alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20250]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 520


Animal Drugs, Feeds, and Related Products; Change of Sponsor; 
Corrections

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a 
document that appeared in the Federal Register of June 30, 1997 (62 FR 
35075 at 35076). The document amended the animal drug regulations to 
reflect the change of sponsor for 52 approved new animal drug 
applications (NADA's) from Fermenta Animal Health Co. to Boehringer 
Ingelheim Animal Health, Inc. The document was published with two 
inadvertent errors. This document corrects those errors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. McKay, Center for Veterinary 
Medicine (HFV-102), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., 
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0213.

    In FR Doc. 97-16967, appearing on page 35075, in the Federal 
Register of Monday, June 30, 1997, the following corrections are made: 
On page 35076, in the first column, in amendment 11, in the third line, 
``(a)(6)'' is corrected to read ``(b)(6)''; and on the same page, in 
the second column, in amendment 19, beginning in the fourth line, 
``000069, 054273, and 057561'' is corrected to read ``000069, 054273, 
057561, and 059130''.

    Dated: July 21, 1997.
Robert C. Livingston,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary 
Medicine.
[FR Doc. 97-20250 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2082]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2174]


Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in 
Rulemaking Proceedings

January 24, 1997.
    Petitions for reconsideration and clarification have been filed in 
the Commission's rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice 
and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of these 
documents are available for viewing and copying in Room 239, 1919 M 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. or may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to 
these petitions must be filed February 13, 1997. See Section 1.4(b)(1) 
of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition 
must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has 
expired.
    Subject: Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM 
Broadcast Stations. (Rose Hill, Trenton, Aurora, and Ocracoke, North 
Carolina) (MM Docket No. 95-88, RM-8641, RM-8688, RM-8689)
    Number of Petition Filed: 1.
    Subject: Interconnection and Resale Obligations Pertaining to 
Commercial Mobile Radio Services. (CC Docket No. 94-54)
    Number of Petition Filed: 2.

    Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-2082 Filed 1-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         We, the undersigned Members of the Board of Managers of Advanced
Accessory Systems, LLC (the "Registrant"), hereby severally constitute and
appoint Terence C. Seikel, with full powers of substitution and resubstitution,
our true and lawful attorney, with full powers to sign for us, in our names and
in the capacities indicated below, (a) the annual report of the Registrant for
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002 on Form 10-K and (b) a registration
statement on Form S-4, and any and all amendments to such Form 10-K and Form
S-4, and to file or cause to be filed the same, with all exhibits thereto and
other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said attorney, full power and authority to do and
perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in
connection therewith, as fully to all intents and purposes said attorney might
or could do in person, and hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorney, or his substitute or substitutes, shall do or cause to be done by
virtue of this Power of Attorney. This power of attorney may be executed in
counterparts.



<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this instrument this
25th day of March, 2003.

                                       /s/ F. Alan Smith
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       F. Alan Smith



                                       /s/ Barry Banducci
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Barry Banducci



                                       /s/ Richard E. Borhgi
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Richard E. Borghi



                                       /s/ Gerard Jacobus Brink
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Gerard Jacobus Brink



                                       /s/ Gerrit de Graaf
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Gerrit de Graaf



                                       /s/ Donald J. Hofmann
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Donald J. Hofmann



                                       /s/ Roger T. Morgan
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Roger T. Morgan



                                       /s/ Terence C. Seikel
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Terence C. Seikel
# C_2012080EN.01002401.xml

| 17.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/24

---

Action brought on 23 January 2012 — Piotrowski v OHIM (MEDIGYM)

(Case T-33/12)

2012/C 80/40

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Elke Piotrowski (Viernheim, Germany) (represented by J. Albrecht, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 November 2011 in Case R 734/2011-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 November 2011 in Case R 734/2011-4;

| — | 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

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘MEDIGYM’ for goods in Class 10

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal’s decision was based on reasons on which the applicant had had no opportunity to present her comments and infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the Community trade mark at issue was refused protection pursuant to Article 154(3) and Article 37(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 even though the mark was not ineligible for registration either under Article 7(1)(b) or Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 25773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10030]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,659]


Richloom Home Fashions, Division of Richloom Fabrics Corporation, 
Clinton, SC; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration

    On March 27, 2008, the Department issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on April 24, 2008 (73 FR 22166).
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the finding that worker group does not produce an article 
within the meaning of section 222 for the Trade Act of 1974.
    In the request for reconsideration the petitioner stated that 
workers of the Sample Department of the subject firm produce samples of 
window treatments and bed coverings and requested that the Department 
conduct further investigation of the Sample Department.
    On reconsideration, the Department contacted a company official and 
requested additional information regarding the production of samples of 
window treatments and bed coverings. The investigation revealed that 
workers of the Sample Department, Richloom Home Fashions in Clinton, 
South Carolina manufacture samples of window treatments and bed 
coverings. However, the investigation also revealed that only one 
worker was separated from the Sample Department in 2007 and there was 
no threat of future separations.
    The subject company did not separate or threaten to separate a 
significant number or proportion of workers, as required by section 222 
of the Trade Act of 1974. Significant number or proportion of the 
workers in a firm or appropriate subdivision means at least three 
workers in a workforce of fewer than 50 workers, five percent of the 
workers in a workforce of over 50 workers, or at least 50 workers. As 
employment levels at the subject facility did not decline during the 
relevant time period and there was no threat of separations during the 
relevant period, criterion (1) has not been met.

Conclusion

    After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative 
determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance 
for workers and former workers of Richloom Home Fashions, division of 
Richloom Fabrics Corporation, Clinton, South Carolina.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 28th day of April, 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E8-10030 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of *

Nebraska, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-3910WM

_____________

Tommie Joe Johnson, *

*

Appellant, * On Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: May 29, 1998

Filed: June 8, 1998

_____________

Before FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and STROM, District Judge. *

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Applying our decision in Bousley v. Brooks, 97 F.3d 284 (8th Cir. 1996), the

district court denied Tommie Joe Johnson's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 sentence-related motion.

The Supreme Court has now reversed our Bousley decision. Bousley v. United States,

No. 96-8516, 1998 WL 244204 (U.S. May 18, 1998). Correspondingly, we now

reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case to that court for further

consideration of Johnson's motion in light of Bousley v. United States.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20324]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental Research; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Institute of Dental Research Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) 
meeting:

    Name of SEP: National Institute of Dental Research Special 
Emphasis Panel-Review of R01s & R29 (97-43).
    Date: August 12, 1997.
    Time: 9:30 a.m.
    Place: Natcher Building, Rm. 4AN-44F, National Institutes of 
Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, (teleconference).
    Contact Person: Dr. George Hausch, Chief, Grants Review Section, 
4500 Center Drive, Natcher Building, Room 4AN-44F, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 594-2372.
    Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate and review grant applications and/or 
contract proposals.
    This notice is being published less than fifteen days prior to 
the above meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations 
imposed by the review and funding cycle.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research)

    Dated: July 29, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-20324 Filed 7-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
No. 55664.

#### Bohemian Distributing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 108778-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42104-42107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20501]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary
[Transmittal No. 97-24]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Assistance Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of P.L. 104-164 dated 21 July 
1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. J. Hurd, DSAA/COMPT/CPD, (703) 604-6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 97-24, with attached transmittal and 
policy justification.

    Dated: July 29, 1997.
L. M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5000-04-M

[[Page 42105]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AU97.017



[[Page 42106]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AU97.018



[[Page 42107]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AU97.019



[FR Doc. 97-20501 Filed 8-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-C
No. 96-1093.

#### Cryo-Trans, Inc. *v.*General American Transportation Corp.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Troy Parkerv. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 49506.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 9, 1977.

Carter & Davidson, Dudley H. Carter, Columbus, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Ben H. Walley and Karen A. Gilfoy, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Noxubee County; Joe 0. Sams, Sr., Judge.

Before INZER, P. J., and SUGG and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

GILLESPIE, C. J., PATTERSON, P. J., and SMITH, ROBERTSON, WALKER and BROOM, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20777]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Glenwhite Run Watershed, Pennsylvania

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of a finding of no significant impact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 
CFR, Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(formerly the Soil Conservation Service) Guidelines (7 CFR, Part 650); 
the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not 
being prepared for the Glenwhite Run Watershed, Blair and Cambria 
Counties, Pennsylvania.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Janet L. Oertly, State 
Conservationist, USDA--Natural Resources Conservation Service, One 
Credit Union Place, Suite 340, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-2993, 
telephone (717) 782-2202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The environmental assessment of this 
federally-assisted action indicates that the project will not cause 
significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As 
a result of these findings, Janet L. Oertly, State Conservationist, has 
determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact 
statement is not needed for this project.
    The project concerns a plan for water quality improvement. The 
planned works of improvement involve eight treatment sites that are the 
source of ground and surface water pollution. Treatment of these sites 
will involve the installation of waterways, diversions, and passive 
treatment systems.
    The ``Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact'' (FONSI) has 
been forwarded to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A limited 
number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy 
requests at the above address. The environmental assessment and basic 
data may be reviewed by contacting Janet L. Oertly.
    No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be 
taken until thirty (30) days after the date of this publication in the 
Federal Register.

(This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance Program No. 10.904--Watershed Protection and Flood 
Prevention and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local 
officials)
Janet L. Oertly,
Statement Conservationist.
[FR Doc. 97-20777 Filed 8-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6909

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARVIN W. LEWIS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-93-28, CA-97-949-H-5) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. C. Winston Gilchrist, Lillington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Marvin A. Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lewis , Nos. CR-93-28; CA-97-949-H-5 (E.D.N.C. May 19, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Johnson & Faulkner, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6943.

Entry No. 739224.

Invoice dated Edinburgh, Scotland, January 21, 1942.

Certified January 21, 1942.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 19, 1942.

(Decided March 3, 1947)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

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

Kincheloe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 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.