alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

Action brought on 24 August 2004 by Bitburger Brauerei Th. Simon GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-350/04)

(2005/C 19/54)

Language in which the application was submitted: German

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 August 2004 by Bitburger Brauerei Th. Simon GmbH, of Bitburg (Germany), represented by Michaela Huth-Dierig, lawyer. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., of St Louis (United States of America), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----
HANDLE VIA 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112235 

f'- ,,-·ue: · r....1 r r ~ t_J,. 

TOP SECRET HA~~L~ v~~' 1 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

1111111111111~11 llllllllilillll ~111111111\lll ll\ll llllll Ill llll 14 000975850 

Colo 

For your meeting at 4 :30 PM today. 

Attendees from ACDA: 

Lt Gen (Ret) Davis 

Mr. Spurgeon Keeney 

September 5, 1969 

The appointment was made by~----~ ACDA's main 

purpose is to "close-the-loop following Bill Perry's discussion 

with Dr. McLucas last week 11 {specifically that portion which you 

carried - - having to do with ESL' s effort in arms limitation 

verification). 

ACDA is anxious now, since having been called to task as 

the responsible Government agency, by Mr. Duckett and his 

FMSAC group, to effect the proper coordination of their effort 

on this subject (specifically, of course, the contractual efforts 

involving BYEMAN information). 

ACDA intends also to describe for Dr. Mc Lucas what future 

requirements it proposes to lay on ESL for studies on this same 

subject - - verification. 

Finally, they will ask Dr. McLucas for a point-of-contact in 

your Staff, since they nunderstand Paul Worthman, who used to 

be that contact, has now retired. " I explained to~--~that 

Col Worthman had departed and that I had replaced him on the 

Staff. ~--~ of course, knows this and is, no doubt, seeking 

a point-of-contact who will perhaps be a little less strict in controlling these issues than I have been. I should continue to be 

that point-of-contact! 

WILL!t:X".. YOST 

Lt co:O~~ USAF 

CONTROL NO ______ _ 

BYEMAN TOP SECRET CDPY ___ DF ___ COPIES 

CONTROL SYSTEM EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

D00 DIRECTIVE 5200 10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112235 

PAGE ___ OF ___ PAGES
Argued and submitted May 28,

affirmed July 14,

reconsideration denied September 29,

petition for review denied November 30, 1993 (318 Or 98)

#### STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, *v.*DREXEL RAE HASKINS, *Appellant.*

(9105-0915A; CA A73553)

855 P2d 667

Sally L. Avera, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Janet A. Klapstein, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*672PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with burglary in the first degree and aggravated theft. ORS 164.225; ORS 164.057. Pursuant to plea negotiations, defendant pled no contest to the burglary offense, and the state dismissed the theft charge. Defendant’s sentence resulted from the agreement, and we may not review her claim of error that the departure sentence imposed was not supported by substantial and compelling reasons. ORS 138.222(2)(d); *State v. Adams,*315 Or 359, 847 P2d 397*(1993); State v. Tanner,*121 Or App 104, 854 P2d 941 (1993); *State v. Kilborn,*120 Or App 462, 852 P2d 935 (1993); *State v. Johnston,*120 Or App 165, 851 P2d 1156 (1993).

Affirmed.
#### Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, Respondent, vs. Beyl, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Roy C. Smelker*and *Manahan, Hooge-steger & Manahan,*all of St. Paul, Minnesota.

For the respondent: *Coe Brothers*of Barron.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 132874 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 132874 COA: 262958 Wayne CC: 04-012496-01 ELMORE JAMES HAIRE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 21, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

p0416 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 24, 2007

Clerk
# C_2005143EN.01002603.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/26

---

Action brought on 6 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-158/05)

(2005/C 143/41)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Braun and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing the adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing the adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive.

1

| 2. | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 28 September 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 85, 28.03.2002, p. 40

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 March 31, 2004 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:          |  |                            
|March 10, 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.
# C_2005115EN.01002001.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/20

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 March 2005

in Case T-32/03 Leder & Schuh AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier national word mark ‘Schuhpark’ - Application for Community word mark ‘JELLO SCHUHPARK’ - Relative ground for refusal - Partial refusal to register - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 115/37)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-32/03: Leder & Schuh AG, established in Graz (Austria), represented by W. Kellentur and A. Schlaffge, lawyers, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: G. Schneider and B. Müller), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance, being Schuhpark Fascies GmbH, established in Warendorf (Germany), represented by A. Peter, lawyer — action against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2002, in the corrected version of 9 December 2002 (Case R 494/1999-3), relating to opposition proceedings between Schuhpark Fascies GmbH and Leder & Schuh AG — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 March 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.

1

---
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-0929 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-218-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection and 

Rectification 4 $ 340.00 $0 $ 340.00 107 $36,380.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $36,380

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
EXHIBIT 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Annual Report of Axtive Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and dates indicated below, hereby certify 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/ Graham C. Beachum II                          |  |  |  | Date: April 13, 2004
|                                                  |  |  |  |                     
|Graham C. Beachum II                              |  |  |  |                     
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |                     



|                     |  |  |  |                     
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------
|                     |  | 
|/s/ Stephen P. Slay  |  |  |  | Date: April 13, 2004
|                     |  |  |  |                     
|Stephen P. Slay      |  |  |  |                     
|Corporate Controller |  |  |  |                     



These Certifications
shall not be deemed to be filed or part of the referenced Annual Report on Form 10-KSB or incorporated by reference into any of the registrants filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission by implication or by any reference
in any such filing to such report.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 7419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02610]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XK54


Marine Mammals; File No. 13602

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit amendment.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr. Terrie Williams, Long Marine 
Laboratory, Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California at 
Santa Cruz, 100 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA has been issued a minor 
amendment to Permit No. 13602-01.

ADDRESSES: The amendment and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, 
Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone: (301) 427-8401; fax: (301) 
713-0376.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Sloan; phone: 
(301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The requested amendment has been granted 
under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the regulations governing the 
taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).
    Permit No. 13602-01 (76 FR 7823) authorizes the permit holder to 
conduct energetic and physiological research on captive odontocetes and 
pinnipeds (including threatened and endangered species) to determine 
key physiological factors required for survival. Research may occur at 
Long Marine Laboratory and other institutions in the U.S. and includes 
permanently captive marine mammals and those undergoing rehabilitation. 
This minor amendment (No. 13602-02) extends the duration of the permit 
one year, through September 7, 2015, but does not change any other 
terms or conditions of the permit.

    Dated: February 4, 2015.
Perry F. Gayaldo,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-02610 Filed 2-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
#### Plowman, Receiver, Respondent, vs. Leiber, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Woodward & May*of Madison.

For the respondent: *Grotophorst, Quale & Longer*of Baraboo.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



                                                                         1997              1996
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                                                            <C>                          <C>      
Net income (loss) - financial statements                       $    (1,035,003)             (400,853)

Common shares outstanding at beginning of period                     3,212,600             3,212,600

Common stock issued through IPO                                      1,000,000                  -
     Months outstanding                                                    4.5                  -

Common stock issued to underwriter                                      50,000                  -
     Months outstanding                                                      3

Stock warrants and options - not dilutive (SAB 83
     effect included in adjustment below)

Common shares outstanding at end of period                           4,262,600             3,212,600

Weighted average outstanding common stock                            3,587,532             3,212,600

SAB 83 adjustment                                                      345,616               452,194

Shares used in computing pro forma net loss per share                3,933,148             3,664,794

Pro forma net loss per share                                           $0.26                   0.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: __2012________-NM-___077______-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2224 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to apply budget neutrality 

on a State-specific basis in the calculation of the Medicare hospital 

wage index floor for non-rural areas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2017 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska (for himself, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. LONG, 

Mr. BARR, and Mr. BYRNE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to apply 

budget neutrality on a State-specific basis in the calculation of the Medicare hospital wage index floor for nonrural areas. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Repeal of the 

5 Obamacare Bay State Boondoggle Act’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2224 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLYING BUDGET NEUTRALITY ON A STATE-SPE2 CIFIC BASIS IN THE CALCULATION OF THE 

3 MEDICARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FLOOR 

4 FOR NON-RURAL AREAS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1886(d)(3)(E) of the So6 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(3)(E)) is amend7 ed by adding at the end the following new clause: 

8 ‘‘(iv) APPLICATION OF BUDGET NEU9 TRALITY RELATING TO FLOOR ON WAGE

10 AREA INDEX IN NON-RURAL AREAS.— 

11 ‘‘(I) APPLICATION ON A STATE12 SPECIFIC BASIS.—In the case of dis13 charges occurring on or after April 1, 

14 2017, for purposes of applying section 

15 4410(b) of the Balanced Budget Act 

16 of 1997, the Secretary shall admin17 ister such section 4410(b) and para18 graph (e) of section 412.64 of title 42, 

19 Code of Federal Regulations, as if 

20 paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of such section 

21 412.64, as in effect on the day before 

22 the date of the enactment of this 

23 clause, had never applied and by using 

24 the methodology promulgated in the 

25 Federal Register on August 19, 2008 

26 (73 Fed. Reg. 48570) (applied as if 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2224 IH

1 such methodology had been fully im2 plemented for fiscal year 2011 using a 

3 100 percent State-specific adjustment 

4 to the area wage index). 

5 ‘‘(II) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing 

6 in subclause (I) shall be construed as 

7 preventing the Secretary, for dis8 charges occurring on or after April 1, 

9 2017, from modifying the regulations 

10 under such section 412.64 to be con11 sistent with subclause (I) in carrying 

12 out the budget neutrality require13 ments of such section 4410(b).’’. 

14 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT TERMINATING APPLI15 CATION OF BUDGET NEUTRALITY ON A NATIONWIDE

16 BASIS.—Section 3141 of the Patient Protection and Af17 fordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww note) is amended 

18 by inserting ‘‘and before April 1, 2017,’’ after ‘‘2010,’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS