alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5929]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-268-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

March 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1997, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), tendered for filing changes in its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth 
Revised Volume No. 1.
    Northern states that the filing revises the current Stranded 
Account No. 858 and Stranded Account No. 858--Reverse Auction 
surcharges, which are designed to recover costs incurred by Northern 
related to its contracts with third-party pipelines. Therefore, 
Northern has filed Thirty-Third Revised Sheet Nos. 50, 51 and 53 to be 
effective April 1, 1997.
    Northern states that copies of this filing were served upon the 
Company's customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken in this proceeding, but will not serve 
to make protestant a party to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5929 Filed 3-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 11-10460.

#### Torres *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                           <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          39,679                  43,094
<SECURITIES>                                   740,338                 685,773
<RECEIVABLES>                                  105,674                  25,394
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,200<F1>               9,579
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                         489,941                 530,085
<DEPRECIATION>                                 145,178                 107,178
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,013                  30,987
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        (642,472)<F2>            (686,540)
<PREFERRED>                                    416,846<F3>             227,345
<COMMON>                                     3,187,210               3,297,210
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,982,597               2,869,002
<SALES>                                        183,094                 133,785
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               276,481                 165,108
<CGS>                                          101,426                  67,481
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  242,413                 215,294
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 44,068                (50,186)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    44,068                (50,186)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .008                  (.007)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .008                  (.007)
<FN>
<F1>Prepaid Expense
<F2>Accumulated Deficit
<F3>Unrealized Gain on Investment in Securities
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                                          0000818674                    
<NAME>                                         Intellicall, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                           350
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 17,168
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (5,524)
<INVENTORY>                                    4,004
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,254
<PP&E>                                         8,250
<DEPRECIATION>                                (6,788) 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                26,215 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,404
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        1
<COMMON>                                          98
<OTHER-SE>                                     9,748 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  26,215 
<SALES>                                        4,755
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              13,297 
<CGS>                                          3,728
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 11,788 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,598
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (1,089) 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (376)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,473) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,473) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,473) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.15)
        


</TABLE>
#### TONY-TUAN NGUYEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Franz MILLER, as an individual and in his official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-55480

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 23, 2018

Tony-Tuan Nguyen, Vietnamese American Justice Foundation, Fountain Valley, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Sarah Lee Overton, Attorney, Cummings, McClorey, Davis, Acho *&*Associates, P.C., Riverside, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Franz Miller, Robert Moss, Timothy Stafford, Orange County Superior Court

Andrew D. Weiss, Attorney, Law Offices of Andrew D. Weiss, Lake Forest, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Thien Kinh Tran, Thu Hien Nguyen, Andrew Weiss

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2). Nguyen's request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied,

MEMORANDUM **

Tony-Tuan Nguyen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his *65442 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). *Knievel v. ESPN,*393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

Appellees Thien Kinh Tran, Thu Hien Thi Nguyen, and Andrew Weiss’s motion for summary affirmance (Docket Entry No. 9) is granted because the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982). The briefing schedule as to these appellees is vacated as moot.

The district court properly dismissed Nguyen’s claims against the Orange County Superior Court, Miller, Moss, and Stafford on the bases of Eleventh Amendment and judicial immunity. *See Simmons v. Sacramento Cty. Superior Court,*318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (suits against California superior courts are barred by the Eleventh Amendment); *Duvall v. County of Kitsap,*260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that judges are generally immune from suit for money damages and setting forth factors relevant to whether an act is judicial in nature and subject to judicial immunity).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as meritless Nguyen’s contentions of judicial bias.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 11-10511.

#### Brunson *v.*United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2022276EN.01001301.xml

| 18.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 276/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 276/13

---

Action brought on 20 May 2022 — Flowbird v EUIPO — Apcoa Parking Holdings (FLOWBIRD)

(Case T-296/22)

(2022/C 276/19)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Flowbird (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: C. Pecnard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark FLOWBIRD — International registration designating the European Union No 1 478 123

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2022 in Case R 748/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court;

| — | order Apcoa Parking Holdings to pay the costs of the proceedings before the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Apcoa Parking Holdings to pay the costs of the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2022326EN.01002602.xml

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/26

---

Action brought on 8 July 2022 — Spreewood Distillers v EUIPO — Radgonske gorice (STORK)

(Case T-433/22)

(2022/C 326/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Spreewood Distillers GmbH (Schlepzig, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker and D. Mienert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Radgonske gorice d.o.o. (Gornja Radgona, Slovenia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark STORK — Application for registration No 18 170 885

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2022 in Case R 1782/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
No. 11-10845.

#### Gray *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 11-10962.

#### Taylor *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2023235EN.01003601.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — Consulta v EUIPO — Karlinger (ACASA)

(Case T-267/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ACASA - Absolute ground for invalidity - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 235/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Consulta GmbH (Cham, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and S. Brandstätter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and E. Nicolás Gómez, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mario Karlinger (Sölden, Austria) (represented by: M. Mungenast and K. Riedmüller, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 January 2022 (Case R 487/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Consulta GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Consulta GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.

---
* Pursua nt to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

March 8, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 03-60508

_____________________

GREY WOLF DRILLING COMPANY L. P., RIG 865,

Petitioner,

versus

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION; ELAINE CHAO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

________________________________________________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

_________________________________________________________________ Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We affirm the final order of the Occupational Sa fety and

Health Review Commission (“the Commission” ) upholding a citation

issued to Grey Wolf Drilling Company, L.P. (“Grey Wolf”), for the

following reasons:

First, although the arguments of Grey Wolf were well-presented

and vigorously argued, we nevertheless find substantial evidence to

support the Commission’s conclusion that Grey Wolf violated the

“general duty clause” of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by

failing to furnish a place of emplo yment free from recognized2

hazards likely to cause death or serious injury to employees. 29

U.S.C. § 654(a)(1). In reaching this conclusion, we have taken

into account Grey Wolf’s vigorous contention that the use of a

“swamper” in these circumstances would not have constituted a more

effective means of abatement than the preca utionary measures

already in effect at the time of the accident. That argument has

some force, especially given the peculiarities of this particular

accident. However, we find substantial evidence in the record to

support the Commission’s findings that instead of the “swamper”

riding inside the unloaded wench truck, the “swamper” walking

outside on the passenger side at the rear of the vehicle when it is

in reverse motion is a feasible means of abating the risks of a

“struck-by” hazard.

Second, we hold that the petitioner’s contention that it is

entitled to the affirmative defense of employee misconduct fails in

this case. As an element of such a defense, Grey Wolf must

demonstrate that it had a safety program in place that adequately

addressed the hazard at issue. For the reasons stated above, Grey

Wolf does not satisfy this element here.

Accordingly, we affirm the final order of the Commission in

all respects.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6159]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
[30 Day-31]


Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a 
list of information collection requests under review by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call 
the CDC Reports Clearance Office on (404) 639-7090. Send written 
comments to CDC, Desk Officer; Human Resources and Housing Branch, New 
Executive Office Building, Room 10235; Washington, DC 20503. Written 
comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

Proposed Project

    1. Emergency Epidemic Investigations (0920-0008)--Reinstatement--
During most emergency situations, CDC specialists (epidemiologist, 
biostatisticians, laboratory specialists, etc.) work under the aegis of 
a State or local health department. Usually such investigations are 
completed by the State or local government, with technical assistance 
from CDC. Occasionally, an investigation must be continued or is 
multistate or global. In these cases, the CDC collects or sponsors the 
collection of information from the public.
    This request, therefore, is for the re-instatement of OMB approval 
to collect data in such emergency situations. The total burden hours 
are 3,000.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Avg.  
                                                     Number of   burden/
             Respondents                Number of   responses/  response
                                       respondents  respondent     (in  
                                                                  hrs.) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Public.......................      12,000           1        .25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: March 5, 1997.
Wilma G. Johnson,
Acting Associate Director for Policy Planning And Evaluation, Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 97-6159 Filed 3-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
EX-4.2





 Exhibit 4.2 
  






 
 COMMON STOCK 
SHARES

CUSIP 82657M 10 5 
SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS 
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
THIS CERTIFIES THAT 
IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF 
FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $.001 PAR VALUE
PER SHARE, OF 
SIGHT SCIENCES, INC. 
transferable on the books of the
Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. Witness the facsimile signatures of
the Corporation’s duly authorized officers. 
Dated: 
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER 
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 
TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR 
(Brooklyn, NY) 
AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC 
BY 
COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED 












 



 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as 
though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
TEN COM
— as tenants in common 
TEN ENT — as tenants by the entireties 
JT
TEN — as joint tenants with right 
of survivorship and not as 
tenants in
common 
UNIF GIFT MIN ACT — Custodian 
(Cust) 
(State) 
(Minor) 
Under Uniform Gifts to Minors 
Act 
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 
For value received,
hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER

IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS,
INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE 
Shares of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute 
and appoint 
Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation
with full power of 
substitution in the premises. 
Dated 
Signature(s) Guaranteed: 
NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST 
CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF 
THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR,
WITHOUT ALTERNATION 
OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER. 
THE SIGNATURE(S)
MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE 
GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND 
LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN 
AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE
MEDALLION PROGRAM), 
PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.