alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010301EN.01002901.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/29

---

Order of the General Court of 2 September 2010 — Spitzer v OHIM — Homeland Housewares (Magic Butler)

(Case T-123/08) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Applicant's failure to act - No need to adjudicate)

2010/C 301/48

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Harald Spitzer (Hörsching, Austria) (represented by: T. H. Schmitz, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Homeland Housewares LLC (Los Angeles, California, United States)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2008 (Case R 1508/2006-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Homeland Housewares LLC and Harald Spitzer.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on this action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on this action;

| 2. | Mr Harald Spitzer is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Harald Spitzer is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.

1

---
LAND ROVER EMISSION DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT NO. L08138D0A 

Causal part name: Mass Air Flow Sensor 

Causal part number: PHF000140 

Issued: 24 February 2010 

Page 1 of 2 

Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40. Part 85. Subpart T. 

§85.1903 - Emissions Defect Information Report 

(c)(1) The manufacturers corporate name. 

Land Rover. 

(c)(2) A description of the defect. 

Drivers of Range Rover, Range Rover Sport and LR3 vehicles are alerted to a defective mass air flow sensor by 

M.I.L. illumination together with rough and uneven engine running. 

The majority of mass air flow sensor replacements are due to mis-diagnosis by dealers. 

(c)(3) A description of each class or category of vehicles potentially affected by the defect including make, 

model, model year, and such other information as may be required to identify these vehicles. 

See table in section (c)(4)(i) below. 

(c)(4) For each class or category of vehicle or engine described in response to paragraph (c)(3) of this section, 

the following shall also be provided: 

(c)(4)(i) The number of vehicles or engines known or estimated to have the defect and an explanation of the 

means by which this number was determined. 

MODEL 

YEAR TEST GROUP MODEL SALES DEFECTS 

2006 6LRXT04.0001 LR3 5276 2 

2006 6LRXT04.2001 Range Rover; Range Rover Sport; LR3 66469 37 

The above data was taken from Land Rover's warranty tracking report dated 2009 Q3. 

(c)(4)(ii) The address of the plant at which the potentially defective vehicles or engines were produced. 

Land Rover Solihull Plant, Birmingham, England. 

(c)(5) An evaluation of the emissions impact of the defect and a description of any driveability problems which a 

defective vehicle might exhibit. 

A defective mass air flow sensor may cause elevated carbon monoxide emissions. 

A defective mass air flow sensor causes rough and uneven engine running. 

A defective mass air flow sensor causes M.I.L. illumination. 

EPA 3993

Received 3/2/2010 via E-mail
LAND ROVER EMISSION DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT NO. L08138D0A 

Causal part name: Mass Air Flow Sensor 

Causal part number: PHF000140 

Issued: 24 February 2010 

Page 2 of 2 

(c)(6) Available emissions data which relate to the defect. 

There is no data available quantifying the impact on emissions of this defect. 

(c)(7) An indication of any anticipated manufacturer follow-up. 

Land Rover instructed dealers to contact the technical helpdesk before replacing a mass air flow sensor. This 

action significantly reduced the rate of mass air flow sensor replacements, indicating that false diagnosis led to 

unnecessary replacements. 

Genuine mass air flow sensor faults are regarded as self campaigning, MIL illumination plus uneven engine 

running will prompt drivers to return the vehicle to a Land Rover dealer for rectification. 

EPA 3993

Received 3/2/2010 via E-mail
Advisory Agreement for WMT Trust II -Series E, Pru -Securities Strategic Trust I


 Exhibit 10.7 
  

					
	

	  	 Two American Lane
 P.O. Box 5150
 Greenwich, Connecticut
 06831-8150
  
 Joseph J. Allessie
 Senior Vice President
 General Counsel
	  	 Tel 203.861.1031
 Fax 203.552.1501


  
 September 14, 2004 
 Graham Capital Management, LP 
 Attn: General Counsel/Secretary 
 Rock Ledge Financial Center 
 40 Highland Avenue 
 Rowayton, CT 06853 
  
 Re: Advisory Agreements for World Monitor Trust II– Series E, Pru-Securities Strategic Trust, Diversified Futures Trust I 
  
 Please be advised that it is anticipated that as of October 1, 2004, all the issued and
outstanding shares of capital stock of Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. (the “Prudential Managing Owners”) of the above stated Trusts are owned by Preferred Investment Solutions Corp. f/k/a Kenmar Advisory Corp. (the
“Kenmar Managing Owner”). Therefore, with respect to the various advisory agreements currently in effect by and between the Trusts, the Prudential Managing Owner and you, please be notified that the Kenmar Managing Owner has assumed the
liabilities and obligations of the Prudential Managing Owner thereunder and will continue to satisfy and perform all liabilities and obligations thereunder. 
  
 The Kenmar Managing Owner will continue to operate per the existing advisory agreements. If this is acceptable, please sign both copies of this Letter Agreement and
return one copy. 
  

			
	 PREFERRED INVESTMENT SOLUTIONS CORP.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Joseph J. Allessie


	 Name:
	 	 Joseph J. Allessie

	 Title:
	 	 Senior Vice President, General Counsel

	
	 ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

	
	 GRAHAM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Paul Sedlack


	 Name:
	 	 Paul Sedlack

	 Title:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED 
FROM THE HANOVER COMPRESSOR COMPANY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE 
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          11,503
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,417
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,212
<INVENTORY>                                     63,044
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               165,056
<PP&E>                                         470,726
<DEPRECIATION>                                  78,228
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 614,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,792
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       269,034
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,679
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   614,590
<SALES>                                        104,919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               281,957
<CGS>                                           83,925
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  220,605
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,716
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 49,636
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,259
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,377
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,377
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01
        

</TABLE>
# C_2008092EN.01003301.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/33

---

Action brought on 24 January 2008 — Codorniu Napa v OHIM — Bodegas Ontañón (ARTESA NAPA VALLEY)

(Case T-35/08)

(2008/C 92/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Codorniu Napa, Inc. (California, United States of America) (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 of OHIM: Bodegas Ontañón, S.A.

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

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 20 November 2007 in Case R 747/2006-4, and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 20 November 2007 in Case R 747/2006-4, and

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM 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 applied for: Figurative mark ‘ARTESA NAPA VALLEY’ for goods in Class 33 (application No 3.079.159)

Community trade mark applied for:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bodegas Ontañón, S.A.

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

Mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Community figurative trade mark No 2.050.623 ‘ARTESO’ for goods in Classes 33 and 35, Spanish word mark No 844.194 ‘LA ARTESA’ for goods in Class 33.

Mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the application for registration.

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)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) given that there is no likelihood of confusion between the signs in conflict.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1069 TP 13-00769 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JOSE D. MARTINEZ, PETITIONER,

V ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, MR. SMITH, SUPERINTENDENT OF MID-STATE C.F., OFFICER FULLER, MARCY C.F., AND OFFICER THORP, MARCY C.F., RESPONDENTS.

JOSE D. MARTINEZ, PETITIONER PRO SE.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. TREASURE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Oneida County [Samuel D. Hester, J.], entered April 17, 2013) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a Tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Entered: November 8, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                       IPC HOLDINGS, LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                CALCULATION OF NET (LOSS) INCOME PER COMMON SHARE

   (Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
BASIC                                                                   Year ended December 31,
-----                                                             --------------------------------
                                                                       2001                2000
                                                                  ------------        ------------
                                                                     (audited)          (audited)
<S>                                                               <C>                 <C>
Net (loss) income                                                 $     (3,933)       $     44,225

Common shares outstanding at January 1                              25,039,713          25,033,932
Common shares outstanding at December 31                            48,172,776          25,039,713
Weighted average common shares outstanding                          26,266,019          25,034,414


Net (loss) income per common share                                $      (0.15)       $       1.77


DILUTED

Net (loss) income                                                 $     (3,933)       $     44,225

Weighted average common shares outstanding                          26,266,019          25,034,414
Dilutive effect of share options (zero where anti-dilutive)                 --             463,257
                                                                  ------------        ------------
Total                                                               26,266,019          25,497,671
                                                                  ------------        ------------
Net (loss) income per common share                                $      (0.15)       $       1.73
</TABLE>
#### ANCHOR STONE & MATERIALS CO. v. TERRY et al.

No. 35784.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Jan. 10, 1953.

Rucker & Tabor; Tulsa, for petitioners.

Sanders & McElroy, Tulsa, Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

DAVISON, Justice.

W. H. Terry as claimant sought to obtain an award against Anchor Stone and Materials Company, petitioner herein.

The trial commissioner found that the claimant did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and denied an award. Claimant appealed to the Commission en banc and on the 15th day of October, 1952, the Commission en banc found that the claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and remanded the cause to the trial commissioner for further proceedings.

Petitioners have commenced this proceeding to review the order of the Commission en banc. A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the order is not a final order. The motion to dismiss must be sustained. A similar situation was determined in Armour & Co. v. Moore, 206 Okl. 72, 240 P.2d 1115. Therein we stated:

> “An order of the State Industrial Commission vacating an order of the trial commissioner denying compensation to employee and holding the case in abeyance for futher hearing at a later date is not a final order, and this court is without jurisdiction to review such order.”

The proceeding is dismissed and the causé remanded to. the State Industrial Commission for further proceedings.
#### In the Matter of American Jewish Congress, Petitioner, against Elmer A. Carter et al., Constituting the State Commission Against Discrimination et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

July 15, 1959.

*206
      *T. Darrington Semple, Jr.,*and *White & Case (Chester Bordean*of counsel), for Arabian American Oil Company, respondent.

*Henry Spitz*for Commission Against Discrimination, respondent.

*Shad Polier, Will Maslow, Leo Pfeffer (Philip Baum*of counsel), for petitioner.

Henry Epstein, J.

This motion to dismiss the instant proceeding on the grounds that petitioner lacks status under the Executive Law (art. 15, § 296, subd. 1, pars, [a], [c]) and that this court is without jurisdiction, is denied. Respondent commission accepted jurisdiction under sections 297 and 298 of the said law. Petitioner was held to be a “ person aggrieved ” and a reasonably liberal application of such language has been sustained in other courts as well as in this State *(American Jewish Congress*v. *American Lumbermen’s Cas. Co. of Ill.,*No. 1189-45, Record, p. 6, item 46; *National Assn, for Advancement of Colored People*v. *Alabama,*357 IT. S. 449; *Pierce*v. *Society of Sisters,*268 U. S. 510; *Uphaus*v. *Wyman,*360 U. S. 72). Petitioner here has a vital interest, shared with the People of the United States. It is to protect citizens of the United States and particularly of the State of New York, from the destruction of their basic rights at the instance of a foreign government, seeking to obscure our statutory and constitutional provisions with a perceptible film of oil.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5729]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             H O U S E  O F  R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S

Vol. 158

WASHINGTON, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2012

No. 120
```
### SERVED: MAY 22, 2012



## .....,.' . ..,"(,.**~EI!T**

# or :l)i-\H 11'111 - \ 

### r U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION"'/-,:\ISPORTATION . ···...·., · .·c-T QrJrQf1TI(\! iC' OFFICEOFHEARINGS \.·... r\i:::l :l·tnn 1.n'h1

WASHINGTON, DC 

### ·;n n

------------- i',UlL IN THE MATTER OF PATHFINDERAVIATION, INC. FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0028



### HEARING NOTICE 2Ll 

## 1: )ll

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered on 

### September 18 

### and 19, 2012, at the 

### U.S. District Courtfor the District ofAlaska, 222 

### W. 7th 

### Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99513. Hearings will commence at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:00p.m. each day. The parties should vacate the courthouse onorbefore 5:00 p.m. each day. 

### Settled cases will 

### notbe removed from the docket until the Judge receives the properpleading(s). Pleadings may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier o tal s

Attachment - Service List U.S. Administrative Law Judge

-·'f\··

1

### SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 Michael W. Fell, President Pathfinder Aviation, Inc. P.O. Box 375 Homer, AK 99603 TEL:**907~299-2800** FAX: 907-299-2801 

### ONE COPY

Glenn 

### H. Brown, 

### Complainant's Counsel Senior Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Alaskan Region Federal Aviation Administration 222 W. 

## ih Avenue #14 Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 TEL: 907-271-5271 FAX: 907-271-2800 The Honorable Richard 

## 9. Goodwin,

### AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 __...,

. U.S. Department ofTransportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202;.366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2012-0028 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur WrightBuilding-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Jones, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered September 19, 1988, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s conviction resulted from an altercation between the defendant and Paul Gibbs, during which the defendant stabbed Gibbs 67 times, thereby causing his death. On appeal, the defendant does not dispute that he is responsible for the death of Gibbs, but argues that his actions were justified since he was acting in self-defense, and that the People failed to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Street,*163 AD2d 346). The defendant’s failure to retreat and the number of stab wounds sustained by the decedent negate the essential elements of the defense *(see, People v Turner,*165 AD2d 798; *People v Major,*116 AD2d 594). Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the *295verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

Additionally, the defendant’s contention that his sentence was excessive is without merit. The sentencing court properly considered all of the principles of sentencing, and in view of the brutal and violent nature of the crime, the sentence was appropriate *(see, People v King,*128 AD2d 806; *see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Kooper, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.