alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005057EN.01004001.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/40

---

Action brought on 18 January 2005 by Wim De Waele against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-15/05)

(2005/C 57/67)

Language of the case: Dutch

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 18 January 2005 by Wim De Waele, residing in Bruges (Belgium), represented by Paul Maeyaert and Samuel Granata.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 November 2004 (Case R 820/2004-1) and annul it in part, namely in so far as it concerns the goods ‘sausage casings for charcuterie’ in Class 18 or at least in so far as it concerns the goods ‘sausage casings for charcuterie intended for professional customers’; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 November 2004 (Case R 820/2004-1) and annul it in part, namely in so far as it concerns the goods ‘sausage casings for charcuterie’ in Class 18 or at least in so far as it concerns the goods ‘sausage casings for charcuterie intended for professional customers’;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Community trade mark sought: | Three-dimensional mark in the shape of an oblong with grooves twisting to the left and to the right which create diamond-shaped geometrical patterns, for goods in Classes 18, 29 and 30 – Application No 3 050 531. |
| --- | --- |
| Decision of the examiner: | Refusal of the application. |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Dismissal of the appeal. |
| Pleas in law: | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94. |

Community trade mark sought:

Three-dimensional mark in the shape of an oblong with grooves twisting to the left and to the right which create diamond-shaped geometrical patterns, for goods in Classes 18, 29 and 30 – Application No 3 050 531.

Decision of the examiner:

Refusal of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law:

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

---
OSWER/OSRTI Washington, DC 20460



## N ATIONAL 

## P RIORITIES 

## L IST 

## (NPL)

***Proposed Si te *** September 2011


### COMPASS PLAZA WELL T CE Rogersville, Missouri Greene County

 **Site Location :**  The Compass Plaza Well TCE site is located on the western edge of the city of Rogersville , Missouri.

 **Site History:**

T he Compass Plaza Well TCE site consists of contaminated ground water that has contaminated domestic and irrigation wells. The site includes a small cluster of wells in Greene County near Compass Plaza, a commercial area of Rogersville. Following routine public drinking water monitoring by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), trichloroethene (TCE) was detected in the Compass Plaza strip mall drinking water well and at two nearby public wells.

 **Site Contamination/Contaminants:**

The contaminant of concern is TCE in the soil and ground water.

 **Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment :**  There are three municipal wells within 4 miles of the site. Rogersville City Well #2 is only used for monitoring purposes.

The Census of Missouri Public Water Systems lists the population served by the City of Rogersville’s two public wells as 1,500 people. The two wells used for production (Wells #1 and #4) are located between 1

- 2 miles of the site. Additionally, there are 13 community and non- com munity wells and 557 private wells within four miles of the site.

 **Response Activities (to date):**
Of the 557 private wells within a four mile radius, approximately 235 have been sampled. TCE was detected in the Compass Plaza strip mall drinking water we ll and in 13 private drinking water wells. Of these 13 private drinking water wells, six have shown TCE levels above EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). EPA has provided water treatment systems to those residents whose private we lls are contaminated with TCE above the MCL. EPA, in cooperation with MDNR, Greene County Resource Management and the Natural Resource Conservation Service, plugged a well with high concentrations of TCE to protect ground water resources. These same agenci es also oversaw the construction of a new drinking water well

.

 **Need for NPL Listing:**

The S tate of Missouri referred th e site to EPA. O ther federal and state cleanup programs were evaluated , but they are not
viable at this time

. EPA received a letter f rom the state supporting the listing of the site to the NPL.

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination.]

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regar ding the e ffects of exposure to these substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs ca n be found on the Internet

at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html or by telephone at 1

- 888

- 42

- ATSDR or 1- 888

- 422

- 8737.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>         0001004540
<NAME>        AIRPLANES U.S. TRUST
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                6
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         9
<ALLOWANCES>                                         (6)
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     17
<PP&E>                                              386
<DEPRECIATION>                                      155
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 9
<BONDS>                                             321
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                         (189)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        276
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     10
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        (4)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     (1)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     (1)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (12)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (8)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (8)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (8)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1


                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Phoenix International Ltd., Inc. and to the incorporation by reference in
the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-19121, Form S-8 No. 333-30797 and
Form S-8 No. 333-57559) of our report dated February 3, 1999 included in the
1998 Annual Report to Shareholders of Phoenix International Ltd., Inc.


                                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                                        Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 22, 1999
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2110 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an increasingly 

larger earned income credit for families with more than 3 children. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 20, 2017 

Mr. NADLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

an increasingly larger earned income credit for families 

with more than 3 children. 

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 ‘‘Tax Fairness for All 

5 Families Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASED EARNED INCOME CREDIT FOR FAMI7 LIES WITH MORE THAN 3 CHILDREN. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 32(b) of 

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read 

10 as follows: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2110 IH

1 ‘‘(1) PERCENTAGES.—For purposes of sub2 section (a)— 

‘‘In the case of an eligible individual with: The credit 

percentage is: 

The phaseout 

percentage is: 

1 qualifying child .............................................. 34.00 15.98

2 qualifying children ......................................... 40.00 21.06

3 qualifying children ......................................... 45.00 21.06

4 qualifying children ......................................... 50.00 21.06

5 qualifying children ......................................... 55.00 21.06

6 qualifying children ......................................... 60.00 21.06

7 or more qualifying children ........................... 65.00 21.06

No qualifying children ...................................... 7.65 7.65.’’. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (3) of 

4 section 32(b) of such Code is amended by striking sub5 paragraph (A). 

6 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

8 December 31, 2016. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
# C_2005093EN.01002703.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/27

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 16 February 2005

in Case T-284/03 Rosalinda Aycinena v the Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Officials - Appointment to higher grade in career - Classification in step)

(2005/C 93/55)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-284/03: Rosalinda Aycinena, residing in Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, A. Coolen and S. Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) – action for annulment of the Commission's decision fixing her definitive classification on appointment at Grade LA 6, step 1, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 February 2005, in which it:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251 of 18 October 2003.

1

---
Exhibit 8

                                  Subsidiaries

A.    ASE Test Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of
      China, which has one subsidiary:

      (i)   ASE Test (U.S.A.) Inc.

B.    ASE Test Holdings Ltd, a corporation organized under the laws of the
      Cayman Islands, and its majority owned subsidiary, ISE Labs, Inc., a
      corporation organized under the laws of the state of California, U.S.A.
      ISE Labs, Inc. has four subsidiaries:

      (i)   ISE Labs Hong Kong Limited, a corporation organized under the laws
            of Hong Kong.

      (ii)  ISE Labs Singapore Pte Limited, a corporation organized under the
            laws of Singapore.

      (iii) ISE Technology, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of
            California.

      (iv)  Digital Testing Services Inc., a corporation organized under the
            laws of California.

C.    ASE Test Finance Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of
      Mauritius; and

D.    ASE Holding (Singapore) PTE Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws
      of Singapore, and its wholly owned subsidiary, ASE Electronics (M) Sdn
      Bhd, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Malaysia.


                                      E-1
#### Lewis and wife, Respondents, vs. Block and another, Appellants.

For the appellants:' *Cluxdek -& Cornelisen*of Green Bay.

For the respondents: *O’Melia & Kaye*of Rhinelander.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 24.1
  POWER OF
    ATTORNEY
  Form 10-K
  Name

Title

Date/s/  Scott
    J. RobinsonScott
    J. Robinson

Vice President, Corporate Controller and
    Chief Accounting Officer
    (Principal Accounting Officer)

February 9, 2011/s/  David
    P. BergDavid
    P. Berg

Director

February 9, 2011/s/  Charles
    A. HaggertyCharles
    A. Haggerty

Director

February 9, 2011/s/  Linda
    W. HartLinda
    W. Hart

Director

February 9, 2011/s/  Ronald
    T. LemayRonald
    T. LeMay

Director

February 9, 2011/s/  Raymond
    LeungRaymond
    Leung

Director

February 9, 2011/s/  L.
    White Matthews, IIIL.
    White Matthews, III

Director

February 9, 2011/s/  Trudy
    A. RautioTrudy
    A. Rautio

Director

February 9, 2011/s/  Glen
    A. TaylorGlen
    A. Taylor

Director

February 9, 2011/s/  Daryl
    J. WhiteDaryl
    J. White

Director

February 9, 2011
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of CN Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and information contained in that Form
10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


/s/Jan W. Clark

Jan W. Clark
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 17, 2003


This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
#### Salmon and Jordan *v.*Mallett.

From Cumberland.

When a bridge company entered into certain articles, one of which was, that the stockholders should have permission to pass toll free, so long as they owned stock, it was held, that the wagon of a stockholder had a light, under this article, to pass toll free.

A toll bridge was erected in the town of Fayetteville, by a company who associated themselves for that purpose under articles of agreement, containing among others, the following:

Art. 4. The owners of stock to have permission to pass without any charge of toll, so long as they continue possessed of stock in the said company.

The Plaintiffs, (who were stockholders) leased the bridge from the company, and in the lease there was a reservation to stockholders of the privileges secured .by the original articles of agreement. The Defendant was also a stockholder, and during the continuance of the lease, his wagon crossed the bridge frequently, claiming to do so toll free, under the 4th article above set forth.

This was a suit brought to recover for the toll of the wagon.

Tayxoe, Chief-Justice.

The permission to pass with.. out any charge of toll extends as well as to the Defendant’s wagon as to his person. The expression being-general ami in its common acceptation signifying a *373charge upon horses, carriages and cattle, as well as persons, will comprehend all, unless limited and quali-tied by an especial exception. This construction which seems to be the one naturally arising from the terms of the agreement, is justified and supported by an ancient rule of law, by which it is held, that the law respecteth matters of profit and interest largely, matters of pleasure, skill, case, trust, authority, and limitation *strictly*— Win-*gate’s maxims*99. Thus a license to hunt in my park or walk in my orchard, extends but to himself, not to his servants or others in his *company;*for it is hut a thing of *pleasure;*otherwise, it is of a licence to hunt, kill and carry away the deer, for that is matter of profit. Ibid. We therefore think the decision in the Court below was correct.
# C_2005031EN.01001902.xml

| 5.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/19

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 24 November 2004

in Case T-393/02: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Three-dimensional mark - Shape of a white and transparent bottle - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 31/38)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-393/02: Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by C. Osterrieth, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: U. Pfleghar and G. Schneider) – action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2002 (Case R 313/2001-4), concerning the registration of a three-dimensional sign constituted by the shape of a white and transparent bottle – the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 November 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 October 2002 (Case R 313/2001-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 October 2002 (Case R 313/2001-4);

| 2. | Orders the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.

1

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 12

- 00317

- CR

Jon Thomas FORD

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010CR7741

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED August 2 0 , 2014.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements as of and for the six months ended June 30, 2000 included  herein and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                             1000

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                                    200
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            0
<PP&E>                                                567,765
<DEPRECIATION>                                        111,307
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        479,967
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       0
<BONDS>                                               327,684
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                            128,158
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          479,967
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       53,107
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          15,707
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       12,975 <F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     13,599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         1,264
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     1,264
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                            1,264
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.03
<FN>
<F1> Depreciation and amortization
</FN>


</TABLE>