alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005045EN.01002702.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/27

---

Action brought on 23 December 2004 by Bodegas Franco-Españolas S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM))

(Case T-501/04)

(2005/C 45/60)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 December 2004 by Bodegas Franco-Españolas S.A., of Logrono (Spain), represented by María Emilia López Camba, of the Madrid Bar,

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2004, in Case R 513/2002-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2004, in Case R 513/2002-1;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

| Applicant for the Community mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community mark applied for: | Word mark Royal, for goods in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages, except beers). |
| Holder of the mark or sign relied on in the opposition proceedings: | Compañía General da Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro S.A. |
| Opposing mark or sign: | Portuguese figurative mark ROYAL BRANDE, No 122 170, Community word mark ROYAL FEITORIA, No 418.301 and international word mark ROYAL OPORTO WINE COMPANY (PORTUGAL), No 174 788, for goods in Class 33. |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld on the basis of Community mark No 418 301 and application for registration dismissed. |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed. |
| Grounds: | Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94. |

Applicant for the Community mark:

The applicant

Community mark applied for:

Word mark Royal, for goods in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages, except beers).

Holder of the mark or sign relied on in the opposition proceedings:

Compañía General da Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro S.A.

Opposing mark or sign:

Portuguese figurative mark ROYAL BRANDE, No 122 170, Community word mark ROYAL FEITORIA, No 418.301 and international word mark ROYAL OPORTO WINE COMPANY (PORTUGAL), No 174 788, for goods in Class 33.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Opposition upheld on the basis of Community mark No 418 301 and application for registration dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Appeal dismissed.

Grounds:

Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

---
#### The State *v.*Major Barden.

From Wayne.

It seems that a witness may speak of information derived from a negro, upon which acts are predicated, in explanation of those acts. One who is privy to a petty Larceny before the fact, is a principal.

The Defendant was indicted for Petty Larceny, in stealing a bag of cotton.

On the trial a witness stated, without any objection on the part of the Defendant, that he was informed by a negro, that the cotton was in a house, on the *\*remises of the Defendant — that he searched that .house, and found the information of the negro to be correct.

His honor Judge Strange informed the Jury, that if they believed from the testimony, that the stealing was the joint act of the Defendant and of the negro, who had given the information, then* verdict ought to be for the State — that if they believed it to be the act of the negro alone, but committed under any previous concert with the Defendant, they ought also to find the Defendant guilty. But if they believed that the negro had taken the cotton without any previous concept with (he Defendant, they ought to return a verdict for the Defendant.

The Defendant was convicted, and moved for a new trial, 1st, because the witness had given in evidence the information of the negro, and 2d, because of error in the charge of the Judge.

No Counsel appeared for the Appellant, and the case was submitted without argument, by *Devereux,*in the place of the Attorney-General.

Henderson, Judge.

The conversation with the negro, or rather the fact that, the negro directed the witness to a particular place, to search for the cotton, is a circumstance of which the witness might speak, especially as it was not objected to. I wish to express no opi-*519nioH as to what would be the case if the evidence had been obiected to. I rather think that the insulated „ . A , . it fact is proper, if tor no other purpose, to explain the motive of the witness. I cannot see how it could effect the Defendant, otherwise than to support the credit of the witness, by showing that he had a motive for his conduct. In that view it went to show, not that the cotton was in the house, but that the witness had been told it was there. As to the other parts of the case, there is no doubt, but the opinion of the Court was correct. All who are concerned in a petty larceny, are principals. Whoever procures a felony to be done, although it be by the instigation of a third person, is an accessary before the fact; and that which in felony makes a person an accessary before the fact, in petty larceny and misdemeanors makes him a principal.

Per Curiam. — Judgment affirmed,
# C_2004273EN.01001301.xml

| 6.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Vicenza, Sezione Distaccata di Schio by order of that court of 2 August 2004 in the case of Caseificio Valdagnese against Regione Veneto

(Case C-358/04)

(2004/C 273/24)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Vicenza, Sezione Distaccata di Schio (Vicenza District Court, Schio Division) (Italy), of 2 August 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 17 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caseificio Valdagnese against Regione Veneto.

The Tribunale di Vicenza asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following question:

‘Are national laws and administrative practice which impose on the purchaser the obligation, failure to fulfil which is subject to penalties, to deduct the amount payable by way of additional levy from the price of the milk paid to the producers who are liable to pay the levy compatible with Article 2(2) of Regulation EEC No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December 1992, as interpreted in the judgment in Case C-288/97 of 29 April 1999, and is Article 2(2) of Regulation EEC No 3950/92, as interpreted by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 29 April 1999, therefore in conflict with Article 5 and 11 of national Law No 468/92 and thus whether failure on the part of the purchaser to exercise the option to deduct the amount payable by way of additional levy form the amount paid to producers may be required of the purchaser by the Member State on pain of penalties in the event of failure to do so?’

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, of 28 December 1992, establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1.

1

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM QUARTERS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         859,710               2,342,849
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  753,807                   5,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,117,486               2,828,950
<PP&E>                                         114,045                  69,555
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,840                  16,786
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,623,478               2,913,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,369,502                 605,401
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                    11,059,293              10,484,681
<OTHER-SE>                                    (89,725)                (96,952)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,253,976               2,913,074
<SALES>                                        128,232                  38,166
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               128,232                  38,166
<CGS>                                          207,662                 782,937
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,662                 782,937
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,569,968               2,106,198
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,082                 103,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,634,736)             (2,954,879)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800                     800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,635,536)             (2,955,679)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,635,536)             (2,955,679)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.59)                  (1.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.59)                  (1.84)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2004201EN.01001401.xml

| 7.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/14

---

Action brought on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-254/04)

(2004/C 201/27)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Georgios Zavvos and Michael Shotter, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt, and in any event to notify to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/20/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt, and in any event to notify to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/20/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 24 July 2003.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 21.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.a



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 Quarterly Report of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(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 registrant.



|                |  |                            
|--------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:           |  |                            
|August 12, 2005 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                |  |                            
|                |  | John P. Manning            
|                |  | Principal Executive Officer
|                |  |                            
|                |  |                            



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Estate of Pine: Knight and others, Appellants, vs. Pine, Executor, and others, Respondents.

For the appellants: *J. Charles Pile*of Dodgeville.

For the respondents : *Clarence H. Knudson*of Dodgeville.

*By the Court.*

— Order affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TREX MEDICAL
CORPORATION'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1997
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>                          SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                          36,490
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,072
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,298
<INVENTORY>                                     43,341
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,723
<PP&E>                                          22,687
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,272
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 229,437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,074
<BONDS>                                             47
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           289
<OTHER-SE>                                     168,805
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   229,437
<SALES>                                        229,294
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               229,294
<CGS>                                          139,062
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  139,062
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,705
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   170
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 336
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,464
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,790
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,674
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,674
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

KYLE B. PIERCE, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

LEHIGH COUNTY & COURT 

ADMINISTRATOR, WILLIAM BERNDT, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 33 MM 2016 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 20th day of April, 2016, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and the Motion in 

Request of Counsel are DENIED.
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Access Road, Nutrient Management, Waste Utilization

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
# C_2005040EN.01000701.xml

| 17.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 40/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 40/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3561 — Deutsche Telekom/Eurotel)

(2005/C 40/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 15 December 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3561. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3561. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      11,007,194
<SECURITIES>                                71,273,503
<RECEIVABLES>                              150,115,102
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,042,025
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,757,339
<PP&E>                                       3,936,690
<DEPRECIATION>                                  82,436
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             240,131,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      198,506,036
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       810,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,815,817
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               240,131,853
<SALES>                                      4,195,297
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,377,817
<CGS>                                        1,451,139
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,557,254
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,106,115
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0,451,139
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,820,563
<INCOME-TAX>                                   634,570
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,185,993
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.46
        

</TABLE>