alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010100EN.01001102.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/11

---

Order of the Court of 9 December 2009 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission

(Case C-528/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Officials - Social security - Implied refusal of a request for 100 % reimbursement of certain medical costs incurred by an official - Order of declining jurisdiction from the Civil Service Tribunal - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2010/C 100/17

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, avvocato)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. dal Ferro, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2008 in Case T-144/08 Marcuccio v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible an action for annulment of the decision to refuse the appellant’s request for 100 % reimbursement of certain medical expenses, and seeking an order that the Commission pay the appellant the amount of EUR 89.56 as a supplementary reimbursement of his medical expenses or as compensation for loss.

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio shall pay the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio shall pay the costs of the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 07.02.2009.

1

---
#### State v. Hernandez

21013

9/10/98

Affirmed in part & Reversed in part
# C_2009019EN.01003201.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/32

---

Action brought on 17 November 2008 — Kureha v OHIM — Sanofi-Aventis (KREMEZIN)

(Case T-487/08)

(2009/C 19/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kureha Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: W. von der Osten-Sacken and O. Sude, 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: Sanofi-Aventis SA (Gentilly, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

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 15 September 2008 in case R 1631/2007-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 September 2008 in case R 1631/2007-4; and

| — | Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal 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 ‘KREMEZIN’ for goods in class 5 — application No 2 906 501

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: International trade mark registration No 529 937 of the word mark ‘KRENOSIN’ for goods in class 5

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition 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 Rule 19 and of Rule 20(1) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1), as well as misuse of power, as the Board of Appeal wrongly considered that the other party to the proceedings before it has sufficiently proven the existence and validity of the earlier trade mark; Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in connection with Article 43(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

1

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




<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BUCKHEAD AMERICA CORPORATION FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER  31,  1996,  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-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                     DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                 1,802
<SECURITIES>                                           3,027
<RECEIVABLES>                                          2,374
<ALLOWANCES>                                           1,442
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       5,861
<PP&E>                                                20,352
<DEPRECIATION>                                         1,621
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        27,035
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  1,271
<BONDS>                                               12,419
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                  18
<OTHER-SE>                                            13,066
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          27,035
<SALES>                                                9,979
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      13,873
<CGS>                                                  8,659
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         10,552
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     1,505
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        1,817
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    1,817
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                           1,817
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           1.00



</TABLE>
May 02, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Amendment to Exemption 11426 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA 

Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket NO. 

FAA-2015-0173 

Dear Sir or Madam:

 Alaska Aerial Media LLC. was issued an Exemption numbered 11426 (hereinafter the 

Exemption) for the purpose of aerial cinematography and videography, as well as 

implementation of emergency use UAS systems with public entities. Alaska Aerial Media 

requests an amendment to the exemption to allow for three (3) additional types of unmanned 

aircraft systems (UAS) that fully comply with the conditions of the Exemption.

 Alaska Aerial Media LLC. wishes to operate the DJI s800 Hexacopter, DJI s1000 

Octocopter and the Sensefly eBee RTK fixed wing under the same conditions contained in the 

exemption. Attached hereto are the Flight Operations and Procedures Manuals (FOPM) for the 

three (3) additional UAS. All operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the 

terms of the Exemption. 

 Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions concerning this request 

for amendment to the Exemption.

Sincerely, 

Ryan P. Marlow

Alaska Aerial Media

7960 Upper OMalley Road

Anchorage Alaska 99507

Tele: (907)-717-9794
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 463 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 463

To prohibit United States Government recognition of Russia's annexation 
                               of Crimea.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 12, 2017

  Mr. Connolly (for himself and Mr. Chabot) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit United States Government recognition of Russia's annexation 
                               of Crimea.

    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 ``Crimea Annexation Non-recognition 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST UNITED STATES RECOGNITION OF RUSSIA'S 
              ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA.

    (a) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United States not 
to recognize the de jure or de facto sovereignty of the Russian 
Federation over Crimea, its airspace, or its territorial waters.
    (b) Prohibition.--In accordance with subsection (a), no Federal 
department or agency may take any action or extend any assistance that 
recognizes or implies recognition of the de jure or de facto 
sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea, its airspace, or its 
territorial waters.
    (c) Waiver.--The President may waive subsection (a) or (b) if the 
President determines that it is vital to the national security 
interests of the United States to do so.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 248 (Thursday, December 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 89696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28614]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP)--CE24-013, Research Grants To Identify Effective 
Community-Based Strategies for Overdose Prevention (R01); Amended 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Disease, 
Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel 
(SEP)--CE24-013, Research Grants to Identify Effective Community-Based 
Strategies for Overdose Prevention (R01); March 12-13, 2024, 8:30 a.m.-
5 p.m., EDT, web conference, in the original Federal Register notice. 
The meeting notice was published in the Federal Register on October 18, 
2023, Volume 88, Number 200, page 71867.
    The notice is being amended to change the meeting dates to a three-
day meeting. The notice should read as follows:
    Name of Committee: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and 
Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP)--CE24-013, Research Grants to 
Identify Effective Community-Based Strategies for Overdose Prevention 
(R01).
    Dates: March 12-14, 2024.
    Times: 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., EDT.
    The meeting is closed to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aisha L. Wilkes, M.P.H., Scientific 
Review Officer, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE, 
Mailstop S106-9, Atlanta, Georgia 30341. Telephone: (404) 639-6473; 
Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4203152b2e292731022126216c252d34"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1253457b7e797761527176713c757d64">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Office of Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of 
the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register 
notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee 
management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Office of Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2023-28614 Filed 12-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2008158EN.01002201.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/22

---

Action brought on 30 April 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-164/08)

(2008/C 158/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and European Personnel Selection Office

Defendants:

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of notice of open competition EPSO/AD/125/08 (AD7 and AD 9) for the constitution of a reserve from which to recruit 4 and 9 doctors in the ‘Commission channel’ and ‘other institutions channel’ respectively, published in the English, French and German editions of the
  Official Journal of the European Union C 48 A of 21 February 2008. |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of notice of open competition EPSO/AD/125/08 (AD7 and AD 9) for the constitution of a reserve from which to recruit 4 and 9 doctors in the ‘Commission channel’ and ‘other institutions channel’ respectively, published in the English, French and German editions of the
  Official Journal of the European Union C 48 A of 21 February 2008.

Official Journal of the European Union

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-117/08 Italy v Commission
   (1).

Italy

Commission

1

---

(1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal.

1

---
**** Exhibit
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Grand Havana Enterprises, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 25, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned, Stanley Shuster, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 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/
      Stanley Shuster


Name:
      Stanley Shuster


Title:
      Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2008327EN.01001001.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Naumburg (Germany) lodged on 18 September 2008 — Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt — Anstalt der Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale v District Auditor for the State Treasury of the Land Sachsen-Anhalt attached to the Landgericht Magdeburg

Land

(Case C-404/08)

(2008/C 327/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Naumburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt– Anstalt der Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale

Applicant:

Defendant: District Auditor for the State Treasury of the Land Sachsen-Anhalt attached to the Landgericht Magdeburg

Defendant:

Land

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 81(1)(a) and (d) and 81(2) EC, be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from court costs and fees granted by the Land of Saxony-Anhalt to the Investment Bank established by it under Paragraph 6(1) of the Investitionsbank-Begleitgesetz (Investment Bank Ancillary Law) of 18 December 2003 (Gesetz- und Verordungsblatt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (GVBl. LSA) No 47/2003, p. 371) is invalid? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 81(1)(a) and (d) and 81(2) EC, be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from court costs and fees granted by the Land of Saxony-Anhalt to the Investment Bank established by it under Paragraph 6(1) of the Investitionsbank-Begleitgesetz (Investment Bank Ancillary Law) of 18 December 2003 (Gesetz- und Verordungsblatt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (GVBl. LSA) No 47/2003, p. 371) is invalid?

Land

| 2. | If the question under 2.1 is answered in the negative: Should the Community-law rules on competition under the first sentence of Article 86(2) EC be interpreted as meaning that the Investment Bank, like the Land of Saxony-Anhalt, enjoys exemption from court costs and fees only when it performs official tasks within the meaning of Paragraph 6 of the Regulation of 30 December 2003 establishing the Investment Bank of Saxony-Anhalt (GVBl. LSA 2004, p. 20), as amended by amending regulation of 2 December 2006 (GVBl. LSA, p. 534)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the question under 2.1 is answered in the negative: Should the Community-law rules on competition under the first sentence of Article 86(2) EC be interpreted as meaning that the Investment Bank, like the Land of Saxony-Anhalt, enjoys exemption from court costs and fees only when it performs official tasks within the meaning of Paragraph 6 of the Regulation of 30 December 2003 establishing the Investment Bank of Saxony-Anhalt (GVBl. LSA 2004, p. 20), as amended by amending regulation of 2 December 2006 (GVBl. LSA, p. 534)?

Land

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1463-E1464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        HONORING TERYLE L. BERRY

                                 ______
                                 

                  HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 10, 2012

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I present the following U.S. 
Citizen of Distinction.
  Whereas, our lives have been touched by the life of this one woman . 
. . who has given of herself to her country, family and community; and
  Whereas, Ms. Teryle L. Berry served six (6) years in the United 
States Navy, she was an educator, community advocate and business 
owner; and
  Whereas, Ms. Berry gave of her time and talent to uplift those in 
need by demonstrating unwavering commitment to serving the citizens of 
her community, her family and her country; and
  Whereas, she was a mother, a daughter, a sister and a friend; she was 
a woman of great integrity who remained true to the uplifting and 
service to our district; and
  Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia 
recognizes Ms. Teryle L. Berry as a citizen of great worth and so noted 
distinction;
  Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby attest to 
the 112th Congress that Ms. Teryle L. Berry is deemed worthy and 
deserving of this ``Congressional

[[Page E1464]]

Honor'' by declaring Ms. Teryle L. Berry U.S. Citizen of Distinction in 
the 4th Congressional District of Georgia.
  Proclaimed, this 14th day of July, 2012.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2008285EN.01005503.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/55

---

Action brought on 6 August 2008 — Sluiter v Europol

(Case F-68/08)

(2008/C 285/100)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Rudolf Sluiter (Hillegom, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 4 October 2007 whereby Europol informed the applicant that there was no possibility of his being offered a permanent position

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 4 October 2007 whereby the defendant informed the applicant that there was no possibility of his being offered a permanent position, along with the decision of 29 April 2008 rejecting his complaint brought against the first decision and the decision of 12 June 2008 in furtherance of that of the 4 October 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 4 October 2007 whereby the defendant informed the applicant that there was no possibility of his being offered a permanent position, along with the decision of 29 April 2008 rejecting his complaint brought against the first decision and the decision of 12 June 2008 in furtherance of that of the 4 October 2007;

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

—

Order Europol to pay the costs.

---