)

#### International Standard Trading Corp. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 712994; 724511.

(Decided May 10, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

Tbe proper dutiable value of certain telephone equipment exported from Belgium covered by the above-enumerated appeals for a reappraisement is before the court for determination.

By stipulation of the parties hereto, it has been agreed that, on or about the date of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in Belgium either for home consumption or for export to the United States. It was further stipulated and agreed that, on or about that date, such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the United States and that the cost of production of said merchandise, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402 (f)), is the invoice unit values, less items marked “A” on the invoices, plus 2.91 per centum.

Upon the agreed facts, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f), supra, is the proper basis of value for the telephone equipment in issue and that said value is the invoice unit values, less items marked “A” on the invoices, plus 2.91 per centum.

As to any other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 43242.

#### Protest 2895-K of Dan Brechner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

On the record presented it was found that the cigarette whistles in question are similar to those the subject of Abstract 39509. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 409 was therefore sustained.
Before the Third Division,

April 10, 1942

No. 47076.

#### Protest 998515-G of American Shipping Co. (New York).

Opinion- by

Cline, J.

It appeared in this case that there were over 200 drawings. The professional artist who executed the pictures testified that they are freehand work and no mechanical means were used in creating them, that he is *491the owner of the articles, that he was in New York at the time the shipment arrived, and that he imported them for the purpose of exhibition at the Corstairs Gallery, that 9 of the pictures were originally produced for the purpose of illustration in magazines and were so used, but that all of the others were executed for his own pleasure and work as an artist. From the uncontradicted evidence it was found that all of the articles were original drawings or sketches in pen-and-ink, pencil, or water colors, with the exception of the 9 drawings or sketches valued at a total of $200.

The protest was therefore sustained as to all of the sketches, excepting the 9 drawings or sketches valued at $200 which were created for reproduction in magazines and as to these photographs the protest was overruled.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6117

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JERMOL CHIN,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:06-cr-00552-WDQ-1; 1:09-cv-2317-WDQ)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 25, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermol Chin, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States 

Attorney, Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jermol Chin seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Chin has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Chin’s motions for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6943

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL WATKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

B. G. COMPTON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CA-04-251-7)

Submitted: January 10, 2005 Decided: April 25, 2005

Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Michael Watkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Michael Watkins, a federal prisoner, appeals

the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Watkins v. Compton, No. CA-04-251-7 (W.D. Va., filed

May 14, 2004; entered May 17, 2004); see also Pelissero v.

Thompson, 170 F.3d 442, 445 (4th Cir. 1999); Moscato v. Federal

Bureau of Prisons, 98 F.3d 757, 760 (3d Cir. 1996). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
(Reap. Dec. 9098)

#### R. G. Hobelmann & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 7619.

(Decided March 19, 1958)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

La wren CE, Judge:

• There-was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the above-enumerated appeal forja reappraisement was called for hearing. The court thereupon ordered the case submitted.

It is provided by the rules of the court that, in such an instance, after the opposite party has had an opportunity to present evidence on the issues, the case may be decided by the court on the record before it.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the present appeal for a reappraisement and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32


                            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 quarterly report of California Clean Air, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") the
undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:

         (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 results of operations of the
Company.


Dated: August 13, 2004              /s/ STEPHEN D. WILSON
                                    ---------------------
                                    Stephen D. Wilson
                                    Title: President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                           Secretary, Chief Financial Officer,
                                           Chief Accounting Officer, Director
Exhibit 32

                             CERTIFICATE 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 ended October 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.

Date: December 16, 2004                By: /s/ Abel Raskas
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Abel Raskas
                                            Chairman of the Board of Directors


Date: December 16, 2004                 By: /s/ Alex Stelmak
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Alex Stelmak
                                            Chief Financial Officer