alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014142EN.01003501.xml

| 12.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/35

---

Order of the General Court of 3 February 2014 — Imax v OHIM — Himax Technologies (IMAX)

(Case T-198/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 142/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Imax Corporation (Mississauga, Canada) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer, and K. Hughes, solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Himax Technologies, Inc. (Hsinhua, Taiwan)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2013 (Case R 740/2012-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Himax Technologies, Inc. and Imax Corporation.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The parties shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.13.

1

---
# C_2013325EN.01000803.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2013 — Criminal proceedings against Markus D.

(Case C-358/13)

2013/C 325/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Party/parties to the main proceedings

Party/parties to the main proceedings

Markus D.

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC of 6 November 2001, (1) as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of 31 March 2004, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that substances or combinations of substances within the meaning of that provision which merely modify — that is, do not restore or correct — human physiological functions are to be regarded as medicinal products only if they are of therapeutic benefit or at any rate bring about a modification of bodily functions along positive lines? Consequently, do substances or combinations of substances which are consumed solely for their — intoxication-inducing — psychoactive effects, and in the process also have an effect which at least poses a risk to health, fall under the definition of ‘medicinal product’ contained in the directive?

1

2

---

(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2011 L 311, p. 67).

1

(2)  Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34).

2

---
# Defense Logistics Agency announces Superior Suppliers for 2015 

/ Published July 27, 2016
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, 
Today the Defense Logistics Agency announced its top performing industry partners for fiscal year 2015 as part of the Department of Defense’s Superior Supplier Incentive Program. 

The SSIP is an extension of the Department’s Better Buying Power initiative and is designed to incentivize contractor performance by identifying suppliers with the highest rankings in areas such as performance, quality, and business relations.

"This program allows DLA to spotlight those companies that consistently perform well and deliver high quality products to our warfighters – they should be proud of this distinction,” said Matthew Beebe, head of DLA’s acquisition directorate. “We also hope it serves as a reminder to both industry and government personnel of the importance of having ongoing, open and honest dialogue about contractor performance."

DLA considered its top 150 parts and commodity suppliers with the highest spends within a particular supply chain that have done business with the agency over the past two years.  To be eligible for consideration, companies – or their subsidiary business units – had to have DLA contracts with a proven record of performance, as well as an established rating in the federal Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System.

Of those considered, 42 companies were selected as DLA’s superior suppliers based on the last three years of CPARS ratings, with the most emphasis placed on recent performance. The selected companies represent all of DLA’s major supply chains, include nine small businesses, and collectively account for nearly $16.7 billion in DLA contract expenditures annually.  Suppliers were categorized into three levels based on their performance and CPARS ratings: Gold, Silver and Bronze.  

DLA’s superior suppliers for 2015 are listed in alphabetical order by performance level:

**Gold:**

AmeriQual Group, LLC

AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation

Burlington Industries, LLC

Cardinal Health, Inc.

DMS Pharmaceutical Group, Inc.

Herndon Products, Inc.

McRae Industries, Inc.

Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation

Peckham Vocational Industries, Inc.

Science Applications International Corporation

Source One Distributors, Inc.

Sterlingwear of Boston, Inc.

Tennier Industries, Inc.

US Foods, Inc.

The Wornick Company

**Silver:**

AM General, LLC

American Apparel, Inc.

Bell Boeing Joint Project Office

Bethel Industries, Inc.

Federal Resources Supply Company

Graybar Electric Company, Inc.

Lockheed Martin Corporation

McKesson Corporation

Propper International, Inc.

Supplycore, Inc.

Theodor Wille Intertrade AG

Triumph Structures, Inc.

Veyance Technologies, Inc.

**Bronze:**

The Boeing Company

CPD Alaska, LLC

Foster Fuels, Inc.

General Electric Company

Meggitt, Inc.

Michelin North America, Inc.

National Industries for the Blind

PPG Industries, Inc.

Raytheon Company

Rockwell Collins, Inc.

Sysco Corporation

Textron, Inc.

USFI, Inc.

Y. Hata and Company, Limited
# DLA team works through weekend to ensure readiness for Navy Fleet Readiness Center Southeast 

/ Published June 23, 2023
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa. , 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Jacksonville, Florida, deployed the first full retail DLA Warehouse Management System, May 30.  DDJF supports the Navy’s Fleet Readiness Center Southeast, and with the full support of various DLA teams, FLRCSE’s readiness was maintained when the new WMS went live.

“Leveraging the lessons learned from previous WMS deployments, DDJF retail was operational and able to deliver retail material to FRCSE within two days of WMS go-live,” said James Liberko, DLA Warehouse Utilization Program lead.

DLA teammates from DLA Distribution Expeditionary, Human Resources, Operations and Information Operations worked diligently through the weekend to fill, stage and deliver over 800 pending orders to FLRCSE without delay.  The accomplishment represents a significant team effort, sending a clear message to the customer that DLA supports their mission.

Christina Meighan and Jacob West, DLA retail teammates, manually picked hundreds of items from paper pick tickets to ensure parts needed for airplanes, engines and components repaired at FLRCSE were delivered on time.

Paper pick tickets were printed for each individual pick.

“It was an ‘all hands on deck’ effort. We picked the material and then set up a centralized systemic pick location where one person focused on logging the material into the system,” Jacob West said.
No. 10-145.

#### David Keating, et al., Petitioners v. Federal Election Commission.

562 U.S. 1003, 131 S. Ct. 553,

178 L. Ed. 2d 371,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8531.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

Same case below, 389 U.S. App. D.C. 424, 599 F.3d 686.
# C_2013352EN.01001902.xml

| 30.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/19

---

Action brought on 23 September 2013 — Future Enterprises v OHIM — McDonald's International Property (MACCOFFEE)

(Case T-518/13)

2013/C 352/36

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Future Enterprises Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: J. Olsen, B. Hitchens, R. Sharma and M. Henshall, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd (Wilmington, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 June 2013 given in Case R 1178/2012-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 June 2013 given in Case R 1178/2012-1; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘MACCOFFEE’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark registration No 7 307 382

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Articles 8(1)(a) and (b), 8(2)(c) and 8(5) CTMR

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Upheld the request for invalidity in its entirety

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
EXHIBIT
32.1










CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002














I, Albert
E. Sisto, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
hi/fn, inc. on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of hi/fn, inc.








May
      8, 2008
            /s/
      ALBERT E. SISTOAlbert
      E. SistoChairman
      and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17236]



[[Page 34888]]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Committee on Employee Benefits of the 
Federal Reserve System.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Committee on Employee Benefits considers matters 
relating to the Retirement, Thrift, Long-Term Disability Income, and 
Insurance Plans for employees of the Federal Reserve System.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time and Date: 2:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 1, 1998.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, NW., Washington, D.C. 20551.

Status: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Proposals relating to Federal Reserve System benefits.
    2. Issues relating to potential litigation.
    3. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the 
Board; 202-452-3204.

Supplementary Information: You may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.bog.frb.fed.us for an electronic announcement of this 
meeting. (The Web site also includes procedural and other information 
about the meeting.)

    Dated: June 24, 1998.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-17236 Filed 6-24-98; 12:40 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Served: April 8, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joint Application of

DELTA AIR LINES, INC

. AEROVIAS DE MEXICO , S.A. DE C.V.

under 49 U.S.C. §§ 41308 and 41309 for approval of and antitrust immunity for alliance agreements

Docket DOT

- OST

- 2015

- 0070

NOTICE SUSPENDING THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE

On March 3 1 , 20 1 5

, Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) and Aerovias de Mexico , S.A. de C.V. (“Aerom exico ” ), collectively the “Joint Applicants,” filed a joint applicati on requesting approval of and antitrust immunity for alliance agreements covering routes between the United States and

Mexico

.

When an application for antitrust immunity is submitted, the Department’s procedural rules require us to promptly determine wh ether the application is complete ( see 14 CFR § 303.40). We have determined that the applicat ion submitted by Delta and Aerom exico is not yet substantially complete. The Joint Applicants have not submitted supporting documents and the Department does not have sufficient information on the record to evaluate whether the application meets established standards and policies.

There is an additional, threshold matter in this case. The Department’s policy has been to consider requests for antitrust immunity only when all of the elements of an open

- skies agreement are avail able to carriers (see Order 92

- 8

- 13; Order 2008

- 4

- 17 at 2). The liberalized air
transport agreement between the United States and Mexico, initialed in Washington, D.C., on

November 21, 2014, does not contain all of the elements of an open

- skies agreement . H owever, the initialed agreement provides a framework to introduce those elements in the future.

For both of these reasons, we are here suspending the procedural schedule. We wi ll announce a procedural schedule, including an opportunity for public comment, at a later date.

We will serve this notice on all persons on the service list for this docket.2

By:

SUSAN L. KURLAND Assistant Secretary

for Aviation and Internatio nal Affairs

Date: April 8, 2015

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available at http://www.regulations.gov
No. 10-326.

#### Franklin C. Brown, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1135, 131 S. Ct. 903,

178 L. Ed. 2d 748,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 79.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 595 F.3d 498.
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350 Certification,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Magma Design Automation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended January 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rajeev Madhavan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
for the periods presented therein.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    Rajeev
Madhavan 
|Rajeev Madhavan        
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 10, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17304]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    The National Credit Union Administration Board determined that its 
business required the deletion of the following item from the 
previously announced closed meeting (Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 
118, page 33735, Friday, June 19, 1998) scheduled for Tuesday, June 23, 
1998.
    3. Administrative Action under Part 704 of NCUA's Rules and 
Regulations. Closed pursuant to exemption (8).
    The Board voted unanimously that agency business required that this 
item be deleted from the closed agenda and that no earlier announcement 
of this change was possible.
    The National Credit Union Administration Board also determined that 
its business required the addition of the following two items to the 
closed agenda.
    6. Administrative Action under Part 704 of NCUA's Rules and 
Regulations. Closed pursuant to exemption (8).
    7. Administrative Action under Sections 120 and 209 of the Federal 
Credit Union Act. Closed pursuant to exemptions (6), (9)(B) and (10).
    The Board voted unanimously that agency business required that 
these items be considered with less than the usual seven days notice, 
that they be closed to the public, and that no earlier announcement of 
these changes were possible.
    The previously announced items were:
    1. Administrative Action under Section 205 of the Federal Credit 
Union Act. Closed pursuant to exemption (8).
    2. Administrative Actions under Section 206 of the Federal Credit 
Union Act. Closed pursuant to exemptions (4), (7) and (8).
    3. Administrative Action under Part 704 of NCUA's Rules and 
Regulations. Closed pursuant to exemption (8).
    4. Administrative Action under Part 745 of NCUA's Rules and 
Regulations. Closed pursuant to exemption (6).
    5. Four (4) Personnel Actions. Closed pursuant to exemptions (2), 
(5), (6), (9)(B).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone (703) 518-6304.
Becky Baker,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-17304 Filed 6-24-98; 5:08 pm]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
No. 10-6492.

#### Huey Gene Granger, Petitioner v. William Bill Slade, et al.

562 U.S. 1048, 131 S. Ct. 608,

178 L. Ed. 2d 443,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8975.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 371 Fed. Appx. 466.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SS. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350),
the undersigned, David C. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of Network-1 Security
Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify to
his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 of
the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



/S/ DAVID C. KAHN
-----------------------
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
NOVEMBER 14, 2007
No. 10-7251.

#### Joseph Aruanno, Petitioner v. George Hayman, et al.

562 U.S. 1115, 131 S. Ct. 835,

178 L. Ed. 2d 567,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9695.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

*568Same case below, 384 Fed. Appx. 144.
2016-1687.

#### Bryan v. Valley Care Health Sys. of Ohio.

Mahoning App. No. 2015-T-0130, 2016-Ohio-7156.

O’Neill, J., dissents.
No. 09-10786.

#### Randall Graham, Petitioner v. Burl Cain, Warden.

562 U.S. 852, 131 S. Ct. 109,

178 L. Ed. 2d 67,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6047.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
#### Com. v. Garza

05/17/2016

131 MAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 136 A.3d 1033
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00221

- CR

Kelly McKinley Shelton

v. The State of Texas

On a ppeal from the 207th District Court of Comal County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR2013

- 534

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
August 29 , 2018
BEFORETHE COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OFTHE PROPOSED REVISIONSTOCOMMON· PROVISIONS REGULATIONS REGARDING "UPSETPROVISIONS"
PREHEARING ORDERFOR DECEMBER 14-15,2006, RULEMAKING HEARING

A prehearing conference for this rulemaking was held on November 15,2006, before CommissionerPeterson as the Prehearing Officer. This prehearing order identifies and summarizesthe issues raised and allocates time allowed for presentations by each ofthe 

### parties.
Parties to the Rulemaking Hearing The partiesto the rulemaking hearing are: • Colorado Association ofCommerce & Industry, represented by Dennis L. Arfmann & Jennifer L. Morris, Hogan & Hartson; and Donald Shandy, Ryan, Whaley & Coldiron, P.c. • Colorado Utilities Coalition for Clean Air, Platte River Power Authority, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., and Public Service Companyof Colorado; represented by Jim Sanderson, Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite • Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action, Environmental Integrity Project, St. Vrain Valley Community Watchdogs, Mothers Against Burning Tires, and Friends of the St. Vrain River Valley, represented by Jeremy Nichols, Rocky Mountain CleanAir Action • Colorado Petroleum Association, represented by Dennis L. Arfmann & Jennifer L. Morris, Hogan & Hartson and StanDempsey, Colorado Petroleum Association • Rocky Mountain Steel Mills, represented by Eugene Megyesy, Jr., Dufford & BrownP.C. • Colorado Ready Mix Concrete Association and The Colorado Rock Products Association, represented byJeffSchwarz, Carver KirchhoffSchwarz The AirPollution Control Division functions as staffto the Commissioninthe rulemaking process. Kirsten King ofthe Division and Tom Roan ofthe Attorney General's Office represent the Division in this proceeding.