alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014439EN.01001202.xml

| 8.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 439/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 439/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Douane Advies Bureau Rietveld v Hauptzollamt Hannover

(Case C-541/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union and common customs tariff - Tariff classification - Heading 3822 - Concept of ‘diagnostic or laboratory reagents’ - Indicators of exposure to a predetermined target temperature))

(2014/C 439/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Douane Advies Bureau Rietveld

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Heading 3822 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex 1 to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that temperature indicators, such as the products marketed under the names ‘WarmMark’ and ‘ColdMark’, which, by the effect of a change in colour caused by the variation in volume of the liquids that they contain, indicate, irreversibly, whether a temperature higher or lower than a specified threshold has been reached, are not covered by that heading.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.

1

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF      2002**

|   | 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | To                my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,                in                all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of Atlantic BancGroup, Inc., as of and for the period covered by                the                report. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August                10, 2007 | /s/                Barry W. Chandler                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                            | Barry                W. Chandler                     |
|                                            | President                and Chief Executive Officer |
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN T. WITHROW, Fireman Recruit, U. S. Naval Reserve, Appellant

8 USCMA 728, 25 CMR 232

No. 10,698

Decided February 21, 1958

*Lieutenant (jg) W. W. McNeilly, Jr.,*USNR, was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles H. Beale, Jr.,*USMC, was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

The accused was tried and convicted by a special court-martial of several offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He pleaded guilty to two of the offenses but not guilty to the remaining two offenses of attempted bribery, in violation of Article 80 of the Code, supra, 10 USC § 880. The staff legal officer, in his review, set forth the evidence adduced at trial relating to the offenses to which the accused had pleaded not guilty. He failed, however, to evaluate the adequacy and weight to be given this evidence. Paragraph 855, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, in discussing the form and content of the post-trial review, provides as follows:

> “The staff judge advocate or legal officer to whom a record of trial is *729referred for review and advice will submit a written review thereof to the convening authority. The review will include a summary of the evidence in the case, *his opinion as to the adequacy and weight of the evidence and the effect of any error or irregularity respecting the proceedings,*and a specific recommendation as to the action to be taken. Reasons for both the opinion and the recommendation will be stated.” [Emphasis supplied.]

The staff legal officer’s review in the ease at bar merely summarized, it did not advise. This was error. United States v Grice, 8 USCMA 166, 23 CMR 390; United States v Johnson, 8 USCMA 173, 23 CMR 397. The error, however, extends only to those offenses to which the accused had pleaded not guilty.

This case may be disposed of by returning the record to the board of review which, in its discretion, may set aside the findings of guilt of the specifications under Charge I and the Additional Charge, and reassess the sentence on the remaining approved findings of guilt or may submit the record to a competent convening authority for further proceedings in conformity with Articles 61 and 64 of the Code, supra, 10 USC §§861 and 864. Cf. United States v Katzenberger, 8 USCMA 497, 24 CMR 307.
# C_2012331EN.01002902.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/29

---

Action brought on 3 September 2012 — Luigi Lavazza SpA v OHIM

(Case T-392/12)

(2012/C 331/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Lavazza SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, G.E. Sironi, M. Ricolfi and C.E. Mezzetti, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Commercialunione Prima Srl (Bresso, Italy)

Form of order sought

| — | uphold the action and annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 26 June 2012 in Case R 124/2011-1, on grounds of infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the action and annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 26 June 2012 in Case R 124/2011-1, on grounds of infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | reject the opposition of Commercialunione Prima Srl to the European Union-wide registration of international trade mark No W000943981 ‘Lavazza a modo mio’ and, consequently, grant the same scope of registration; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition of Commercialunione Prima Srl to the European Union-wide registration of international trade mark No W000943981 ‘Lavazza a modo mio’ and, consequently, grant the same scope of registration;

| — | order that the costs borne by Luigi Lavazza SpA in the proceedings be fully awarded in its favour. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs borne by Luigi Lavazza SpA in the proceedings be fully awarded in its favour.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Luigi Lavazza SpA

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘LAVAZZA A MODO MIO’ for goods and services in Classes 11, 29, 30 and 43 — International registration for European Union No W00 943 981

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Commercialunione Prima Srl

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative marks ‘A MODO MIO’, ‘la PIZZA A MODO MIO’ and ‘A MODO MIO BIRRA & MUSIC’ for services in Class 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Action partially upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The Board of Appeal took note of the withdrawal of the application for registration of ‘LAVAZZA A MODO MIO’ for Class 43 only and dismissed the action as to the remainder

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and the second part of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009

---
#### L. Bamberger & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6602. Entry No. N-391, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, January 2, 1942, etc.

Entered at Newark, N. J., February 27, 1942, etc.

(Decided December 11, 1946)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

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

Mollison, 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 appráised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**Certification Pursuant To****18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,****As Adopted Pursuant To****Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
I, Craig A. Knock, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        May 12, 2005 /s/  Craig A. Knock   Craig A Knock   Vice President,
#### Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. *United*States

No. 6235.

Invoices dated London, England, September 1944, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 27, 1944, etc.

Entry No. 710516, etc.

(Decided November 27, 1945)

*John D. Rode (Jacob L. Klingaman*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto: .

> It is, hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the issues in these appeals for reappraisement, enumerated above, are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *United States*v. *Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc.,*Suit No. 4481, C. A. D. 305, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise here involved, less the addition made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the cost of materials and fabrication, manipulation, or other process employed in manufacturing or'■producing such or similar merchandise at a time preceding the date of exportation of the involved merchandise which would ordinarily permit the manufacture *465or production thereof in the usual course of business, plus the usual general expenses (not less than 10 per centum of suph cost) in the case, of such or similar merchandise, plus the cost of all containers and coverings, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, and plus an addition for profit (not less than 8 per centum of the costs of materials and fabrication or manipulation áhd general expenses) equal to the profit which ordinarily is added to the cost of merchandise of the same general character by manufacturers or producers in the country of manufacture who are engaged in the manufacture of merchandise of the same class or kind.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing .stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                        NOBEL LEARNING COMMUNITIES, INC.

                           CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY
            RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

     In connection with the Annual Report of Nobel Learning Communities, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, George H. Bernstein, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, in
connection with Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, that based on 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.

/s/ George H. Bernstein
---------------------------
Name: George H. Bernstein
Chief Executive Officer

Date: October 13, 2003
July 31, 1945

No. 6199.

#### William *J. Oberle, Inc. (European Agencies Co., Inc.)*v. *United States.*

Entered at New Orleans, La. Reap. Dec. 6160. Motion by plaintiff.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         236,236
<SECURITIES>                                   207,344
<RECEIVABLES>                                  123,349
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                     10,799
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               599,863
<PP&E>                                        7,549,33
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,691,582
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,669,030
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          475,906
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       536,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,799,739
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,669,030
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,177,176
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,928,830
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             209,998
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                241,073
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            241,073
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   241,073
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    20.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2012 - 1014 Directorate ID : 2010 - SW - 058 - AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model SA - 365N1, AS - 365N2, and AS 365 N3 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 19 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent an undetected flight display error of a slow drift in the roll axis, disorientation of the pilot, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $2,560 Labor per Helicopter ( 16 x $ 8 5 /work- hour for the installation) $ 1,360 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 3,920 Total US Fleet Cost $ 74,480 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Isthe AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Proje ct Engineer : Mark F. Wiley
#### Ex parte Thomas L. ROUNTREE. (In re Tracy F. Hudmon SHIVER v. Kenneth R. HUDMON).

2960093.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 12, 1998.

Macbeth Wagnon, Jr., of Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, Birmingham, for petitioner.

Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Robert M. Weinberg, asst. atty. gen., for Judge Philip Dale Segrest.

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.

Thomas L. Rountree petitioned this court for a writ of prohibition directing the trial judge in a pending action to withdraw his order requiring Rountree to appeal’ and respond to a contempt citation. This court issued the writ of prohibition on the ground that the trial judge’s inherent powers were not so broad as to enable him to hold Roun-tree in contempt simply because Rountree was an attorney and officer of the court. *Ex parte Rountree, 694*So.2d 13 (Ala.Civ.App.1997).

The trial judge then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus directing this court to set aside its writ of prohibition. Although Rountree responded to that petition by arguing that the writ of prohibition had been properly issued, he argued in the alternative that if the Supreme Court held that the trial judge had jurisdiction to institute contempt proceedings against him, then the trial judge should be ordered to refer the contempt action to another judge. The Supreme Court concluded, under the facts of this case, that the trial judge had personal jurisdiction over Roun-tree to charge him with contempt. However, it also noted that the trial judge would likely be a witness in any contempt proceeding and held that referral to another judge under Rule 70A(f), Ala.R.Civ.P., was proper. Accordingly, the court issued the writ of mandamus. *Ex parte Segrest,*[Ms. 1961338, May 8,1998], 718 So.2d 1 (Ala.1998).

In compliance with the opinion of the Supreme Court, we vacate the writ of prohibition and “enter an order instructing the trial court to refer the contempt proceeding to another judge.” *Id.*at 8.

WRIT VACATED; INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED.

YATES, MONROE, CRAWLEY, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Case $io. 10,083a.

#### NEELY v. ROBINSON et al.

[Hempst. 9.] *1*

Circuit Court, D. Arkansas.

Oct., 1821.

Executors and Administrators — Suit by Attorney in Pact por Benefit op Estate.

An attorney in fact of an executor or administrator cannot maintain suit in his own name for the benefit of the estate.

NOTE. An agent cannot sue in his own name, where the legal interest is in his principal. Pigott v. Thompson, 3 Bos. & P. 147; Gunn v. Cantine, 10 Johns. 388; Devers v. Becknell, 1 *1279Mo. 333: Bractney v. Shreve, Coxe [1 X. X Law] 33; Toland v. Murray. IS Johns. 24.

*1278Appeal from the Arkansas circuit court.

[This was a suit by William Neeley against Robinson and others.]

Before SCOTT and SELDEN, JJ.

1

**[Reported by Samuel H. Hempstead, Esq.]

OPINION OP THE COURT. In this case it would be useless to give an opinion at length, as the law which governs it has been long and uniformly settled. We do not think that the attorney in fact of an executor or administrator can maintain an action for the benefit of the estate in his own name, in any instance, and therefore the demurrer, setting forth this ground to defeat the action, should have been sustained. Reversed.

*1279An action cannot be maintained in the name of a mere agent of a corporation. Gilmore v. Pope, 5 Mass. 491.

An agent of the United States cannot prosecute an action of assumpsit in his own name, where the interest is in the United States. White t. Bennett. 1 Mo. 102; Bainbridge v. Downie. 6 Mass. 253.

An agent who makes a contract in behalf of another cannot maintain an action thereon in his own name either at law or in equity. Whitehead v. Potter, 4 Ired. 257.

In general, a mere servant or agent with whom a contract is expressed to be made on behalf of another, and who has no direct beneficial interest in the transaction, cannot support an action thereon. 1 Chit. PI. 7: Bogart v. De Bussy. 6 Johns. 94; Jones v. Hart’s Ex’rs, 1 Hen. & M. 470.