alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005115EN.01003502.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/35

---

Action brought on 7 March 2005 by Reckitt Benckiser N.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-119/05)

(2005/C 115/63)

Language of the case: English

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 7 March 2005 by Reckitt Benckiser N.V., established in Hoofddorp (The Netherlands) represented by G.S.P. Vos, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision adopted on 17 December 2004 by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)in case R 43/2004-2 |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted on 17 December 2004 by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)in case R 43/2004-2

| — | allow registration of the Community trade mark 2 778 488 |
| --- | --- |

—

allow registration of the Community trade mark 2 778 488

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Community trade mark concerned: | A three-dimensional mark of a transparent rectangular container with rounded angles on the underside and sphere like on the upper side, containing speckled blue gel and a large white ball, for goods in class 1 (water softeners etc.) and 3 (laundry preparations etc.) — application No 2 778 488 |
| --- | --- |
| Decision of the examiner: | Refusal of registration |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Dismissal of the appeal |
| Pleas in law: | — | Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 |

Community trade mark concerned:

A three-dimensional mark of a transparent rectangular container with rounded angles on the underside and sphere like on the upper side, containing speckled blue gel and a large white ball, for goods in class 1 (water softeners etc.) and 3 (laundry preparations etc.) — application No 2 778 488

Decision of the examiner:

Refusal of registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

—

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

| — | Misapplication of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 |
| --- | --- |

—

Misapplication of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

---
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Amarillo Biosciences, Inc.;
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periods covered by this report;
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 4.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 (d) Disclosed in this  report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and
 (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date:   April 17, 2018 By:/s/ Bernard Cohen
EXHIBIT 31.b

I, Marc N. Teal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "Assignor");
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



1. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
3. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



1. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



1. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|August 14, 2006 | /s/ Marc N. Teal                                     
|--------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|                | Marc N. Teal                                         
|                | (Principal Financial Officer), BCTC IV Assignor Corp.
|                |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 7595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02839]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    The comment period for these applications has been extended. 
Comments regarding these applications must be received at the Reserve 
Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than 
February 26, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Vice President) 
33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. CIT Group Inc., Livingston, New Jersey, and its subsidiary, 
Carbon Merger Sub LLC, New York, New York; to acquire 100 percent of 
the voting shares of, and to merge with, IMB Holdco LLC, and thereby 
indirectly acquire voting shares of OneWest Bank, N.A., both in 
Pasadena, California. In addition, Carbon Merger Sub LLC has applied to 
become a bank holding company.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Margaret McCloskey Shanks,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-02839 Filed 2-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUN 11 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

GEORGIA ROSA LEBOW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CITY OF CLOVIS,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 98-2227

(D.C. No. CIV-97-1276)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO , McKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
1 Plaintiff does not appeal the district court’s dismissal of her claim of

negligent supervision.

-2-

Plaintiff-appellant Georgia Lebow appeals from the district court’s grant of

summary judgment to defendant City of Clovis, New Mexico, on her claims of

sexual harassment under Title VII, retaliation for conduct protected under both

federal and state law, and wrongful termination/constructive discharge. 1

 Our

review is de novo and targeted at determining whether there are any genuine

issues as to any material fact and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law. See Kaul v. Stephan , 83 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 1996). In

conducting this review, we examine the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits, if any, making all reasonable

inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. See id. 

After studying the parties’ briefs and thoroughly reviewing the record on

appeal, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New

Mexico is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-6-2015]

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Massachusetts Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 27, requesting subzone status for the facility of Spectro Coating Corporation d/b/a Claremont Flock, LLC, located in Leominster, Massachusetts. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on February 3, 2015.

The proposed subzone (14.45 acres) is located at 107 Scott Drive, Leominster, Massachusetts. A notification of proposed production activity has been submitted and will be published separately for public comment.

In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.

Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is March 23, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 6, 2015.

                    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via                     *www.trade.gov/​ftz.*

                    For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at                     *Kathleen.Boyce@trade.gov*                     or (202) 482-1346.                

Dated: February 4, 2015.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-02736 Filed 2-9-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Ljubica DiCaprio, Respondent-Appellant, v Joseph A. DiCaprio, Appellant-Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 975]

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant appeals and plaintiff cross-appeals from a judgment of divorce awarding permanent maintenance and maintenance arrears to plaintiff and distributing the marital property of the parties. Supreme Court properly rejected defendant’s contention that an Illinois judgment of divorce was entitled to full faith and credit and thereby deprived New York of jurisdiction. The application of full faith and credit to the judgment of a sister State is the functional equivalent of interstate res judicata *(see,*Siegel, NY Prac § 471 [2d ed]; 5 Weinstein-KornMiller, NY Civ Prac 5011.19). Defendant failed to raise the issue in his answer and failed to amend his answer or to move for summary judgment. Thus, the issue was not properly raised *(see, Stemmer v Stemmer,*182 AD2d 1120; *Pace v Perk,*81 AD2d 444). In any event, the determination of the New York court did not contravene the mandate of full faith and credit. The issues of plaintiffs entitlement to divorce, maintenance and distribution of marital property situated in New York were not *820decided by the Illinois court, and plaintiff did not contest any matters decided by the Illinois court.

The court properly exercised its discretion in awarding plaintiff permanent maintenance of $559 per month. Plaintiff’s age, health problem, minimal employment history and long-term marriage to defendant justify that award. The court erred, however, in concluding that plaintiff failed to establish the existence of maintenance arrears and in awarding certain furniture to her "in lieu of any arrears for maintenance”. Defendant conceded that he failed to provide any support for plaintiff from December 1990 until February 1992, a period of 14 months. Because plaintiff requested maintenance in the summons and complaint served prior to December 1990, she is entitled to a judgment of maintenance arrears for that 14-month period, a total of $7,826 *(see, DiSanto v DiSanto,*198 AD2d 838; *Berge v Berge,*159 AD2d 960). Further, because the Illinois court did not award plaintiff any interest in defendant’s law degree or license to practice law, or the items of personal property defendant removed from the marital residence to Illinois, the furniture retained by plaintiff upon vacating the marital residence should have been distributed to her as part of the distribution of the marital property.

The remaining issues raised by the parties lack merit. Thus, we modify the judgment on appeal by awarding plaintiff maintenance arrears in the sum of $7,826 and directing that plaintiff retain the furniture in her possession as part of the equitable distribution of marital property. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — Maintenance.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111675 

TOP SECRET HANDLE VfA 

BYEMAN 

!~NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

THE NRO STAFF July 28, 1969 

MEMORANDUM FOR 

SUBJECT: SR-71 Overflight of North Korea 

This is in response to your request for NRO coordination 

on the proposed DIA response to JRC on security procedures 

for handling operational traffic for subject overflight. 

As you know, it is the policy of the NRO that the operational 

traffic associated with all overflight of denied territory (i.e. 

North Korea in this instance) by any vehicle (irrespective of ·operational responsibility) be afforded security control and protection 

within the BYEMAN system. This is particularly important for all 

pre-mission traffic in that it limits the access to knowledge of such 

flights prior to their execution. 

It is our understanding that the operational traffic and execution 

orders for GIANT SCALE Missions 161 and 162 were handled in 

BYE MAN channels. It is our further understanding that the operational command was authorized to pass that information essential to 

lower echelon operational and support elements on a strict mustknow basis in the SENIOR CROWN system via the SSO network. 

We believe that this arrangement does afford adequate protection 

for these flights. We do :-:c .. derstand how such an arrangement 

would create confusion and ,k1ays in the provision :;~ Jperational support because of "attendant clearance problems" as has been expressed 

by CINCPAC. We would appreciate receiving the details on any problems that are being caused by this arrangement and will be pleased to 

reassess the situation as necessary. 

1nr1nr1i1 111111 11 r 11111°11111111111111111111111111111111 

CONTROL'.-,. /ST£M 

16P SECRET EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

DOD DIRECTIVE 5200 10 OOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111675 

CONTROL NO BYE 1 3 0 4 1- 6 9 

COPY A. - OF_...,..--_COPlES 

PAGE_-Y- __ OF 2 PAGES 

907- df5- 0/0 

7 

i 

I 

i 
cCONTROL SYSTEM 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111675 

fl:JP SECRET 

As a general rule, we will require that operational traffic and 

execution orders for all GIANT SCALE flights over North Korea 

be issued to the operational command in BYEMAN channels. 

Lt Colonel, USAF 

Deputy Director for 

Plans & Policy 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL S'fSHM 

CONTROL HO BYE l 3 0 4 1 - i. 

TOP SECRET EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMAHC REGRADING 

00D DIRECTIVE 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111675 

COPY_~_OF_-n--_ (.(;P., 

2 2 PAGE. ___ OF ___ PAGE:;
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-2194

NSHO JACKSON AKAI, a/k/a Nsoh Jackson Akai, Petitioner,

v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: January 14, 2009 Decided: January 28, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nsho Jackson Akai, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kristin Kay Edison, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Nsho Jackson Akai, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming an order of the immigration judge denying Akai’s second motion to reopen as numerically barred.

We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008). The Board properly rejected

Akai = s claim that his first motion to reopen was impaired by the ineffective assistance of his counsel, finding that Akai failed to comply with the requirements of Matter of Lozada , 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988). We further find this claim foreclosed in light of our recent holding in Afanwi v. Mukasey , 526 F.3d 788, 796−99 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding there is no Fifth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED