alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013063EN.01002302.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/23

---

Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Golam v OHIM — Derby Cycle Werke (FOCUS extreme)

(Case T-568/12)

2013/C 63/47

Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, 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: Derby Cycle Werke GmbH (Cloppenburg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 October 2012 in Case R 2327/2011-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 October 2012 in Case R 2327/2011-4;

| — | reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety;

| — | order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sofia Golam

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘FOCUS extreme’ for goods in Classes 5, 16 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 894587

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Derby Cycle Werke GmbH

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘FOCUS’ which has been registered under No 2062620, for goods in Class 25

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009

Pleas in law:

---
No. 96-5932.

#### Herrera *v.*New Mexico Department of Corrections et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
exv10w51



 





Exhibit 10.51




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO




AMERICAN PHYSICIANS CAPITAL, INC.





2007 BONUS PROGRAM




     THIS AMENDMENT to the American Physicians Capital, Inc. 2007 Bonus Program (the “Plan”) is
intended to clarify the application of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) to
the Plan.



     WHEREAS, compensation that is earned and vested in one calendar year and paid in a subsequent
calendar year is deemed to constitute a “short term deferral” not subject to the deferred
compensation provisions of Code Section 409A if the compensation is paid out in a lump sum within
two and a half months after the end of the calendar year in which it is earned.



     NOW THEREFORE, the American Physicians Capital 2007 Bonus Program is hereby amended to specify
that all bonus amounts earned in 2007 shall be paid out in cash within two and a half months after
the end of the 2007 calendar year.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, American Physicians Capital, Inc. has caused this Amendment No. 1 to be
executed as of October 25, 2007.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	AMERICAN PHYSICIANS CAPITAL, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	      R. Kevin Clinton

      President and Chief Executive Officer
### REVISED 03/28/13

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 11-30770

_____________________ EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. BOH BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellant

__________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans

__________________________ ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion July 27, 2012, 5 Cir., 2012, 689 F.3d 458) Before STEWART, Chief Judge, KING, JOLLY, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: A member of the court having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active service and not disqualified having voted in favor, IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D March 27, 2013 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk
# C_2014315EN.01001001.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-126/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(c) - Descriptive character - Refusal to register the word mark ecoDoor - Characteristic of a part of a product))

2014/C 315/14

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.

1

---
No. 39223.

#### Protests 359001-G, etc., of Kallman & Cohn et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

On the record presented the merchandise in question, was held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 31 as claimed. Abstract 37230 followed.
No. 96-1098.

#### Topp *v.*Idaho State Bar.

Sup. Ct. Idaho. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 23.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-66620), (No. 333-66123), (No. 333-66121), (No.
333-66119) and (No. 033-63865) of ATC Healthcare, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our
report dated May 12, 2003, except for the fourth paragraph of Note 8(a) as to
which the date is June 13, 2003 and except for the effects of discontinued
operations described in Note 4 as to which the date is April 22, 2005, relating
to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in
this Form 10-K/A.



                                             PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Melville, New York
September 26, 2005
No. 96-5702.

#### Parham *v.*PepsiCo, Inc.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
(Reap. Dec. 9698)

#### Harper, Robinson *&*Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. CE 5871.

(Decided May 10, 1960).

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain binoculars and cases exported from Japan and entered at the port of San Francisco.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis of appraisement of the involved merchandise is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory values were the following unit prices, plus the proportionate costs of charges and packing, as invoiced:

> Item Binocular Case

> 7 x 35 coated $13.75 $3.00

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 46487.

#### Protest 993804-G of China Importing Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial it was agreed that certain of the items in question are in part of bamboo and are not used chiefly for the amusement of children. In accordance therewith the claim at 45 percent under paragraph 409 was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 12.1**

 

**RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION**

 

I, John C.K. Sham, certify that:****

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Global-Tech Appliances Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Annual Report; and 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Annual Report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report. 

 

4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: 

 

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

 

(c) Disclosed in this Annual Report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: September 30, 2004
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof MathStar, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the“Quarterly Report”), I, James W. Cruckshank, Vice President of Administrationand Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Quarterly Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.               The information contained in the Quarterly Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  | November  7, 2007 |   | By:    |       /s/  James W. Cruckshank |
|--------|-------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |              |   |   | James.  W. Cruckshank                                        |
|   |              |   |   | Vice President, Administration and                           |
|   |              |   |   | Chief Financial Officer                                      |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>  1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                         313,150
<SECURITIES>                                 4,240,175
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,949,373
<ALLOWANCES>                                   904,953
<INVENTORY>                                  6,414,097
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,992,264
<PP&E>                                       1,892,103
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,050,440
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,744,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,176,503
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        67,951
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,388,565
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,744,086
<SALES>                                     36,849,803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,166,731
<CGS>                                       14,171,030
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               39,397,255
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            25,226,225
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                87,697
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,003
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,230,524)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (663,956)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,566,568)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,566,568)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
        

</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1104 CA 13-00598 PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

ESTHER L. CIANCIOLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK CIANCIOLA, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK & ASSOC., LLP, NEW YORK CITY (DENISE A. RUBIN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP, AUSTIN, TEXAS (PATRICIA KAY ANDREWS, OF THE TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA BARS, ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE, OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered June 13, 2012. The order granted the motion of defendant Kelly-Moore Paint Company to dismiss the amended complaint and any cross claims against it.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order granting the motion of Kelly-Moore Paint Company (defendant) to dismiss the amended complaint and any cross claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8). According to plaintiff, she made a prima facie showing that defendant is subject to long-arm jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1) because defendant transacted business within New York and her claims arise from that transaction of business. We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted the motion. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant transacted business in New York, we conclude that plaintiff did not establish the requisite substantial relationship between defendant’s transaction of business and plaintiff’s claims against defendant ( see Kruetter v McFadden Oil Corp. , 71 NY2d 460, 467; Holness v Maritime Overseas Corp. , 251 AD2d 220, 224).

Entered: November 8, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1756 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1756

   To extend HUBZone designations by 3 years, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 20, 2011

  Mrs. Hagan (for herself and Ms. Landrieu) introduced the following 
   bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Small 
                     Business and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend HUBZone designations by 3 years, 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 ``HUBZone Protection Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. REDESIGNATED AREAS.

    Section 3(p)(4)(C)(i) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
632(p)(4)(C)(i)) is amended to read as follows:
                            ``(i) 3 years after the first date on which 
                        the Administrator publishes a HUBZone map that 
                        is based on the results from the 2010 decennial 
                        census; or''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 47118.

#### Protests 69486-K, etc., of Wm. Filene’s Sons Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441) the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty as claimed.
No. 42169.

#### Protest 932575-G of Amtorg Trading Corp. (New York).

*395Opinion by

Cline, J.

On the authority of *Kraft*v. *United States*(22 C. C. P. A, 111, T. D. 47103) the protest was sustained as to the toweling as it appeared that the eases in which it was packed were legally marked. Neither the table damask nor the immediate container thereof was legally marked. The protest was therefore overruled as to that item.
Before the First Division,

October 16, 1943

No. 48882.

#### Protests 68772-K, etc., of S. S. Kresge Co. et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Olivfr, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 26 , 2014.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00299

- CV

RANDY WALKER , Appellant

V.

THOMAS D. WINDSOR , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1027482

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed March 25, 2013 . The clerk’s

record was filed April 5, 2013 . The reporter’s record was filed January 21, 2014

.

No brief was filed.

On May 6, 2014 , this court issued an order stating that unless appellant

submitted a brief on or before June 5, 2014 , the court would dismiss the appeal for

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).2

Appellant filed n o response. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donovan and Brown

.
# C_2015363EN.01002601.xml

| 3.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-346/12) (1)

1

((Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Fruit and vegetable sector - National financial assistance granted to producer organisations - Commission implementing decision concerning the reimbursement by the European Union of national financial assistance granted by Hungary to its producer organisations - Article 103e of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Article 97 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007))

(2015/C 363/33)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: initially M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, then M. Fehér, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Béres, N. Donnelly and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C (2012) 3324 final of 25 May 2012 on national financial assistance granted to producer organisations

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.

1

---
# HWGC **DRONE PRE**

**- FLIGHT**  **CHECKLIST**

**1. BEFORE YOU LEAVE THE OFFICE** 
☐ **Notify Job Site you are coming.** ☐ **Check weather.** ☐ **Check No-Fly Zones for the area.** ☐ **Determine if any special exemptions are required to fly in the area.**  ☐ **Check condition of all equipment.** ☐ **Make sure all batteries are fully charged – both ai rcraft and transmitter.** 



### 2. **WHEN YOU ARRIVE AT JOB SITE**
☐ **Check that all appropriate signage is posted.** ☐ **Conduct Pre-Flight Conference with Project Team.** ☐ **Determine and secure appropriate take-off and landi ng area.**  ☐ **Inform all personnel on site of the drone operation s.**  ☐ **Review flight path and any special views / photos t hat are required.**  ☐ **Review Weather**



### 3. **PRE-FLIGHT CHECK**
☐ **Check condition of all equipment and batteries (mus t be fully charged).**  ☐ **Verify Prop installation and rotation are correct a nd secure.**  ☐ **Communication to Visual Observer (VO) the flight pl an and expectations.**  ☐ **Disengage Camera Lock and Remove Lens cover.** ☐ **Turn on Transmitter.** ☐ **Check channel availability.** ☐ **Turn on Drone.** ☐ **Calibrate Drone.** ☐ **Start and check motors.** ☐ **Visually check area before take-off.** ☐ **Take-off and hover 5’ AGL, verify controls and stab ility.** **Page 2**



### 4. **FLIGHT RULES**
☐ **Use caution, don’t fly over people.** ☐ **Keep Drone in Line of Sight at all Times.** ☐ **Stay within verbal communication distance of VO at all times.**  ☐ **Monitor airspace restrictions and battery life.** ☐ **Only fly during Daylight hours.** ☐ **Don’t take unnecessary risk.**



### 5. **POST FLIGHT**

☐ **Disconnect Drone Battery.** ☐ **Turn off transmitter.** ☐ **Check for Damage.** ☐ **Inform Job Site that flight operations are complete**

**.** ☐ **Fill out Aircraft and Pilot Log.**