alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014462EN.01002201.xml

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM (NOTFALL CREME)

(Case T-504/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative trade mark NOTFALL CREME - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment))

(2014/C 462/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH (Egelsbach, Germany) (represented by: F. Traub and H. Daniel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2012 (Case R 271/2012-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign NOTFALL CREME as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.a

CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Scott Houghton, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QB for the period ended May 31, 2004, of Pan
American Energy Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary 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 report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
        material information relating to the registrant, including its
        consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
        entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
        prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
        controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing
        date of this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

(c) Presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
        of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of
        the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
        internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability
        to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
        identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
        internal controls; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
        other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
        controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



|Date: July 19, 2004 | /s/ Scott Hougton
    Scott Houghton, Chief Executive Officer
|------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------



* Provide a separate certification for each principal executive officer and
principal financial officer of the registrant. See Rules 13a-14(a) and
15d-14(a).
Name 

Sign-In Sheet -±- of 3 

Public Hearing as to DOE Proposed Changes to the 

International Green Construction Code (IgCC) 

Discovery Room 

14 April, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m 

Holiday Inn, 550 C Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20585-0121 

(202) 479-4000 

Affiliation Email (optional) 

~~~~~~ ______ ~~~~~~~~+-~~·~~~~e~~~~~~I~~ 

'-va,!"" J f-0ftf., I--v/" e 

s c ~ 1/ t," J (,;' - '<. t e. c/--r i c. , CO k 

PNNLfffl5(( 

CS rhorner@ ies.ar 
Name 

Sign-In Sheet ~ of .~ 

Public Hearing as to DOE Proposed Changes to the 

International Green Construction Code (IgCC) 

Discovery Room 

14 April, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m 

Holiday Inn, 550 C Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20585-0121 

(202) 479-4000 

Affiliation Email (optional) 

C(\ C '/J.I" - U I ( 

CT) 

/JtL-D 

tVd.L~ 

~e.c~-4n f D~ 
3 

Sign-In Sheet t of ~ 

Public Hearing as to DOE Proposed Changes to the 

International Green Construction Code (IgCC) 

Name 

0~l!lwn-~L, ~ 

7<"'""&li't. ~/) Il ,'~ ~&J1 

Discovery Room 

14 April, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m 

Holiday Inn, 550 C Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20585-0121 

(202) 479-4000 

Affiliation 

rMT 

\ JVCr 

Email (optional) 

JE(JI;LJ'cJ~ (Q Cr.JMCAJI,V~T 

fi'PJ / '" d f(c» / JfI h D ~ {) /,q 

s aW1JU1t-M r:i) fA IIe1.NvtJ ~l) CI a~5 . , 

.::5~ql1rii) (Jew -bill'lcl;'n5.-C1'"t':
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

LAURA PANKOE,

Respondent

v.

RYAN PANKOE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 54 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
rsg_ex41.htm


    
       

      Exhibit
        4.1

       

      
        	
                Certificate
                  Number_____

              	 	
                Shares_______

              


      

      


      The
        Resourcing Solutions Group,
        Inc.

      Incorporated
        in the State of Nevada

      


            CUSIP
        76123F 30 6

      


      This
        certifies that_____________________________________ is the owner
        of_______________________ Fully Paid Non-assessable Shares of the Common
        Stock
        No Par Value of THE RESOURCING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Transferable on the
        books
        of he Corporation by the holder hereof in person, or by duly authorized attorney
        upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is
        not
        valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar
        and witness the facsimile signature of its duly authorized
        officers.

      


      Dated______

      


      [Corporate
        Seal]

       

      
        	
                ___________________

              	
                _______________________

              


      

      
        	
                Secretary

              	
                President

              


      

      


      COUNTERSIGNED
        AND REGISTERED

      PacWest
        Transfer, LLC

      360
        Main
        Street.

      PO
        Box
        393

      Washington,
        VA 22747

      


      By:___________________________________
TEEEA~~~RNEYGENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

AUBTIN H. TEXAS 

GERAID C. MANN 

-N 

ATl’ORNpN GENE-X. 

Honorable George Ii. Sheppard 

Comptroller-~of Public Accounts 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-2045 

Re: Is the Comptroller authorized to 

issue Warrant against the' 

$25,000.00 ContlngenVExpense Approprlation'to the Board of Education for the payment of fire'lnsurance premium insuring textbooks 

In storage belonging to the State 

of Texas? 

We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 

5, 1940, as follows: 

"Is this department authorized to issue 

warrant against the $25,OOO.OO Contingent 

Expense Appropriation to the Board of Educatlon for the payment of fire insurance premium 

insuring textbooks in storage belonging to the 

State of Texas? 

"For explanation I am attaching clatm of 

A. N. McCalluin, Jr. & Co., General Insurance 

and Loans, against the State Department of Education in the amount of $92.25, covering the 

premium for fire insurance policy issued as protection against loss by fire of such books." 

In opinion No. Q-201, addressed to Dr. George W.'Cox, 

State Health Officer, this department advised that the directors 

of Public Health distr%cts were not authorized to insure State 

property in their respective offices against fire and pay the 

premiums therefor aut of their local contingent funds. The controlling reason given for that opinion was a resolution by the 

Senate declaring the policy of the State to be that it Would 

carry its own insurance. 

Opinion No. O-842, addressed to Honorable Charles E. 

Baughinan, Chief Clerk, Department of Agriculture, involving 

insurance on jacks and stallions belonging to the department, 

followed opinion No. O-201, and further noted the absence of 
Honorable Lee Brady, page 2 O-2045 

any specific appropriation for the purpose of paying premiums 

upon insurance. 

In oplnnion No. O-1100, and a supplement thereto, 

addressed to Honorable 0. J. S. Elllngson, General Manager, 

Texas Prison System, we-advised that in the absence of statutory authority so to do, it would be improper to pay premiums 

upon Insurance policies. In opinion No. o-1762, addressed to 

ytirself, we followed these opinions, and specifically dlsapproved for payment claims for Insurance premiums upon certain ferry boats owned by the State Highway department. 

The $25,OOO.OO item of appropriation referred to by 

you is for maintenance and miscellaneous, and Itemized: "Office 

and depository supplies, postage, express, drayage, telephone, 

telegraph, printing, stationery, rent, contingent expense, lneluding freight on used ~textbooks." It is not that specific 

appropriation for insurance as will suffice for the payment of 

the items presented to you. 

We are returning herewith the statements, in accordance 

with your request. 

Trusting that thi,s will have satlsfactorlly answered 

your question, we are 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS 

OS-MR-WC 

Enclosure 

APPROVED MAR 20, 1940 

s/Gerald C. Mann 

ATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS 

By s/Ocie Speer 

Ocie Speer 

Assistant 

Approved Opinion Committee By s/BWB Chairman
613 S.E.2d 870

#### Raymond Brian THOMAS, Sr., Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.

Record No. 2889-03-4.

Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 14, 2005.

Steven A. Merril (Laura P. Leibowitz; Whitestone, Brent, Young & Merril, P.C., on brief), Fairfax, for appellant.

Steven ■ A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General (Judith Williams Jadgmann, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Before: FITZPATRICK, C.J., and BENTON, ELDER, BUMGARDNER, FRANK, HUMPHREYS, CLEMENTS, FELTON, KELSEY, McCLANAHAN and HALEY, JJ.

Upon Rehearing En Banc

By published opinion dated January 25, 2005, a panel of this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. We stayed the mandate of that decision and granted rehearing *en banc.*Upon reconsideration, the stay of this Court’s January 25, 2005 mandate is lifted and we affirm the trial court for the reasons stated in the majority opinion in *Thomas v. Commonwealth,*44 Va.App. 741, 607 S.E.2d 738 (2005), and adopt that opinion as our own.

Judges Benton, Elder, and Clements would reverse the trial court for the reasons set forth in the panel dissenting opinion. Chief Judge Fitzpatrick agrees with the dissent that the trial court erred in allowing the disputed evidence. However, she would hold that the other evidence of guilt is overwhelming and, thus, the error could not have affected the verdict.

This order shall be published and certified to the trial court.
No. 76-5775.

#### Rodriquez *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19752]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-144-005]


KN Wattenberg Transmission Ltd. Liability Co.; Notice of Tariff 
Filing

July 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 17, 1997, KN Wattenberg Transmission Ltd. 
Liability Co., (KN Wattenberg) tendered for filing as part of its FERC 
Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet, 
to be effective August 1, 1997:

Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 66A

    KN Wattenberg states that this tariff sheet is being filed to adopt 
in the August 1, 1997 effective sheet the changes recently approved in 
the Commission's June 26, 1997 letter order in Docket No. RP97-144-003 
incorporating certain Order No. 587 GISB standards to be effective June 
1, 1997.
    KN Wattenberg states that copies of the filing were served upon 
Wattenberg's jurisdictional customers, interested public bodies, and 
all parties to the proceedings.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). All such protests 
must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's 
Regulations. All protests filed with the Commission will be considered 
by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not 
serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19752 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19721]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By notice dated March 31, 1997, and published in the Federal 
Register on May 12, 1997, (62 FR 25971), Lonza Riverside, 900 River 
Road, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428, made application to the Drug 
Enforcement Administration to be registered as an importer of 
phenylacetone (8501), a basic class of controlled substance listed in 
Schedule II.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in Title 21, United States Code, Section 823(a) and 
determined that the registration of Lonza Riverside to import 
phenylacetone is consistent with the public interest and with United 
States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or 
protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. Therefore, pursuant 
to Section 1008(a) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act 
and in accordance with Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 
1301.34, the above firm is granted registration as an importer of the 
basic class of controlled substance listed above.

    Dated: July 1, 1997.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-19721 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
Order entered November 12, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00306-CR

KAREN PATRICIA BOWIE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-81418-2011

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On October 7, 2013, we denied appellant’s second motion to extend time to file his brief 

and ordered the trial court to make findings. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires 

to pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court-appointed counsel 

William Schultz; (3) Mr. Schultz’s explanation for the delay in filing appellant’s brief is his 

workload; and (4) Mr. Schultz needs until December 23, 2013 to file appellant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief by MONDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2013. We note 

that appellant’s brief was originally due August 3, 2013 and appellant has already been granted 

one extension of time to file the brief. Therefore, if appellant’s brief is not filed by the date 
specified, the Court will order William Schultz removed as appellant’s attorney and will order 

the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent appellant in this appeal.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Benjamin Smith, Presiding Judge, 380th Judicial District Court; William Schultz; and 

the Collin County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 25, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00183

- CR

Cornell Jackie DRUMMER, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District C ourt, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1991CR1948A Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief in this court. In accordance with the law, appointed counsel provided appellant with a copy of the brief as well as a motion by which appellant could request a copy of the appellate record for purposes of filing his own

brief. On June 22, 2018, appellant filed his pro se motion for access to the appellate record. In that motion, appellant asks this court to provide him with a copy of the appellate record and grant him and extension of thirty d ays from the date he receives the record to file his appellant’s brief.

After review, we GRANT appellant’s request for a copy of the appellate record and

ORDER the clerk of this court to send appellant a copy of the appellate record. We advise appellant that the appellate record in this case consists of a clerk’s record and two supplemental clerk’s records; there is no reporter’s record. In addition, we GRANT appellant’s request for an extension of time to file his appellant’s brief and ORDER appellant to file his brief in this court

on or before August 9, 2018

.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel and the pro se appellant.

_________________________________ Marial yn Barnard, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 25th day of June, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEI TH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
# C_2015155EN.01000502.xml

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — OTP Bank Nyrt v Magyar Állam, Magyar Államkincstár

(Case C-672/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Housing aid granted prior to the accession of Hungary to the European Union to certain categories of household - Payment of the aid by credit institutions in exchange for a State guarantee - Article 108(3) TFEU - Measure not previously notified to the European Commission - Unlawfulness))

(2015/C 155/06)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OTP Bank Nyrt

Applicant:

Defendants: Magyar Állam, Magyar Államkincstár

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The guarantee provided by the Hungarian State under Paragraph 25(1) and (2) of Government Decree No 12/2001 of 31 January 2001 concerning aid intended to facilitate access to housing, granted exclusively to credit institutions prima facie constitutes ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. However, it is for the referring court to ascertain more specifically the selective nature of such a guarantee by determining, in particular, whether, following the amendment of the Decree of 2001 which is supposed to have taken place in 2008, that guarantee may be granted to economic operators other than credit institutions and, in the affirmative, whether that fact may call into question the selective nature of that guarantee.

If the referring court classifies the State guarantee at issue in the main proceedings as ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, such a guarantee must be regarded as new aid and is, on that ground, subject to the obligation of prior notification to the European Commission in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU. It is for the referring court to verify whether the Member State concerned has complied with that obligation and, if that is not the case, to declare that guarantee unlawful.

The beneficiaries of a State guarantee, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, granted without regard for Article 108(3) TFEU and, therefore, unlawful, do not have any remedies available in accordance with EU law.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.

1

---