alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014202EN.01002101.xml

| 30.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2014 — Katjes Fassin v OHIM (Yoghurt-Gums)

(Case T-366/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark Yoghurt-Gums - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 202/26

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2012 (Case R 523/2012-4) concerning registration of the figurative sign Yoghurt-Gums 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 Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012.

1

---
No. 40572.

#### Protest 924432-G of Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc.

C. D. 70. Application by Government for rehearing granted.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Secured Data, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for
the period  ending  March 31,  2005 as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof,  I, Sanding Tao, Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report  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.

Date:  July 27, 2005


/S/ Sanding Tao
    -------------------
Sanding Tao
Chief Financial Officer
#### Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6607.

Entry No. 4449, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, May 1943, etc.

Certified May 1943, etc.

Entered at Chicago, Ill., May 21, 1943, etc.

(Decided December 12, 1946)

*Wallace & Schwartz (Joseph Schwartz*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 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 importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 23.1


                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


Caprius, Inc.
Fort Lee, New Jersey


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-47517, 33-70834 and 33-78928) of our report dated
November 15, 2002, except for Note J, which is dated December 17, 2002, relating
to the consolidated financial statements of Caprius, Inc. appearing in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2002.


                                               /s/BDO Seidman, LLP
                                               -------------------
                                               BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
January 13, 2003
# C_2014212EN.01002702.xml

| 7.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2014 — BG v Ombudsman

(Case T-406/12 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary measures - Penalty of removal from post without loss of entitlement to a retirement pension - Preliminary investigation pending before a national court when the decision ordering removal from the post was adopted - Equal treatment - Prohibition on dismissal during maternity leave))

2014/C 212/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: BG (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman (represented by: J. Sant’Anna, Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2012 in Case F-54/11 BG v Ombudsman, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking that that judgment be set aside.

BG

Ombudsman

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders BG to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Ombudsman in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BG to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Ombudsman in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

1

---
#### Dawn Jackson, Appellant, v United Parcel Service et al., Respondents.

[612 NYS2d 186]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated February 10, 1992, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion is denied.

The plaintiff met her burden of establishing a prima facie case of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see, Licari v Elliott,*57 NY2d 230; *cf., Lopez v Senatore,*65 NY2d 1017). In opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted her own affidavit and excerpts from her examination before trial in which she complained of persistent pain and restriction of movement. In addition, the plaintiff submitted sworn affidavits from her treating physicians stating that she suffered a disc herniation at L5/S1, and that this condition would be permanent. The evidence submitted by the defendants was contradictory, creating issues of fact for a jury to determine *(see, Morsellino v Frankel,*161 AD2d 748). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2333 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2333

   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain motor generator units.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 23, 2012

   Mr. Levin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain motor generator units.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN MOTOR GENERATOR UNITS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Motor generator     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        units with three-                                                  31/2015.......
                        phase cable
                        assembly, the
                        foregoing
                        designed to
                        function as a
                        starter motor and
                        electric motor
                        supplementing the
                        gasoline internal
                        combustion engine
                        and as a
                        generator for
                        recharging
                        vehicle batteries
                        in regenerative
                        braking mode;
                        certified by the
                        importer for use
                        in hybrid
                        electric vehicles
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        8511.40.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-117757, 333-117754, 333-48084, 333-83995) and in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-132504) and in the related Prospectus of our reports dated February 23, 2009, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule of **tw telecom inc.**, and internal control over financial reporting of **tw telecom inc.,** included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Denver, Colorado 

February 23, 2009
No. 45375.

#### Protests 35643-K, etc., of Armour & Co. et al. (New York).

Keefe, Judge:

At the trial it was stipulated and agreed between counsel as follows:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed that the items of merchandise, marked with the letter “F” and initialed RC by Examiner Robert Cryan on the invoices covered by the protests enumerated in Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, assessed for duty at 25% under paragraph 710 of the Tariff Act of 1930, consists of cheese wrapped in paper, or in foil, or in both, which is the same in all material respects as the merchandise passed on in *Kraft-Phenix Cheese Corporation*v. *United States,*T. D. 47955.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the return of the surveyor as to the weights in each and every entry, and .the record in said T. D. 47955 may be incorporated and made a part of'the record herein.

> The claims in the protests are limited to the items of merchandise marked with the letter “F” as aforesaid.

> Plaintiffs waive the right to amend further and the first docket call.

> The protests are submitted.

In accordance with this stipulation and in view of the decision cited, we find that the collector erroneously assessed duty upon the merchandise, marked “F” on the invoices together with the examiner’s initials, and covered by the protests enumerated in schedule A hereto attached and made a part hereof, which he ascertained by a multiplication of the unit value, including the value of paper and foil covering, by the net landed weight of the cheese, and then added to the value thus obtained the estimated cost of the inside covering, equal to a sum obtained by multiplication of the weight of the paper and foil by the unit value of the merchandise. As stated in the case of *United States*v. *Suzarte & Whitney,*8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 99, T. D. 37219, “the course pursued by the appraiser was to fix the unit value upon the goods including the cost of the containers, and that if the net weight is multiplied by this unit value, the containers will have paid the rate of duty which the merchandise also bears, which is correct.”

We therefore find that the collector should have multiplied the weight of the cheese exclusive of the weight of the paper and foil, found by the weigher, by the *per se*unit value of the cheese, which iricludes the value’ of the paper and foil, as found by the appraiser, and to the total thus found he should have added the cost of packing as invoiced. On this total sum the collector should have computed the duty at the rate of 25 per centum ad valorem. He should have also computed the duty of 5 cents per pound on the *per se*net weight of the cheese. If the 25 per centum ad valorem rate produced the greater amount of duty, he should have assessed the merchandise at that rate, but if the 5-cent per pound rate produced the greater amount of duty, he should have assessed the merchandise at that rate.

Judgment will be entered in favor of the plaintiffs in respect to the foregoing meichandise, directing the collector of customs to reliquidate the entries in accordance with our finding herein, and to make refund accordingly.
No. 46411.

#### Protest 16056-K of Winsor & Newton, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

From an inspection of the sample in evidence and the uncontradicted testimony of the plaintiff, the court was of the opinion that “if the present articles are not containers in every sense of the term, then no tin box may be so classified.” *Illfelder*v. *United States*(2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 299, T. D. 32040) cited.' The protest was therefore sustained as to certain of the items in question..
Order entered June 20, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 13
- 00057
- CV
SHERRELLE WILLIAMSON , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12C
- 012
- 2 

### O RDER The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By postcard dated January 25, 2013 we notified the Kaufman County Clerk that the clerk’s record was overdue. We directed the County Clerk to file the record within 30 days. To date , we have not received the clerk’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER Kaufman County Clerk Laura Hughes to file, within TEN
DAYS of the date of this order, either the clerk’s record or written verification that appellant has not been found indigent and has not paid for the record. We notif y appellant that if we receive verification she is not indigent and has not paid for the record, we will, without further notice, dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b).
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this o rder, by electronic transmission, to:Laura Hughes Kaufman County Clerk

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
**Exhibit
      32.1**




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 on Form 10-Q of China
      Natural Gas ,
      Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the quarter ending June 30, 2008as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Qinan Ji, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, 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 his 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:
                November 13, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Qinan JiChief
                Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42140-42142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20409]



[[Page 42140]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Executive Office for Immigration Review; Official Seal

AGENCY: Executive Office for Immigration Review.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Executive Office for 
Immigration Review has adopted and hereby prescribes its official seal.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This notice is effective August 5, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Margaret M. Philbin, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration 
Review, Suite 2400, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041, 
(703) 305-0470.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The central device of the official seal of 
the Executive Office for Immigration Review is that of the Department 
of Justice, encircled by a bond inscribed with the organization's 
designation. More specifically, on a Buff disc, a shield blazoned: 
Paleways of thirteen pieces Argent and Gules, a chief Azure, an eagle 
rising and standing on the middle of the shield holding in his dexter 
talon an olive branch consisting of thirteen leaves and berries and in 
his sinister talon thirteen arrows, all Proper. In an arc below the 
device the inscription, ``Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur,'' all 
encircled by a Blue band edged and inscribed with ``DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE'' and ``EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW'' below in gold 
and enclosed by a Gold rope. The design is illustrated as follows:

BILLING CODE 4410-30-M 

[[Page 42141]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AU97.020



BILLING CODE 4410-30-C

[[Page 42142]]

    The use of the seal or replica is restricted to the following:
    (1) Executive Office for Immigration Review documents, including 
all documents issued by Executive Office for Immigration Review 
components that are required to be issued under Seal;
    (2) Plaques for display at Executive Office for Immigration Review 
facilities such as Immigration courts, Executive Office for Immigration 
Review offices, and other places designated by the Director, Executive 
Office for Immigration Review;
    (3) Official films prepared by or for the Executive Office for 
Immigration Review;
    (4) Official Executive Office for Immigration Review publications; 
and
    (5) Any other uses as the Director of Executive Office for 
Immigration Review finds appropriate.

    Dated: July 22, 1997.
Anthony C. Moscato,
Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review.
[FR Doc. 97-20409 Filed 8-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-30-M
How Do I 

Qualify

for an 

Impairment Award

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment Standards Administration

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

Division of Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation

Under Part E of the 

Energy Employees

Occupational Illness

Compensation Program

Act (EEOICPA)?

EEOICPA

Who pays for an 

impairment rating?

DOL is committed to delivering benefits to

eligible claimants.

• DOL pays for one impairment rating as

long as the evaluation meets the criteria.

• DOL pays for tests needed to obtain an

impairment evaluation.

• The evaluation must have occurred

within one year of the date of its receipt

by DOL for its expense to be eligible for

reimbursement.

• The cost of obtaining additional

evaluations may be covered at the claims

examiner’s discretion.

• Impairment ratings performed by

unqualified physicians are not

reimbursable.

We’re here to help

For more information, contact the Division 

of Energy Employees Occupational Illness

Compensation at 1-866-888-3322.
EEOICPA

Impairment Awards under the EEOICPA

• Condition has reached maximum medical

improvement (MMI)

— well-stabilized and unlikely to improve

with medical treatment

— not required if an illness is in a

terminal stage.

A claimant may request re-evaluation every

two years. A new evaluation may also be

requested whenever DOL accepts a new

illness that increases a claimant’s impairment.

Physician’s evaluation

The DOL determines impairment ratings

based upon a physician’s evaluation. The

evaluation can be performed by a physician 

of the employee’s choice, or the DOL gathers

the appropriate tests and has a qualified

physician complete an impairment evaluation

based on those test results.

To be considered by DOL, the evaluation

must have been performed by a physician

who is:

• Board-certified in the medical specialty

relevant to the covered illness; and

• Trained and certified to perform

impairment ratings using the AMA’s

Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent

Impairment, or experience in using the

Guides.

I

n order to qualify for an impairment 

award under Part E of the Energy

Employees Occupational Illness

Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA),

you must meet certain employment criteria.

You must be, or have been, an employee 

of a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor 

or subcontractor, who has been determined to

have contracted a covered illness through

exposure to a toxic substance at a covered

DOE facility. In addition, individuals covered

under the Radiation Exposure Compensation

Act (RECA) are also potentially eligible for

benefits.

What is an impairment award?

An impairment award is monetary

compensation for the permanent loss of

function of a body part or organ, due to a

covered illness under the EEOICPA, as

established by medical evidence. For each one

percent of impairment, $2,500 is awarded.

To determine the percentage of impairment,

DOL considers the following:

• Loss of function (whole person);

• Standard applied from the American

Medical Association’s (AMA’s) Guides to 

the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment,

Fifth Edition; and