alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009113EN.01001602.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/16

---

Order of the Court of 5 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas) — Mechel Nemunas UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-119/08) (1)

1

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - First VAT Directive - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 33(1) - Concept of ‘turnover taxes’ - Tax calculated on the basis of an undertaking’s turnover to finance the maintenance and development programme for national roads)

2009/C 113/32

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mechel Nemunas UAB

Applicant:

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos respublikos finansų ministerijos

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Interpretation of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14) and of Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 45, p. 1) — Lithuanian road tax calculated on the basis of an undertaking’s turnover to finance the maintenance and development programme for national roads

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a tax such as the levy on revenue laid down by the Lithuanian Law on the financing of the road maintenance and development programme (Lietuvos Respublikos kelių priežiūros ir plėtros programos finansavimo įstatymas).

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.

1

---
# C_2008223EN.01005402.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/54

---

Action brought on 3 July 2008 — Indo Internacional v OHIM — Visual (VISUAL MAP)

(Case T-260/08)

(2008/C 223/96)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Indo Internacional, SA (Sant Cugat del Vallės, Spain) (represented by: X. Fàbrega Sabaté and M. Curell Aguilà, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Visual SA (Saint Apollinaire, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 April 2008 in case R 700/2007-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 April 2008 in case R 700/2007-1; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘VISUAL MAP’ for services in class 44 — application No 393 2936

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Mark or sign cited: French trade mark registration No 043 303 854 of the word mark ‘VISUAL’ for services in class 44

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the Community trade mark application in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.

Pleas in law:

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>       DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>            DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                         5557
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                 57989
<ALLOWANCES>                   2300
<INVENTORY>                   48005
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             113427
<PP&E>                        88533
<DEPRECIATION>                32836
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               182897
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         70460
<BONDS>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       0
<COMMON>                        117
<OTHER-SE>                   101018
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 182897
<SALES>                      784219
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             784219  
<CGS>                        673407
<TOTAL-COSTS>                765634
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                176
<LOSS-PROVISION>               1150
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              627
<INCOME-PRETAX>               18134
<INCOME-TAX>                   7145
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           10989
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                  10989
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .98
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .94
        
<PAGE>
# C_2009055EN.01005401.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/54

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2008 — Gippini Fournier v Commission

(Case F-21/08) (1)

1

(2009/C 55/99)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008, p. 33.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4589 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4589

 To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to expand 
the military student identifier program to cover students with a parent 
        who serves in the reserve component of the Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2017

  Mr. Correa (for himself, Mr. Coffman, Ms. Norton, Mr. Gallego, Ms. 
 Shea-Porter, Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, Ms. Hanabusa, Ms. Roybal-Allard, 
 Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of 
   New York, and Mr. Sires) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to expand 
the military student identifier program to cover students with a parent 
        who serves in the reserve component of the Armed Forces.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Supporting Children of the National 
Guard and Reserve Act''.

SEC. 2. ANNUAL STATE REPORT CARD.

    Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(h)(1)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking ``on 
active duty (as defined in section 101(d)(5) of such title)''.
                                 <all>
```
#### ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. 37856.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec. 17, 1957.

*593John E. McCullough, St. Louis, Satter-field, Franklin & Harmon, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

James Bounds, Hugo, George Windham, Poteau, F. L. Welch, Antlers, of counsel.

James G. Welch, Gen. Counsel, Oklahoma City, William L. Anderson, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Norman, T. Earl Curb, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Corp. Commission, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON, Justice.

This case is here on appeal from an order of the Corporation Commission of Oklahoma refusing permission and authority to *594appellant and denying it the right to discontinue operation in Oklahoma of its passenger trains Nos. 704 and 709, operating between the Arlcansas-Oklahoma State Line near Cedars, Oklahoma, and the Oklahoma-Texas State Line south of Grant, Oklahoma.

Other than that the appellant showed that its entire passenger system, as well as these branch line passenger trains, were being operated at a constant, continuous and substantial loss, and that such losses had to be made up by increased freight rates (as raising passenger rates would be useless as there were no passengers) and the further fact that a bus company was ready to take over the passenger service in the small villages not now served by bus, the factual situation is substantially the same as in the recent cases of St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company v. State of Oklahoma, Okl., 301 P.2d 228; St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. State of Oklahoma, Okl., 262 P.2d 168, 172, and St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. State, 204 Okl. 432, 230 P.2d 709.

The case reported in 262 P.2d 168 was followed in the later cases of Missouri, Kansas and Texas R. Co. v. State, Okl., 266 P.2d 642, and Kansas, Oklahoma and Gulf Ry. Co. v. State, Okl., 275 P.2d 274, wherein we, upon a state of facts substantially the same as in the Frisco cases, supra, reversed the Commission’s orders on the authority of those cases, and remanded with directions to enter orders granting the applications.

In the instant case We adopt the syllabus of the last mentioned case as the syllabus herein.

For the reasons given in Missouri-Kansas Texas Ry. Co. v. State, Okl.Sup., 319 P.2d 590, and the reasons given herein, and on the authority of those cases, the cause is reversed and remanded with directions to enter an order granting the application.

CORN, V. C. J., and HALLEY, WILLIAMS, JACKSON and CARLILE, JJ., concur.
II 

Calendar No. 136 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 446 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 13, 2017 

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction 

of a hydroelectric project. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period 

5 specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 

6 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the Federal En7 ergy Regulatory Commission project numbered 12737, the 

8 Commission may, at the request of the licensee for the 

9 project, and after reasonable notice, in accordance with 

10 the good faith, due diligence, and public interest require11 ments of that section and the Commission’s procedures 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 446 PCS

1 under that section, extend the time period during which 

2 the licensee is required to commence the construction of 

3 the project for up to 3 consecutive 2-year periods from 

4 the date of the expiration of the extension originally issued 

5 by the Commission. 

6 (b) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If the 

7 period required for commencement of construction of the 

8 project described in subsection (a) has expired prior to the 

9 date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission may 

10 reinstate the license for the project effective as of the date 

11 of its expiration and the first extension authorized under 

12 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of such expira13 tion. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 12, 2017. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 136 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 446 

AN ACT 

To extend the deadline for commencement of 

construction of a hydroelectric project. 

JUNE 13, 2017 

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2010134EN.01003102.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — 2nine v OHIM — Pacific Sunwear of California (nollie)

(Case T-363/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark nollie - Earlier national and international word marks NOLI - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2010/C 134/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: 2nine Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Palmer, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. (Anaheim, California, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2008 (Case R 1590/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between 2nine Ltd and Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders 2nine Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders 2nine Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     COMPANY'S  10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         23,816
<SECURITIES>                                   51,479
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               76,286
<PP&E>                                         11,561
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,960)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 84,825
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          15,160
<BONDS>                                        20,652
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          153
<OTHER-SE>                                     48,860
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   84,825
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                6,031
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               34,585
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,065
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (33,060)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (33,060)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (33,060)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.47)



</TABLE>
#### REALTY AFFAIRS, INC., ET AL., COMPLAINANTS-APPELLANTS, v. MEMORIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued January 10, 1949

Decided January 17, 1949.

*267*Mr. Ralph W. Chandless*argued the cause for the complainants-appellants *{Messrs. Chandless, Weller, Kramer & Frank,*attorneys).

*Mr. Thomas J. Brogan*argued the cause for the defendant-respondent *{Messrs. Breslm & Breslin,*attorneys).

Per Curiam.

The decree under review will be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Vice Chancellor Egan in the court below.

*For affirmance:*Chief Justice Vanderbilt and Justices Case Heher, Wacheneeld, Burling and Ackers on—6.

*For reversal:*None.
ENCORIUM GROUP, INC

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 Annual Report of Encorium Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Dr. David Ginsberg, DO, President and 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; 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/ Dr. David Ginsberg, D.O.                                       
|Dr. David Ginsberg, D.O.                                           
|President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

April 24, 2009

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
2320 Shasta Way, Unit H, Simi Valley, California 93065

Phone & FAX: 818-938-4215 www.Pictorvision.com

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

April 08, 2016

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11067 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA

Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket

No. FAA-2014-0357.

Dear Sir or Madam;

Pictorvision Inc. has been issued Exemption number 11067 (hereinafter the Exemption). 

This letter is requesting the following changes to our Exemption:

1. The primary contact for FAA-333-related issues at Pictorvision has changed to 

Chris White, Executive Vice President, 818-938-4215, cwhite@pictorvision.com;

2. Pictorvision is notifying the FAA of our change of business address to: 2320 

Shasta Way, Unit H, Simi Valley, CA 93065; 

3. Pictorvision is now partnering with CineMoves Inc, located at the same address as 

Pictorvision. CineMoves is directly renting Pictorvision’s equipment, including 

the sUAS inventory that has been approved for use with our Exemption, to our 

mutual customers. We are requesting that CineMoves be added to our Exemption 

and that all of the existing Certificates of Authorizations (COAs) that have been 

approved for use by Pictorvision also be available for use by CineMoves.

Please let us know if you require any additional information to approve these requests.

Sincerely,

Chris White

Executive Vice President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Milverton Balnavis, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered December 21, 1988, revoking a sentence of conditional discharge, imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.41



KITE REALTY GROUP TRUST


{H1}Schedule of Non-Employee Trustee Fees and Other Compensation



	Annual
Retainer
	    	    	    	$25,000

	Board Meeting
Fees (telephonic and in-person)
	    	    	    	$1,000

	Committe
Meeting Fees (telephonic and in-person)
	    	    	    	$1,000

	Committee
Chair Annual Retainer
	    	    	    	Audit Committee: $10,000
Compensation Committee: $7,500
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee: $5,000

	Lead Trustee
Retainer
	    	    	    	$10,000

	Annual
Restricted Share Awards
	    	    	    	Upon
initial election, each trustee receives 3,000 restricted shares that vest 1 year from date of grant.
On an annual basis each year after their
initial election, each trustee will receive restricted shares with a value of $15,000 that vest 1 year from the date of grant.



 



Effective: August 2004