alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017144EN.01004202.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/42

---

Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Pure Fishing v EUIPO — Łabowicz (NANOFIL)

(Case T-323/13) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark NANOFIL - Invalidity of the earlier EU figurative mark NANO - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 144/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pure Fishing (Spirit Lake, Iowa, United States) (represented by: J. Dickerson, solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Edward Łabowicz (Kłodzko, Poland) (represented by: M. Żygadło, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2013 (Case R 1241/2012-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Łabowicz and Pure Fishing.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no longer any 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 252, 31.8.2013.

1

---
#### Nella Manko, Appellant, v Lenox Hill Hospital, Respondent.

Submitted November 28, 2016;

decided March 28, 2017

Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 30, 2011, November 21, 2011, and March 29, 2012 dismissal orders, and for reargument of motion for leave to appeal, dismissed as untimely *(see*22 NYCRR 500.24 [b]) *[see*18 NY3d 952 (2012); 17 NY3d 933 (2011); 17 NY3d 788 (2011)].

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
Exhibit 10.1.4  


Exhibit A  


 SCHEDULE OF PARTNERS,

ALLOCATION OF PARTNERSHIP UNITS, PERCENTAGE INTERESTS

AND THE AGREED UPON VALUE OF NON-CASH CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS  



	Date Admitted
 
	 	Name and address of partners
	 	Value of non-

cash capital

contribution
	 	Partnership

units issued
	 	Approx.

Percentage

Interests
	 	Federal ID #

	05/22/1998	 	Eagle Ridge Resort LLC

37 West 57th Street, 12th Floor

New York, NY 10019	 	$	1,198,750	 	35,794	 	0.48	%	52-2099405
	

02/04/1997	
 	

GTA LP, Inc. 14 North Adger's

Wharf Charleston, SC 29401	
 	
$	

—	
 	

7,357,604	
 	

99.32	
%	

58-2290326
	

02/04/1997	
 	

GTA GP, Inc. 14 North Adger's

Wharf Charleston, SC 29401	
 	
$	

—	
 	

15,184	
 	

0.20	
%	

58-2290217
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	 	
	 	 
	

Total Common OP Units	
 	
 	

 	
 	

7,408,582	
 	

100.00	
%	

 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	 	
	 	 
	

 	
 	

GTA LP, Inc.

14 North Adger's Wharf

Charleston, SC 29401	
 	
$	

20,000,000	
 	

800,000	
 	

100	
%
No. 09-1273.

#### Astra USA, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Santa Clara County, California.

562 U.S. 1126, 131 S. Ct. 857,

178 L. Ed. 2d 621,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5.

January 7, 2011.

Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted. Motion of Kansas, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.
No. 10-7236.

#### Gary Steven Calhoun, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 1107, 131 S. Ct. 850,

178 L. Ed. 2d 554,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9658.

December 13, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma paup-*555eris denied. Petitioner is allowed until January 3, 2011, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


                  We have issued our report dated July 27, 2001 (except for Note
K, as to which the date is September 6, 2001), accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Lifecore
Biomedical, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2001.
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the
Registration Statements of Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. and subsidiaries on Forms
S-8 (File No. 33-19288, effective December 23, 1987; File No. 33-26065,
effective February 18, 1988; File No. 33-32984, effective January 12, 1990; File
No. 33-38914, effective February 8, 1991; File No. 33-38914, effective September
26, 1994 and File No. 333-18515, effective December 20, 1996) and Forms S-3
(File No. 333-60987, effective August 21, 1998, File No. 333-32144, effective
March 10, 2000, File No. 333-58506, effective April 23, 2001 and File No.
333-65580, effective August 3, 2001).



                                        /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
September 19, 2001
No. 10-568.

#### Nevada Commission on Ethics, Petitioner v. Michael A. Carrigan.

562 U.S. 1127, 131 S. Ct. 857,

178 L. Ed. 2d 622,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 13.

January 7, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada granted.

Same case below, 126 Nev. 277, 236 P.3d 616.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,484
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,616
<ALLOWANCES>                                       218
<INVENTORY>                                        409
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,762
<PP&E>                                           2,689
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,264
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,773
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,263
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,503
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,773
<SALES>                                          6,139
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,139
<CGS>                                            1,818
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,538
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    19
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    806
<INCOME-TAX>                                       323
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                483
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       483
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
        

</TABLE>
#### Alessandro Cuozzo, Respondent, v Gerarda Cuozzo, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 636]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gartenstein, J.H.O.), dated May 9, 2002, which, inter alia, credited the plaintiff’s testimony as to the value of certain jewelry and tools, and declined to award maintenance to her.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly credited the plaintiffs testimony as to the value of certain jewelry and tools, since he was familiar with the items, and the defendant did not challenge that testimony at the trial *(see Maher v Maher,*196 AD2d 530 [1993]; *Griffin v Griffin,*115 AD2d 587 [1985]; *Fassett v Fassett,*101 AD2d 604 [1984]).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to award maintenance to the defendant *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; *Majauskas v Majauskas,*61 NY2d 481, 494 [1984]; *Walker v Walker,*255 AD2d 375 [1998]). Testimony at the trial indicated that the defendant was capable of working, despite her claim of disability *(see Ortiz v Ortiz,*267 AD2d 991 [1999]), and that she misappropriated substantial assets of the marriage *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a] [9]). Furthermore, the defendant received a substantial distributive award pursuant to the judgment, which also supports the denial of an award of maintenance *(see Militana v Militana,*280 AD2d 529 [2001]).

*666The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.
# DLA Energy Middle East participates in Navy Birthday Cardboard Regatta

/ Published Oct. 15, 2015
BAHRAIN, DLA Energy Middle East
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Christopher W. Hoyt, on Behalf of Igor Shamayev, Petitioner, v Commissioner of Corrections, Respondent.

[66 NYS3d 623]

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application for bail reduction upon Kings County indictment No. 9476/17 to release Igor Shamayev on his own recognizance or to set reasonable bail.

Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Supreme Court, Kings County, did not violate “constitutional or statutory standards” *(People ex rel. Klein v Krueger,*25 NY2d 497, 499 [1969]; *see People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson,*48 NY2d 230 [1979]).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Brathwaite Nelson and Christopher, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart
Grayston, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/S/ STUART GRAYSTON                    
|Stuart Grayston                        
|President (Principal Executive Officer)
|November 13, 2009
No. 10-6597.

No. 10-6750.

No. 10-6808.

#### Kenneth Deandre Rodgers, Petitioner v. United States. Shondor Arceneaux, Petitioner v. United States. Michael Dennis Williams, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1016, 131 S. Ct. 535,

178 L. Ed. 2d 393,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8432.

November 1, 2010.

Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same cases below, 375 Fed. Appx. 682.
# DLA Rapid Deployment Team leads agency in support for Haiti relief

/ Published Oct. 14, 2016
Read more about the work of DLA Troop Support in Hurricane Matthew relief here
“The new helo pads improved relief operations’ safety and efficiency,” said Navy Capt. Paul Haslam, commander of the RDT for JTF Matthew. Earlier in the operation, congestion at the airport caused the rotor of one helicopter to strike a light pole, grounding the aircraft.

Building the new pad alleviated the congestion on the airport's west tarmac, said Army Chief Warrant Officer 3 Emilio Natalio with the 1st Battalion, 228th Regiment. “We had CH-47s, C-130s and commercial aircraft taxiing and being loaded in close proximity. It’s much safer now.”

The new location, being closer to the fuel-storage tanks, has also helped speed the loading and delivery of aircraft fuel, he noted — as have the RDT’s efforts to enhance communication with the fuel vendor and commercial flight traffic in the area.

In addition to aviation fuel, the team is coordinating the delivery of diesel fuel for generators and construction equipment. More on DLA Energy’s support for Hurricane Matthew relief can be found in this recent article.
this recent article
# DLA to hold Restoration Advisory Board meeting July 11 in Chesterfield

/ Published July 6, 2016
RICHMOND, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency officials from Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia will host a Restoration Advisory Board meeting at 7:30 p.m., July 11, 2016 at the Bensley Community Center located at 2900 Drewry's Bluff Rd., North Chesterfield, Virginia 23237. The meeting is open to the public.   

As part of ongoing evaluation and cleanup, DLA has established a citizen advisory committee called a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB).  The RAB comprises members from the community, DLA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 

The meeting will cover the DLA Installation Support at Richmond, Environmental Office's ongoing groundwater testing results and remediation activities for operable units on center.
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 ending July 2, 2006, 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 the
best of 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 result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.



/S/    RAJEEV
MADHAVANRajeev Madhavan Chief Executive OfficerAugust 10, 2006




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1689]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-1171-000]


Union Electric Company; Notice of Filing

January 20, 1998.
    Take notice that on December 22, 1997, Union Electric Company (UE), 
tendered for filing Service Agreements for Market Based Rate Power 
Sales between UE and the City of Columbia, Missouri and Tennessee 
Valley Authority. UE asserts that the purpose of the Agreements is to 
permit UE to make sales of capacity and energy at market based rates to 
the parties pursuant to UE's Market Based Rate Power Sales Tariff filed 
in Docket No. ER97-3664-000.
    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 Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before February 2, 1998. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. 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 public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1689 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1



Statement Pursuant to Section 1350(a) of title 18, United States Code



The undersigned, Peter R. Kann and Christopher W. Vieth, certify that:



|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dow Jones & Company, Inc. (the Company) for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2004 (the Form 10-K), which is being
filed today with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Peter R. KannPeter R. KannChief Executive Officer,Dow Jones & Company, Inc.Dated: March 10, 2005/s/ Christopher W. ViethChristopher W. ViethChief Financial Officer,Dow Jones & Company, Inc.Dated: March 10, 2005
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 19, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20325

Conference Calendar

 

THOMAS LOVE PAIGE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLES BACARISSE; GEORGE H. GODWIN, Judge;

TROY C. BENNETT, JR.; SHARON KELLER, Presiding Judge,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-03-CV-316

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas Love Paige, Texas prisoner # 788890, appeals from the

dismissal of his civil action as frivolous and for failure to

state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The district

court also dismissed any habeas corpus claim, to the extent that

Paige raised such a claim.

Paige’s district-court action arose from his state habeas

corpus proceedings. Paige failed to sign his first state habeas
No. 03-20325

-2-

corpus application, which led to the dismissal of that

application for lack of jurisdiction. He requested an injunction

directing the defendants to set aside the denial of his second

state habeas application, hold a hearing on the merits of his

first application, and grant him an out-of-time appeal. 

Paige contends that the district court erred by dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim as frivolous. He argues that the

defendants violated his federal constitutional rights by failing

to notify him of the defects in his state-court habeas pleadings,

thus creating a jurisdictional defect. He argues that the

district court erred by converting his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

into a habeas action because his claims were not cognizable in

habeas. 

We do not construe Paige’s complaint as raising any habeas

corpus claims. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500

(1973). Rather, we construe the action as one seeking mandamus

relief, relief the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant. 

See Santee v. Quinlan, 115 F.3d 355, 356 (5th Cir. 1997); Moye v.

Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1275-76 (5th

Cir. 1973). Because the action underlying Paige’s district-court

action was a state habeas proceeding, the dismissal of the

complaint and the affirmance on appeal do not count as strikes

for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Cf. In re Jacobs, 213 F.3d

289, 290-91 (5th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2015205EN.01003001.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2015 — Cosmowell v OHIM — Haw Par (GELENKGOLD)

(Case T-599/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark GELENKGOLD - Earlier Community figurative mark representing a tiger - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Alteration of the distinctive character of the earlier mark - Phonetic similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 205/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cosmowell GmbH (Sankt Johann in Tirol, Austria) (represented by: J. Sachs, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Haw Par Corp. Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: C. Schultze, J. Ossing, R.-D. Härer, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger, C. Brockmann and C. Gehweiler, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 2013/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Haw Par Corp. Ltd and Cosmowell GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2013 (Case R 2013/2012-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2013 (Case R 2013/2012-4);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Cosmowell GmbH during both the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Cosmowell GmbH during both the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal;

| 4. | Orders Haw Par Corp. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Cosmowell during both the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Haw Par Corp. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Cosmowell during both the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

1

---