alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019082EN.01001901.xml

| 4.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de l’entreprise de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 31 December 2018 — SI, Brompton Bicycle Ltd v Chedech / Get2Get

(Case C-833/18)

(2019/C 82/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de l’entreprise de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SI, Brompton Bicycle Ltd

Defendant: Chedech / Get2Get

Questions referred

| — | Must EU law, in particular Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, (1) which determines, inter alia, the various exclusive rights conferred on copyright holders, in Articles 2 to 5 thereof, be interpreted as excluding from copyright protection works whose shape is necessary to achieve a technical result? |
| --- | --- |

—

Must EU law, in particular Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, (1) which determines, inter alia, the various exclusive rights conferred on copyright holders, in Articles 2 to 5 thereof, be interpreted as excluding from copyright protection works whose shape is necessary to achieve a technical result?

| — | In order to assess whether a shape is necessary to achieve a technical result, must account be taken of the following criteria:






  — | The existence of other possible shapes which allow the same technical result to be achieved? |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

In order to assess whether a shape is necessary to achieve a technical result, must account be taken of the following criteria:

—

The existence of other possible shapes which allow the same technical result to be achieved?

| — | The effectiveness of the shape in achieving that result? |
| --- | --- |

—

The effectiveness of the shape in achieving that result?

| — | The intention of the alleged infringer to achieve that result? |
| --- | --- |

—

The intention of the alleged infringer to achieve that result?

| — | The existence of an earlier, now expired, patent on the process for achieving the technical result sought? |
| --- | --- |

—

The existence of an earlier, now expired, patent on the process for achieving the technical result sought?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

---
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Black Stem Rust and Barberry

Last Modified: 

Print

Black stem rust is an important disease of wheat. It also affects oats, barley, rye,

timothy grass, and wild grasses. Black stem rust is caused by the fungus Puccinia

graminis—an organism that must alternate between two host plants (a cereal grain

and barberry) to complete its lifecycle. A strong breeze can spread black stem rust

from one area to another. Infected hosts display reddish-brown lesions on their

stems.
From the 1920s through the 1970s, USDA successfully eradicated wild barberry in

the Northern United States to control black stem rust. Today, APHIS tests and

regulates resistant barberry varieties to maintain the protected areas. The

development of disease-resistant cereal crops and barberry has mitigated the

damage of black stem rust.

What To Look For

Black stem rust can damage crops swiftly. Look for:

Rust-colored or black fungal spore masses on the stems and leaves of wheat,

barley, and other host plants. Late stages of stem rust on wheat have black

spore clusters.

Yellow spores on shoes and clothing.

How To Prevent This Disease

Only purchase and plant resistant and approved barberry varieties.

Before you move barberry plants interstate into protected areas, contact your State

plant health director or State plant regulatory official. These plants may require

inspection and a certificate from APHIS or a State agency.

Learn more about protecting cereal grains from black stem rust.

How It Is Treated

There is no cure or treatment for black stem rust.

Report Plant Pests and Diseases

Have you seen this pest or signs of pest damage? Immediately report your findings.

Find your State plant regulatory official

Find your State plant health director
Controlling Black Stem Rust

Current Status

Black stem rust is kept at negligible levels due to resistance in cereal crops and

barberry. The interstate movement of barberry into protected areas requires

inspection and a certificate from APHIS or a State agency. Contact your State plant

health director or State plant regulatory official for more information.

Map of Protected Areas

Current List of Black Stem Rust-Resistant Varieties

Regulatory Information

Federal Regulations - 7 CFR 301.38-1 through 301.38-8

Information for Cooperators

Inspection Manual

Black Stem Rust Manual

Agricultural Research Lab Information

Contact Us

Allen Proxmire

National Policy Manager

Email: allen.proxmire@usda.gov
Exhibit 32.2



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 Annual Report of Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael W. Rogers, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 result of operations of the Company.



|By: /s/ MICHAEL W. ROGERS
|-------------------------
|Chief Financial Officer  
|                         
|December 22, 2003
#### Barbara Nancy ASTORGA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard George JULIO, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14526.

Supreme Court of Utah.

May 25, 1977.

Everett E. Dahl, Midvale, for defendant and appellant.

Barbara Nancy Astorga, pro se.

MAUGHAN, Justice:

Plaintiff filed this action seeking modification of a judgment for child support. Upon hearing, the court increased the amount from $50 to $75 per month. Defendant appeals. We affirm.

In March 1967, defendant was ordered, pursuant to a bastardy proceeding, to pay child support. In November 1975, plaintiff filed a complaint and contemporaneously *1386therewith had an order to show cause issued, seeking an order increasing child support payments to $100. Upon hearing, the court issued an order granting a $25 increase. Plaintiff asserted as a ground for the increment a material change in circumstances, viz., a significant increase in her expenses and defendant’s income.

On appeal, defendant contends plaintiff is precluded from seeking a modification thereof under a civil action, because she initially proceeded by criminal process.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit. A proceeding under the Bastardy Act is civil in nature, its purpose is to compel the father of a child to support it during its tender years.1 Furthermore, in Sec. 77-60-7, U.C.A.1953, of the Bastardy Act, there is a specific provision for the order made herein, “. . . Such subsequent changes or new orders may be made by the court for the support, maintenance and education of said child as shall be reasonable and proper.

Defendant further contends there was insufficient evidence to warrant a modification of the support order. Plaintiff presented evidence showing the child’s current monthly expenses were $170.50. Included in this amount was the sum of $40 for child care. The child was supervised after school, enabling plaintiff to work. A review of the incomes and expenses of both parties discloses nothing inequitable in the order of the court, apportioning to each a reasonable and proper share of the child’s expenses.

ELLETT, C. J., and CROCKETT, WILKINS and HALL, JJ., concur.

1

. *State v. Judd,*27 Utah 2d 79, 81, 493 P.2d 604 (1972).
#### Nakamura v. Nakamura

21767

10/27/2000

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part and Remanded
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of BRANDON CARTIE, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered December 11, 2013. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs. </p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. </p><p>Plaintiff billed for one unit of CPT code 99244 at $236.94 and one unit of CPT code 20553 at $600. Defendant defended this action on the ground that the fees sought exceeded the amounts permitted for those codes by the workers' compenCsation fee schedule. While plaintiff argues on appeal that the affidavit executed by defendant's coding expert "does not discuss anything specific whatsoever regarding [p]laintiff's claims," defendant also submitted an affidavit executed by its no-fault examiner, who described how the fees for the services at issue had been calculated by multiplying the appropriate "relative value" by the appropriate "conversion factor." Plaintiff's remaining argument with respect to the coding expert's affidavit and the specific argument made by plaintiff with regard to CPT code 99244 were not raised in the Civil Court, and are therefore not properly before this court.</p><p>With respect to plaintiff's final argument, which involves CPT code 20553, we find that defendant made a prima facie showing that it had used the assigned relative value for that code to calculate the sum to which plaintiff was entitled to be reimbursed. While plaintiff submitted a doctor's affidavit addressing CPT code 20553, the doctor's conclusion is based upon the unsupported allegation that CPT code 20553 is a "by report" code, meaning that it does not have a relative value. This allegation does not rebut defendant's proof that CPT code 20553 does have a relative value.</p><br>Accordingly, the order is affirmed. <p>Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: October 13, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
## i>< ^

UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON/D C

J & B ENTERPRISES , INC. , d/b/ aRHYTH M SHINE ,

Complainan t V. Docke t No . 16-08-0 7 METROPOLITA N NASHVILL E AIRPOR T AUTHORITY , c .

Respondent . 3 ^

ORDE RO FEXTENSIO N O FTIM E ;:i D —i- O Althoug h1 4 Cod e o f

Federa l Regulation s Par t 16 , Rule s o f

Practic e fo r

Federally-Assiste d Airpor t Enforcemen t

Proceeding s i s intende dt o expedit e substantiall y th e handlin g an d dispositio n o f

airport-relate dcomplaints . Sectio n 16.11(a ) provide s tha t a n extensio n o f

tim e may b e grante dwher e necessar y o r appropriat e fo r

afai r an dcomplet e hearin g o f th e matter s before th e agency . I n th e foregoin g matter , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) require s additiona l tim e for afair an dcomplet e hearin g o f th e matter . Accordingly , th e FAA' s Fina l Agenc y Decisio n i s extende dan dno w du e t o b e rendere do n o r befor e February 16,2010 .



## ^ Date: /^/'^V^ P Fann y Rive^i , Assistan t Administrato r

for Civi l Right s an dFA A Diversity Advocat eCERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

I HEREB Y CERTIF Y tha t o n Octobe r

29 , 2009, 1 cause dt o b e place di n th e Unite dState s mai l (firs t class , postag e paid) , o r

personall y delivere datru e cop y o f th e ORDE RO FEXTENSIO N addresse dto : Arthu r P . Ber g Kapla n Kirsch& Rockwel l LL P 64 1 Lexingto n Ave. , Suit e 140 9 Ne w York , Ne w York

1002 2 Aberg@Kaplan.kirsch.co m (212)328-951 5 (646 ) 514-544 0 fa

x Thoma s J . Henderso n Henderso n La w Firm , PLL C 142 5 K . Street , NW , Suit e 35 0 Washington , D C 2000 5 (202 ) 587-568 7 (202 ) 587-560 1 fa

x tjh@hendersonfirm.ne t

ni*dbetiJ.Weir , Attorney , Airport s La w Branc h Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l
History of the Single Tier Label Claim 

All label claims for veterinary biologicals are based on statistical significance and clinical 

relevance of efficacy data provided by manufacturers. Historically, veterinary biologicals were 

assigned one of 4 tiers of effectiveness, depending on the magnitude of the observed protective 

effects: 

• for the prevention of infection, 

• for the prevention of disease, 

• as an aid in the prevention of disease, or 

• as an aid in the control/reduction of disease. 

Distinctions between these levels were not well understood by many users of biological products, 

resulting in potential misinterpretation of label information. 

In response to this concern, the USDA is now using a single statement (e.g., “This product has 

been shown to be effective for the vaccination of healthy animals X weeks of age or older 

against * * *”) to replace the previous 4 tiers of effectiveness. The rigor with which the USDA 

evaluates efficacy data for statistical and clinical meaningfulness has not changed. 

In addition to a standardized claim statement, a standardized Product Compilation Summary of 

the efficacy and safety studies used to support licensure is available for review on this website.
16131

#### Atlantic Financial Federal-West Virginia v. Santangelo

February 19, 1997

Order No. 97-16

Affirmed
**ORDER**

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20 - 00 88 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JACOB GEORGE FREIBURG ,

Defendant and Appellee.

**ORDER** The State of Montana has filed a moti on to voluntarily dismiss its appeal. The Appellee ’ s counsel has been contacted and has no objection. Good cause appearing, the State ’ s appeal in the above - captioned matter is dismissed with prejudice .

CMF Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 22 2020

04/22/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0088
Order entered October 2, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01388-CV

PREMIER POOLS MANAGEMENT CORP. AND SHAN POOLS, INC. 

D/B/A PREMIER POOLS AND SPAS, Appellants

V.

PREMIER POOLS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-07182

ORDER

We GRANT appellee’s October 1, 2015 third motion for an extension of time to file a 

brief TO THE EXTENT that appellee shall file a brief by OCTOBER 22, 2015. We caution 

appellee that no further extension of time will be granted.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of Mel Cooper, Petitioner, *v.*Norman Goodman, as Clerk of New York County, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

March 4, 1971.

*Robert J. Cahn*for petitioner. *Gerard. V. Murphy*for respondent.

Morris E. Spector, J.

This is an application in the nature of mandamus to compel the County Clerk of New York County to accept for filing assumed name certificates upon payment of appropriate fees.

Petitioner offered for filing certificates of doing business under the names of ‘ *‘*The Brothel ”, “ The Garden of Erotic Pleasures ”, “ Theatre 0 ”, and “ Club Orgy ”.

Section 130 of the General Business Law, requires that a person doing business under an assumed name must file a certificate designating the person conducting such business.

*940The County Clerk refused to file said certificates because they would be employed for deceptive purposes indicating that some kind of illegal or otherwise obscene activity may be expected within the establishments so described.

It has been held that the County Clerk should not be required to accept a certificate of doing business for filing which is misleading to the public *(Matter of Birdwell*v. *Watson,*268 App. Div. 642). It follows therefrom that he has the right to review the propriety of the assumed name in the ■ certificate of doing business offered for filing *(Matter of Shattls*v. *Watson,*295 N. Y. 582). In such case, his function is not ministerial, but quasi-judicial.

Obviously, the assumed names on the certificates were adopted for the purpose of obtaining publicity, public attention, and curiosity, with the expectation they would promote business for the establishments. In fact, they may invite the attention of the Police Department, which would cause the establishments to be under police surveillance. In such case the public would be protected from illegal activities.

The filing of a certificate does not imply governmental approval of the assumed name or of the business activity. The filing is statutorily required for the purpose of identifying the person operating the business under such assumed name.

It has not been shown that the assumed names are in contravention of any provision of law. While the names are distasteful, that is not a sufficient reason to deny their filing.

The demand for damages is denied. Petitioner has neither a claim for statutory nor a common-law right to damages. In the determination herein, the County Clerk was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity within the scope of his official authority and in line of his official duty, and no liability can attach to him for such determination. *(Rottkamp*v. *Young,*21 A D 2d 373, affd. 15 N Y 2d 831.)

The application is granted directing the filing of the certificate, and otherwise denied.
Exhibit 23.1
[Letterhead of Beckman Kirkland and Whitney]
Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants
     We have issued ourreport dated January 3, 2003, accompanying theconsolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report ofCertron Corporation and subsidiary on Form 10-K/A for the years ended October31, 2002 and 2001. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of saidreport in the Registration Statement of Certron Corporation and subsidiary onForm S-8 (File No. 33-27930 and File No. 33-59287).
BECKMAN KIRKLAND & WHITNEY
Agoura Hills, California
19643

#### State v. Patelesio

Affirmed
#### Coward v. State

17461

10/11/94

Dismissed
#### State v. Kirkland

22762

12/28/2000

Affirmed
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 577 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 577

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 5, 2016.
    Resolved, That the Clerk of the House inform the Senate that a quorum of the 
House is present and that the House is ready to proceed with business.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 7 (Thursday, January 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2276-2277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00281]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.

[[Page 2277]]

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Nursing Research 
Initial Review Group.
    Date: February 14-15, 2013.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Weiqun Li, MD, Scientific Review Officer, 
National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Ste. 710, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 
594-5966, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d1a01042d000c040143030405430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c3b4afaa83aea2aaafedadaaabeda4acb5">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, 
Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 4, 2013.
Michelle Trout,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-00281 Filed 1-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 578 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 578

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 5, 2016.
    Resolved, That unless otherwise ordered, the hour of daily meeting of the 
House shall be 2 p.m. on Mondays; noon on Tuesdays (or 2 p.m. if no legislative 
business was conducted on the preceding Monday); noon on Wednesdays and 
Thursdays; and 9 a.m. on all other days of the week.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 23

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Rally's Hamburgers, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-33367, 33-333419, 33-39420, 33-62792 and 33-66978) on Form S-8 of Rally's
Hamburgers, Inc. of our report dated February 26, 1999, relating to the
consolidated balance sheet of Rally's Hamburgers, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 28, 1998, and the related consolidated statement of operations and
comprehensive income, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the year ended
December 28, 1998, which appears in the December 28, 1998, annual report on Form
10-K of Rally's Hamburgers, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP
Tampa, Florida
March 25, 1999