alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009205EN.01003702.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/37

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2009 — Biotronik v OHIM (BioMonitor)

(Case T-257/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark BioMonitor - 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))

2009/C 205/68

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Biotronik GmbH & Co. KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented initially by U. Sander and R. Böhm, and subsequently by R. Böhm, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2008 (Case R 466/2007-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign BioMonitor as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Biotronik GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Biotronik GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

1

---
**Data Needed on Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing Facilities**

 Facility Data o **IR Security Technologies** o **3899 H ancock**  **E xpressway, Security, El Paso County, CO 80911**  **- 1230**  o **38:46:36.6420 ,**  **104:44:14.5196**
 Process Ty

pe o **Hard chromium electroplating** o **Decorative chromium electroplating**  o **Other electroplating : Nickel Plating in nine tanks.**  o **Co -** **located Polishing and Plating processes are subject to MACT Subpart WWWWWW** 
 Tank # 18 Design and Operation (AIRS Point 031) o **Dimensions unknown**  o **Rectifier capacity : 3,000 Amps**  o **No d irect hour limit on this tank.**  **August 2**  **009**
**– July**  **20 10**  **reported usage: 371**  **hours**
 Tank # “Hand Line ” Design and Operation (AIRS Point 034) o **Dimensions unknown**  o **Rectifier capacity: 750**  **Am ps**  o **No direct hour limit on this tank. August**  **2 009** 
**– July**  **20 10**  **reported usage: 153**  **hours**
 Tank # 17 Design and Operation (AIRS Point 039) o **Dimensions unknown**  o **Rectifier capacity: 3,000 Amps** o **No direct hour limit on this tank. 15,000,000 Amp**  **- hour limit. August**  **2 009** 
**– July**  **20 10**  **reported usage: 0 hours** 

 Emission Control Technology o **Two p acked**  **- bed scrubber**  **s and surface tension control**  o **Operating Limits**
**–**  **Scrubber: Pressure differential between 0.5” W.C. and 2.5” W.C.**  **Surface tension: For all tanks: ≤ 45 dynes/cm.** 
 Emission Test Data o **Division records indicate that no offi cial stack tests were performed on this**  **facility (source chose to use wetting agent / surface tension limits to demonstrate**  **compliance).** Other Available Supporting Documents

o **Maximum controlled emissions estimated at 10.45 lbs / year. Emissions from**  **August 2**  **009**
**– July**  **20 10**  **reported /calculated to be 0.033 lbs.**  o **[ See Attached Original Permit Application**  **]** o **[ See Attached Construction Permit** **]**
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C 20460 

DEC 1 2 2011 

QFFICE ,)F 

':" .R A ·10 PADI':'.TI'A,J 

Mr. Michael J. Stanton 

President & CEO 

Association of Global Automakers, Inc. 

1050 K Street, NW, Suite 650 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Dear Mr. Stanton: 

Thank you for your letter of October 21,2011, to Administrator Jackson. Your letter expresses interest 

in the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency adopting more stringent gasoline sulfur standards and 

harmonizing such standards with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Low Emission Vehicle 

(LEV) program. 

As you know, the EPA is currently developing a proposal designed to reduce air pollution from 

passenger cars and trucks by establishing new "Tier 3" motor vehicle and fuel standards. We are 

committed to pursuing a systems approach, in which we consider both the vehicle and its fuel as an 

integrated system. We recognize the important role of fuel properties, particularly sulfur, in vehicle 

emissions. Our research indicates that reducing gasoline sulfur content would provide significant 

emissions benefits for existing vehicles in addition to enabling more stringent standards for new 

vehicles. 

The EPA and CARB have been carefully coordinating the Tier 3 and LEV III standards, with the intent 

of developing a harmonized motor vehicle program. The EPA agrees that harmonizing Tier 3 and LEV 

III standards is a common-sense approach that provides cost savings to your industry at the same time it 

provides important public health benefits. I appreciate the input we have received from you and your 

members as we have been considering these issues. I look forward to continuing to work together in the 

development of a Tier 3 program. 

Again, thank you again for your letter. I appreciate the opportunity to be of service and trust the 

information provided is helpful. 

Sincerely, 

ina McCarthy 

Assistant Administrator 

cc: John Cabaniss 

Intemt!l AdcJreS5 (URL) . hltp Ilwww epa gOY 


Recyc ledJRecyclable • Pflnted wllh Vegelable 011 Based Inks on 100%. Postconsumer. Process Chlllf1nf" FIeF Re-cYC.'E'd Paper
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable 7. G. Garza 

County Attorney 

Brooks'County 

Pelfurr~aa, Texas 

Dear sir: 

n the above statly aonaldered by 

art, as follows: 

exglanatioa of 

nay that our town 

d therefore the 

or the upkeep oi the 

other tiscellaneous riattcrs; 

e trairic ii3 somewhat heavy 

ed at tlzes at the particular 

0218 above rcentioned, ths State 

partmnt has ayrsod to turnlsh 

0 likzhts provided that the 

oounty will pay for the li&t bill.” 

pagee 563, 

Iie quote from Texaa Jurlspruaenoe, Volrnne ll, 

564, 665, and 566, as hollows: 

nCounties, bein aomgonent parts 

of the state, have no pozers or duties 

exoept those which are olcarly set 

r0rth and defined in the conaitution 

and statutes. The statutes have olearlp 
Honorable .y. G. Garza, Fage 2 

defined the powers, presprlbed the dut1eo and lmpased the llabillties of 

the o&missioners* oourts, the medium 

through whloh the dlrrerent oounties 

act, and from those statutes must come 

all ths authority vested in the oounties. 

“The arants of powers to suoh 

governmental agenoles as counties, 

townships and sohool distrlots are 

generally more strlot$.y construed than 

are those to inoorporated munloipalitiee. The oonuaiasioners* court Is not 

vested with any general polioe power. 

. . . . 

*Coxmlssloners* courts are courts 

oi linited jurlsdlctloa, in that their 

authority extends only to matters psrtalning to the general welfare or 

their respective counties and that 

their powers are only those expressly 

or lmpliedly oonferred upon them by law, 

- that Is, by the ooastitution aad statutes or the state.w 

The exclusive jurlsdlotloa over State highways 

is placea in the State Rlghv:ay Commission by Art'lole 6673, 

Revised Civil Statutes of TexEs, whloh reads in part as 

r0uw: 

_ 

*Artlole. 6673. Control of, Highways. 

“The oomz~lsslon Is authorized to 

take over and maintain various State 

highways in TBXRB, and the counties 

through whioh said highways pass shall 

be free iron any cost, expense or supervision of suoh highways.” * * * 

After a.oareful and exhauetlve study or your 

question, re have been unable to rind any authority, expressed or Implied, whioh wouLd authorize the County Comlaissloaers of Brooks County, Texas, to RPPrOPriRte money 

to pay the light bill .that would be laourred by maiataia- 
771 

Iioaorable‘a. G. Garza, Fag9 3 

in3 and'upkeeping two eleotrio trafrio lighta at tws Intereeotlons or two state hlghxaye lntersectlng la the heart 

of Palfurrias. 

Therefore, you are respectfully advised that it 

is the aplnloa of this department that the Oounty Coaimissioaers’ Coui’t of Brooks County, Texm, does aot have. the 

authority, expressed or implied, to expend the oounty fund6 

Sor the purQo8e about ?rhiOh you inquire. 

TsYstlng.that the foregoing satisfaotorlly answers 

yopr iaquirp, we reada 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GErUiRAL OF TXCAS 

D. Burle DaYis 

Asslstaat 

,ATTORURY GRN?ClUL OB TRXE3
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 Performance Food Group Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending January 3, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned 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.



|By: | /s/ Robert C. Sledd                              
|--- | -------------------------------------------------
|    | Robert C. Sledd                                  
|    | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer  
|    | March 18, 2004                                   
|    |                                                  
|By: | /s/ John D. Austin                               
|    | John D. Austin                                   
|    | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|    | March 18, 2004
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16D0191. DAVID PARKER v. THE STATE.

David Parker pled guilty in 2011 to aggravated assault, possession of a firearm

by a convicted felon and during the commission of a crime, and cruelty to children.

He subsequently filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial

court denied on August 24, 2011. On October 27, 2015, Parker filed an application

for discretionary appeal in the Supreme Court, which wastransferred to this Court for

disposition. We, however, lack jurisdiction to consider the application.

The denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea may be appealed directly. See

Smith v. State, 283 Ga. 376 (659 SE2d 380) (2008). Ordinarily, if a party applies for

discretionary review of a directly appealable order, we grant the application under

OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). To fall within this general rule, however, the application must be

filed within 30 days of entry of the order or judgment to be appealed. OCGA §

5-6-35 (d); Hill v State, 204 Ga. App. 582 (420 SE2d 393) (1992). The proper and

timely filing of the application is an absolute requirement to confer appellate

jurisdiction upon this Court. See Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756)

(1995). Parker, however, filed this application four years after entry of the order

denying the motion to withdraw his plea. Accordingly, the application is untimely as

to this order. 

In his application, Parker references an order denying his motion to correct a

void sentence, and he includes a copy of his pro se motion to vacate, set aside and/or

correct an illegal sentence. However, Parker has failed to include a copy of the trial

court’s order addressing his motion. Pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 31 (e), a

stamped "filed" copy of a trial court order is required in order for this Court to

January 06, 2016
ascertain that the application was filed within 30 days after entry of an appealable

order. Parker’sfailure to include such an order with his application materials deprives

us of jurisdiction to consider any argument regarding the purported denial of his

motion to correct a void sentence.

Based on the foregoing, this application is hereby DISMISSED for lack of

jurisdiction. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/06/2016
#### Carl A. Morello, Plaintiff, *v.*William Spielvogel, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

October 7, 1959.

*983*Thomas J. Flood*for defendant.

*Parker, Duryee, Benjamin, Zunino & Malone*for plaintiff.

Benjamin Brenner, J.

The defendant, an operator of a motor vehicle, seeks summary judgment in a personal injury suit brought against him by a pedestrian on the ground that the latter was contributorily negligent as a matter of law when he emerged between two parked buses and was instantly struck nearby the crosswalk. The pedestrian asserts that the traffic light was in his favor when he was compelled to cross as he did because the buses were blocking the crosswalk and because any other crossing would have exposed him to an even greater danger of being struck by vehicles in the stream of traffic. Plaintiff claims further that the defendant was driving rapidly, against a red traffic light and too close to the parked buses without regard to the foreseeable danger caused by the blocking of the crosswalk by the parked buses.

It is apparent that plaintiff relies upon his choice of the lesser of two dangers in order to exonerate himself from the claim that he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Obviously such a contention would be unavailing as plaintiff must allege and prove himself free of *all*contributory fault even if the fault he acknowledges is one that is less likely to cause him danger than the fault he shunned.

However, the plaintiff uses the following language to describe his conduct: “I walked to the space behind the first bus and *again observed*the traffic light * * *. I *then proceeded*to step off the curb and cross the street at this opening between the standing vehicles. *1 observed no traffic moving east and west*on 42nd Street and expected none since the light was red against such traffic.” These assertions of precautionary measures taken by the plaintiff, though difficult of proof in view of his further statement that when he was struck he ‘ ‘ had not managed to take even one full step,” nevertheless present a triable issue of fact on the question of plaintiff’s contributory negligence. In any event, they sufficiently plead plaintiff’s use of care to overcome the contention of contributory fault as a matter of law.

It might be useful here to repeat an observation made by Judge Crane in *Cherubino*v. *Meenan*(253 N. Y. 462): “ Every crossing accident differs; speed, surroundings, relative distance from the meeting point, all play an important part in determining reasonable care ”. The case at bar involves a crossing accident and therefore does not readily lend itself to summary disposition. It should also be borne in mind that rule 113 of *984the Rules of Civil Practice, as currently amended and extended to personal injury suits, does not lessen the controlling principle which underlies a motion for summary judgment, namely, that a trial should not be denied if a single material issue exists to warrant trial *(Closson*v. *Seaboard Sand & Gravel Corp.,*238 App. Div. 584).

Motion denied. Submit order.
#### ANSON v. STATE.

No. A-12009.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 7, 1954.

Bruce B. Potter, Blackwell, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

.. JONES, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction sustained by the defendant Earl W. Anson wherein he was sentenced by the District Court of ¡Kay County to serve a term of four years imprisonment in the penitentiary for burglary in the second degree.

 No briefs have been filed and no one appeared on behalf of the accused at the time the case was assigned for oral argument. We have carefully examined the record. The proof of defendant’s guilt of the crime of burglary of the Oklahoma Tire and Supply Company store in the city of Tonkawa was conclusive. He was seen near the scene of the burglary the night of the commission of the crime, and when he became involved in a collision with another automobile early the next morning after the burglary, the merchandise taken in the burglary was. found in the automobile which the defendant was driving. Defendant denied his guilt and sought to lay the blame for the burglary on his brother, who was killed at the time of the car collision.

The evidence presented an issue of fact for the determination of the jury. We have found no reversible error. The judgment and sentence of the District' Court of Kay County is affirmed.

POWELL, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1457]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     IN RECOGNITION OF JOHN BUCKEY

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WILLIAM R. KEATING

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 10, 2012

  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dedicated 
public servant from Nantucket, Massachusetts. This year, John Buckey 
was honored as the Massachusetts High School Principal of the Year.
  A lifelong learner himself, John received his Bachelor of Arts in 
Spanish from Asbury College and is currently pursuing a doctorate in 
Education Leadership at Northeastern University. Sixteen years ago, 
John began his career in education as a Spanish teacher and Chair of 
the World Language Department at the Lexington School in Lexington, 
Kentucky. From there, he pursued a Master of Education from Harvard 
University and began his first--of many--administrative assignments 
serving as Assistant Principal and then Principal of Littleton High 
School in Littleton, Massachusetts. Four years ago, he took over as 
Principal of Nantucket High School during one of the most difficult 
periods in the high school's history. It was his leadership, along with 
the help of the school and greater community that Nantucket High School 
has achieved tremendous growth over this period.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor Principal John Buckey on this joyous 
occasion. He is an extraordinary member of our community and I ask that 
my colleagues join me in congratulating him for this prestigious award.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1449]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    IN RECOGNITION OF NAVY WEEK 2012

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 10, 2012

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of 2012 Navy Week, 
held from August 27th through September 4th in the Greater Cleveland, 
Ohio area--just one of 15 cities selected from across the nation.
  In each of the 15 cities, Navy Week events for local residents will 
include the Blue Angels Navy Flight Demonstration Team; the Leap Frogs 
Navy Parachute Team; visiting ships from the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast 
Guard, and the Royal Canadian Navy; Navy Band musical performances; 
Admirals and several other senior leaders within the Navy who will 
interact with local business, government, and educational leaders; Navy 
simulator and interactive displays; visits to area schools; community 
service projects; and visits with local veterans.
  Navy Week in Cleveland was a special event as it ran in conjunction 
with the commemoration of the bicentennial of both the War of 1812 and 
our country's national anthem, ``The Star Spangled Banner.'' Cleveland 
Navy Week included a special ceremony held on Sunday, August 26th 
aboard the USS COD Submarine Memorial to honor two local Ohioans, World 
War II veteran James Tedrick and Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran 
Michael Dobec, with combat medals presented by Senator Sherrod Brown. A 
few of the other special events included a performance at the Rock and 
Roll Hall of Fame by the Navy Band, a Navy diver demonstration in the 
shark tank at the Greater Cleveland Aquarium, and Navy sailors working 
together with Habitat for Humanity to help build a home in Lakewood, 
Ohio.
  Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the 
celebration of the 2012 Cleveland Navy Week.

                          ____________________
```
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.45    
    


 
 

ATTACHMENT A2
  February 21, 2002 SurModics-Modified Product Agreement
  between
  SurModics, Inc. and ev3 Inc., successor in interest to Microvena Corporation


        1.    Quantity of Medical Product.    ev3 will supply SURMODICS with
up to 5000 units of Medical Product, at no charge, to be modified at SURMODICS' facility. In addition, ev3 acknowledges that all units of Medical
Product supplied to SURMODICS will not be returned in that some units of Medical Product may be (i) lost to scrap, or (ii) consumed in the performance of quality procedures, or
(iii) kept by SURMODICS as retained samples. 


        2.    Delivery of SurModics-Modified Medical Product to ev3.    SURMODICS anticipates that the
SurModics-Modified Medical Products will be returned to ev3 within two weeks of receipt of Medical Products by SURMODICS provided that
(a) ev3 submits batches containing 250 units or less of Medical Product for modification, and
(b) ev3 notifies SURMODICS at least one week prior to sending such Medical Product for modification. If  ev3 submits batches to SURMODICS consisting of
more than 250 units of Medical Product for modification or submits to SURMODICS more than 1000 units of
such Medical Product for modification in a four-week period, then SURMODICS will provide an estimate of coating run turnaround time to ev3
upon request. 


        3.    Price.    The price ev3 shall pay SURMODICS for
SurModics-Modified Medical Product shall be identified in Cost Estimate(s) provided to and approved by ev3 prior to the actual performance of work
identified herein. 


        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has caused this Attachment to be executed in the manner appropriate to each. The execution of this Attachment shall serve to amend the
SURMODICS-MODIFIED PRODUCT AGREEMENT by appending this Attachment to that Agreement. This Attachment shall be effective March 31, 2003 and shall terminate on July 31, 2004. 



	Accepted by:

SurModics, Inc.	 	Accepted by:

ev3 Inc.
	

 	
 	

 
	/s/  ROBERT W. ELLIOT, JR      
 Signature	 	/s/  DANIEL O. ADAMS      
 Signature
	

Robert W. Elliot, Jr
 Printed Name	
 	

Daniel O. Adams
 Printed Name
	

VP, Licensing Counsel
 Title	
 	

V.P. R&D ev3, Inc.
 Title













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.45


ATTACHMENT A2 February 21, 2002 SurModics-Modified Product Agreement between SurModics, Inc. and ev3 Inc., successor in interest to Microvena Corporation