alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008285EN.01005701.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/57

---

Action brought on 15 September 2008 — Vicente Carbajosa and Others v Commission

(Case F-77/08)

(2008/C 285/104)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Isabel Vicente Carbajosa (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

An application for a declaration that the Commission's decision to restrict publication of the competition notices EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 to three languages is unlawful, and that those competition notices are unlawful and, consequently, for annulment of EPSO's individual decisions not to admit the applicants to the tests in those competitions.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Tribunal should:

| — | Declare that the Commission's decision to restrict publication of the competition notices EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 to three languages is unlawful and that those competition notices are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Commission's decision to restrict publication of the competition notices EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 to three languages is unlawful and that those competition notices are unlawful;

| — | Annul EPSO's individual decisions not to admit the applicants to the tests in competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 respectively; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul EPSO's individual decisions not to admit the applicants to the tests in competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 respectively;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 21, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 15, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 149 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-126, CP2024-132.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-28064 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
# C_2010234EN.01003203.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Trautwein v OHIM (Representation of a dog)

(Case T-385/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a dog - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 234/56

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research and Development (Leopoldshöhe, Germany) (represented by: C. Czychowski, A. Nordemann and A.. Dustmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of 30 June 2008 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1734/2007-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing a dog

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research and Development to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research and Development to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Ivan Wolkind, certify that:

(1)   I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Advanced Cell Technology, Inc.;

(2)   Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

(3)   Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)   The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(5)   The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



| |  | /s/ IVAN WOLKINDIvan Wolkind
Chief Accounting Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
# C_2008223EN.01005202.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/52

---

Action brought on 26 June 2008 — Vion v OHIM (PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD)

(Case T-251/08)

(2008/C 223/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Vion NV (Best, Netherlands) (represented by A. Klinger, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 April 2008 (Case R 562/2007-4); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 April 2008 (Case R 562/2007-4);

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD’ for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30 (Application for registration No 5 039 946).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Application dismissed.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, (1) as the trade mark applied for is sufficiently distinctive.

Pleas in law:

1

---

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

1

---
# C_2008313EN.01006002.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/60

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 September 2008 — Tsarnavas v Commission

(Case F-44/08) (1)

1

(2008/C 313/111)

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 158, 21.6.2008, p. 28.

1

---
# C_2008142EN.01003401.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/34

---

Action brought on 11 April 2008 — Loufrani v OHIM (half-smiley)

(Case T-139/08)

(2008/C 142/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Franklin Loufrani (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Deutsch, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 7 February 2008 in case R 0958/2007-4); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 7 February 2008 in case R 0958/2007-4); and

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘half-smiley’ for goods in classes 14, 18 and 25 — application No 893 580

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application for all goods

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the mark acquired the minimum degree of distinctiveness required to be registered.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2008247EN.01001802.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/18

---

Action brought on 29 July 2008 — Deutsche BKK v OHIM

(Case T-289/08)

(2008/C 247/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche BKK (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by H.P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla and S. Risthaus, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May 2008 in Case R 318/2008-4, notified on 2 June 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May 2008 in Case R 318/2008-4, notified on 2 June 2008;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Deutsche BKK’ for services in Classes 36, 41 and 44 (application No 4 724 894).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) due to the rejection of documents without the possibility for prior comments; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) due to the rejection of documents without the possibility for prior comments;

1

| — | Infringement of the first sentence of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 40/94 due to the Office's improper investigation of the facts; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 40/94 due to the Office's improper investigation of the facts;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 due to denial of protection for the mark ‘Deutsche BKK’ because of absolute grounds for refusal of protection for the mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 due to denial of protection for the mark ‘Deutsche BKK’ because of absolute grounds for refusal of protection for the mark;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 due to refusal to recognise distinctive character in consequence of use. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 due to refusal to recognise distinctive character in consequence of use.

---

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

1

---
# C_2008272EN.01003502.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/35

---

Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Grasso v Commission

(Case T-319/08)

(2008/C 272/67)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Salvatore Grasso (Catania, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.

Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c

Commission

---
# C_2012194EN.01002803.xml

| 30.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/28

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 May 2012 — Simões Dos Santos v OHIM

(Case F-27/08 RENV) (1)

1

2012/C 194/48

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

---

(1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008, p. 25.

1

---
#### Jimmie Max HIRST, Petitioner, v. Robert R. RAINES, Warden Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. A-13132.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 14, 1962.

Jimmie Max Hirst, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an original proceeding by writ of habeas corpus wherein petitioner seeks his release from the state penitentiary. The *466record before this court reveals that petitioner is being restrained of his liberty and is confined in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary on account of a judgment and sentence made and entered on the 31 day of August, 1960 in the district court of Kay county, Oklahoma, case #4081, wherein petitioner plead guilty to the crime of robbery with firearms and received a sen-of 10 years in the state penitentiary.

Petitioner seeks his release upon the grounds that he was denied due process of law in that the information stated two separate offenses, to-wit: robbery with firearms and larceny of an automobile. The information about which petitioner complains is attached to his petition. The Court has carefully read the information and though it is by no means a model one, it is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the district court for the offense of robbery with firearms. The record reflects that the court advised petitioner of his constitutional rights and appointed him counsel who conferred with petitioner before his plea of guilty. To the information there was no motion to quash or demurrer; the record is void of any objection to the information prior to the plea of guilty and was raised for the first time by the writ some eleven months after judgment had been rendered.

This court has held heretofore in the case of Cottrell v. McLeod, 342 P.2d 240 as follows:

> “Unless an information is fatally defective and wholly insufficient to confer jurisdiction on district court to sentence [accused] for alleged crime, Criminal Court of Appeals will not interfere on habeas corpus to grant [accused’s] release from confinement because of alleged defective information under which accused was sentenced.”

If petitioner had been serious about his contention he should have filed a motion to quash the information and if overruled 'he should have sought relief by direct appeal. Poor precedent would be established to permit one to remain silent as to contention of error during trial, and ignore appeal and seek release by way of habeas corpus. The court has been most consistent in prohibiting the habeas corpus from becoming a substitute for appeal.

We are unable to find merit in petitioner’s contention that he was denied due process. Petitioner was advised of legal and constitutional rights. He was appointed counsel by the court and after consultation with his attorney entered a plea of guilty all of which is reflected by the record. The information in the court’s opinion was sufficient to give the trial court jurisdiction. The court had jurisdiction of the subject matter, the person, and the right to pronounce the sentence.

Therefore the writ is denied.
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors of ONEOK Partners GP, L.L.C. asGeneral Partner of ONEOK Partners, L.P.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements No. 333-137419 on Form S-3and Nos. 333-66949 and 333-72696 on Form S-8 of ONEOK Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) of our reports dated February 28, 2007 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Partnership as of December 31, 2006 and2005, and the related consolidated statements of income, cash flows, and changes in partners’ equity and comprehensive income for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, which reports appear in the December 31, 2006 annual reporton Form 10-K of the Partnership. 

**/s/ KPMG LLP**

Tulsa, Oklahoma 

February 28, 2007
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7743
In Re: GEORGE MILLER, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-692-5) Submitted: May 13, 2003 Decided: May 21, 2003 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Miller, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: George Miller petitions for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. After Miller filed the instant mandamus petition, the district court entered an order denying relief on Miller’s habeas petition. Accordingly, we deny Miller’s mandamus petition as moot but grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
# C_2009069EN.01001901.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 December 2008 — British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH v Hauptzollamt Schweinfurt

(Case C-550/08)

(2009/C 69/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Schweinfurt

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 5(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1) be interpreted as meaning that non-Community goods subject to excise duty which have been placed under an inward processing procedure within the terms of Article 84(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (Customs Code) are to be deemed to be subject to duty-suspension arrangements even if they are produced, under an inward processing procedure, from goods which are not subject to excise duty only after the importation of those goods and therefore, in accordance with the 15th recital in the preamble to Directive 92/12/EEC, when they are being moved there is no need for the accompanying document referred to in Article 18(1) of Directive 92/12/EEC to be used? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 5(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1) be interpreted as meaning that non-Community goods subject to excise duty which have been placed under an inward processing procedure within the terms of Article 84(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (Customs Code) are to be deemed to be subject to duty-suspension arrangements even if they are produced, under an inward processing procedure, from goods which are not subject to excise duty only after the importation of those goods and therefore, in accordance with the 15th recital in the preamble to Directive 92/12/EEC, when they are being moved there is no need for the accompanying document referred to in Article 18(1) of Directive 92/12/EEC to be used?

1

| 2. | If the first question is to be answered in the negative:
  Must Article 15(4) of Directive 92/12/EEC be interpreted as meaning that proof that the consignee has taken delivery of the goods may also be provided otherwise than by means of the accompanying document referred to in Article 18 of Directive 92/12/EEC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is to be answered in the negative:

Must Article 15(4) of Directive 92/12/EEC be interpreted as meaning that proof that the consignee has taken delivery of the goods may also be provided otherwise than by means of the accompanying document referred to in Article 18 of Directive 92/12/EEC?

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.

1

---