alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012126EN.01001902.xml

| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/19

---

Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses (R)

(Case T-89/12)

2012/C 126/39

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.B. Devaureix)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ajuntament de Roses, Roses (Girona), Spain

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:

| — | declare the action admissible, together with all of the relevant documents and copies; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible, together with all of the relevant documents and copies;

| — | declare the proposed evidence admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the proposed evidence admissible;

| — | accept that evidence, and annul and declare inapplicable the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2011 and, consequently, allow the registration of Community trade mark No 7 440 407‘R’ for the goods in Class 25 in respect of which registration was originally sought, and those in Class 35 in respect of which registration has been refused; |
| --- | --- |

—

accept that evidence, and annul and declare inapplicable the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2011 and, consequently, allow the registration of Community trade mark No 7 440 407‘R’ for the goods in Class 25 in respect of which registration was originally sought, and those in Class 35 in respect of which registration has been refused;

| — | 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: figurative mark ‘R’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 35 and 41 (application No 7440407).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ajuntament de Roses.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark No 2593913 for goods and services in Classes 6, 9, 16, 25 and 35.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld for some of the goods and services against which it was brought, in Classes 25 and 35, and application rejected in respect of those goods.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: action dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Erroneous application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting signs.

Pleas in law:

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2269 

To permit voluntary economic activity. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 29, 2012 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit voluntary economic activity. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Anti-Trust Freedom 

5 Act of 2012’’. 

6 SEC. 2. VOLUNTARY ECONOMIC COORDINATION BY INDI7 VIDUALS. 

8 The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the Clayton 

9 Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.), and section 5 of the Federal 

10 Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) shall not be con11 strued to prohibit, ban, or otherwise extend to any vol12 untary economic coordination, cooperation, agreement, or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2269 IS

1 other association, compact, contract, or covenant entered 

2 into by or between any individual or group of individuals. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### House of Comoy, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6541.

Entry No. 716056, etc.

Pro forma invoices dated London, England, September 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 15, 1945, etc.

(Decided November 22, 1946)

*Abberly, Bryde, Kooiman, MacFall*& *Amon*for the plaintiffs.

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

Cline, 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 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the 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.
From: Muldoon, Albert (OST)

To: Alaska DOT, Steven D. Hatter (steve.hatter@alaska.gov) ; Rich Sewell (rich.sewell@alaska.gov) ; Alaska DOT,

Linda Bustamante ; Alaska DOT, Rebecca Cronkhite

Cc: Tom Williams ; Hank Myers

Subject: Request for Comments - EAS Proposals for Chatham and Funter Bay, AK

Date: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:35:01 AM

Attachments: Alaska Seaplane Proposal - Chatham-Funter Bay 2012.pdf

Ward Air Proposal - Chatham-Funter Bay 2012.pdf

All,

Please find attached to this email the proposals of Ward Air (the incumbent) and Alaska

Seaplane Service, to provide Essential Air Service at Chatham and Funter Bay, AK.

These were the only timely-filed proposals and they have been posted to the docket (DOTOST-1997-3134).

The comments of the communities and the state are a critically important element in our

carrier-selection decision. We ask that you and the other interested parties carefully

review the proposals and provide us with any comments no later than August 23, 2012

. We will docket this email as well as any comments received.

Please feel free to contact myself or the carriers with any questions.

Regards,

A.J.

A.J. Muldoon

Transportation Industry Analyst

Office of Aviation Analysis

U.S. Department of Transportation

albert.muldoon@dot.gov

(202) 366-1058
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

HALIFAX CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This Certification is intended to accompany the Annual Report of Halifax
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements
of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 The undersigned, in my capacity as set forth below,
hereby certifies 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 results of
operations of the Company.

|                                       |  |  |  |                    
|-------------------------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------
|/s/Joseph Sciacca                      |  |  |  | Date: June 19, 2003
|Joseph Sciacca
Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  |                    

30
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, As Amended I, Robert T. Hass, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Amtech Systems, 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 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 annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial position, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
being prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting. 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting. By /s/ Robert T. Hass
Robert T. Hass
Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer
Amtech Systems, Inc.
Date: January 28, 2008
Case No. 9,368.

#### MEAD v. SCOTT.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 401.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1807.

Costs —Ox Appeal fbom Justice op Peace — Discretionary.

Costs on appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace, are within the discretion of the court, if the judgment be affirmed in part.

Upon an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, the jury found a verdict for the appellee, for $10.09. The judgment of the justice was for $17.50.

Mr. Law. for appellant,

contended for costs. Appeals from justices of the peace are given by the Maryland act of 1791 (chapter 6S). The condition of the appeal-bond only provides for costs in case the judgment shall be affirmed. The appellee cannot sue upon the bond, for the condition has not been broken. The judgment has not been affirmed, although the ap-pellee has recovered something; yet he had obtained a judgment below for too much. In the ease of Austin v. Hughes, in Montgomery county court the judgment was diminished only two dollars, and yet the appellant recovered judgment for costs.

F. S. Key, contri.

It is an appeal as to fact as well as law, and new evidence was admitted. The case is taken' up de novo. Costs are a matter of discretion. The bond, if appellant had given one, would have bound him to pay all such damages and costs as this court shall award against him.

Mr. Morsell, in reply,

admits that this court has original jurisdiction as to fact, but as to law it is only appellate. If the proceedings below are not regular, the judgment must be reversed. If this court, or the jur». “hould give more than the justice of the peace had given, appellee may release and affirm the judgment as to the residue. If the judgment below was erroneous, the appellant has sustained his appeal, and ought not to pay costs.

THE COURT

was of opinion that in such cases costs are within the discretion of the court, and as there was no evidence of a. tender of any part of the money.- or any offer to pay as much as the appellee finally recovered; it is the opinion of the court that the judgment of the justice ought to be affirmed as to the sum awarded by the jury, with costs, and reversed as to the residue.
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,
                                  AS ENACTED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with Third Wave Technologies, Inc. (the "Company) Form 10-Q for
the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John Puisis, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and David Nuti, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, 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.

                                          /s/ John Puisis
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          John Puisis
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          August 9, 2004

                                          /s/ David Nuti
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          David Nuti
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          August 9, 2004
#### Henry HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-580.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 21, 1998.

*382Albert W. Guffanti, Miami, and Michael Korviek, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, and Douglas Gurnic, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauder-dale, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Mendoza v. State,*700 So.2d 670 (Fla.1997); *Scobee v. State,*488 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
(Reap. Dec. 9917)

#### Haddad & Sons, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 1032; 1037.

(Decided February 20, 1961)

*James G. McGoldrioJc*for tbe plaintiff.

*WilUam*JET. *OrricJc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeals for reappraisement for decision upon stipulation on the basis of which I find export value, as defined in section 402a(d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the footwear involved, which is identified in schedule “A,” attached hereto, and that such value, in each instance, is the invoiced unit price, ex-factory, net, packing included.

Judgment will issue accordingly.

Schedule “A”

The manufacturer and seller of the merchandise herein is:

Hikoshima Rubber Industry Co., Ltd.

Fukuyama, Japan

(1) R60/5859 (Export Date: August 15,1959)

Miami Collector’s No. 78

Miami Entry No. 1032 (Sept. 16,1959)

Rubber shoes — Sponge Sandals (ZORI)

Art. No. HR-002 Ladies sizes invoiced at US $1.87 per dozen, ex-factory, net, packed;

(2) R60/5861 (ExportDate: August 15,1959)

Miami Collector’s No. 80

Miami Entry No. 1037 (Sept. 16,1959)

Rubber shoes — Sponge Sandals (ZORI)

Art. No. HRr-003 Children’s sizes invoiced at US $1.29 per dozen pair, ex-factory, net, packed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19904]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 201


Copyright Rules and Regulations

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Correction; technical amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is making one correction to the non-
substantive housekeeping amendments to its regulations published in the 
Federal Register July 1, 1997. The correction amends the address for 
the Licensing Division of the Copyright Office.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 29, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn J. Kretsinger, Assistant 
General Counsel, or Patricia L. Sinn, Senior Attorney, Copyright GC/
I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024. 
Telephone: (202) 707-8380. Fax: (202) 707-8366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Copyright Office is correcting the 
address it published for the Office's Licensing Division in the July 1, 
1997, edition of the Federal Register. The corrected address is 
effective immediately, and will appear in the Code of Federal 
Regulations at 37 CFR 201.1(b) as soon as possible.

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201

    Copyright, General Provisions.

Final Rule

    Accordingly, 37 CFR Chapter II is corrected by making the following 
correction and amendment.

PART 201--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    1. The authority citation for Part 201 continues to read as 
follows:
    Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702, 17 U.S.C. 1003.


Sec. 201.1  [Amended]

    2. Section 201.1(b) is amended by removing ``Licensing Division, 
LM-454, Library of Congress, Copyright Office, 101 Independence Avenue, 
SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000.'' and adding in its place ``Library of 
Congress, Copyright Office, Licensing Division, 101 Independence 
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20557-6400.''

    Dated: July 23, 1997.
Marilyn J. Kretsinger,
Assistant General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-19904 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO**

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

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Non Invasive Monitoring, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending July 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary W. Macleod,, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and 

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated: November 9, 2005
April 27, 1943

No. 48236.

Suits 4411 and 4412.

#### United *States*v. *Ritter Carlton Co.*and *Ritter Carlton Co.*v. *United States.*

C. D. 657 modified March 1, 1943. C. A. D. 233.
No. 48248.

#### Protests 557965-G, etc., of Irving L. Hartman & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by.

Tilson, J.

In accordance with agreement oof counsel that the harvest hats in question are similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664) those entered or withdrawn for consumption prior to February 1, 1936, were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and those subsequent to said date were held dutiable at 12)4 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and the Netherlands Trade Agreement (T. D. 48075). Protests sustained to this extent.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Broadwind Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephanie K. Kushner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)            the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii)           the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| May 9,   2011 |                            |
|--------------------|---------------------------------|
|               |                            |
|               | /s/ STEPHANIE K. KUSHNER        |
|               | Stephanie K. Kushner            |
|               | Chief Financial Officer         |
|               | *(Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

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.

 

----