alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013304EN.01002001.xml

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/20

---

Action brought on 8 August 2013 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO ESTATE)

(Case T-414/13)

2013/C 304/34

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kenzo (Paris, France)

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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) of 22 May 2013 given in Case R 333/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) of 22 May 2013 given in Case R 333/2012-2;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark KENZO ESTATE for goods in Class 33 — International Registration No 953373

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 720 706 of the word trade mark KENZO for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and annulled the contested decision

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (1).

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  OJ L 78, p. 1

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of Escalade,
Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 29,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Terry D. Frandsen, Chief Financial 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:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

|                        | 
|----------------------- | 
|/s/ Terry Frandsen      | 
|                        | 
|Terry D. Frandsen       | 
|Chief Financial Officer | 
|March 11, 2008          | 

---
# Contracting officer ensures requirements for missile defense camp are right 

/ Published Oct. 2, 2014

The initial customer requirements for materials to build a camp in Romania were vague and incomplete, said a contracting officer with Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Europe and Africa.

Sara Fetterolf worked with the Navy construction builders, or Seabees, to better define the requirements for lumber, plywood, plumbing and more, to build a security forces camp supporting the Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense site.

“Getting the requirement right at the beginning of the process makes it less painful at the end,” Fetterolf said.

The Aegis ballistic missile defense has historically been a ship-based system, using radar to identify approaching targets and knocking them out of the sky with interceptor missiles, according to a Department of Defense news release.

The new, land-based Aegis Ashore is being deployed to Romania to deter ballistic missile threats to allies and partner nations in southern Europe.

The Seabees were to construct the temporary living facilities using materials provided through the Construction and Equipment supply chain’s Maintenance, Repair and Operations program.

But before the materials could be delivered, Fetterfolf and the Seabees went through each requirement with a fine-tooth comb.

“We went line item by line item ... to exactly describe the material we needed,” said one of the project planners, Navy Lt. Nigel Morrissey, 22nd Naval Construction Regiment Detachment Europe.

It’s important to ensure any vendor, in any location, could understand exactly what materials were needed, he said. 

It was especially important since U.S. standard specification terms for construction materials are not universal. And all the materials except the plywood and lumber were procured locally, including: insulation, electrical, plumbing, septic tank, supply lines, water storage tank and a pump skid, Fetterolf said.

The final requirements included detailed, universal descriptions and photos of the more complex items, so that any vendor looking at the solicitation could understand them, Morrissey said.

As a result of their efforts to get the initial requirements right, a construction handbook was developed for all material solicitations for projects in Europe and Africa, which included templates Fetterolf created.

“Material procurements have been drastically improved with far less material rejection upon delivery,” Morrissey said.

The camp was completed on time Sept. 15. The Aegis Ashore is expected to be operational by late 2015, according to a Missile Defense Agency official.
EXHIBIT 23

 

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-21349, 333-21351, 333-45315, 333-62196, and 333-115109) on Form S-8 of The Eastern Company of our reports dated March 11, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of The Eastern Company and the effectiveness of internal control over reporting of The Eastern Company, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 3, 2009. 

 

 

/s/ UHY LLP

 

Hartford, Connecticut

March 11, 2009

 

68
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 17

- 00128

- CR

ROY WAYNE GLENN , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016

- 1796

- C1

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due on or before June 30, 2017. Through a series
of extensions and abatement/reinstatement orders, appellant’s brief was most recently
due on January 26, 2018.
“Newly

- Appointed Counsel’s First Motion for Extension of time to File
Appellant’ s Brief” was filed on January 29, 2018. In the motion, it is asserted that this is
the first motion for extension of time sought by this particular counsel, and “another”
thirty days to file appellant’s brief is requested.Glenn v. State Page 2

Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

All motions to extend time except a motion to extend time for filing a notice of appeal must state:
(A) the deadline for filing the item in question;
(B) the length of the extension sought;
(C) the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an extension; an d
(D) the number of previous extensions granted regarding the item in question.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.5(b)(1) (emphasis added). Appellant’s motion does not comply with

this rule.

First, the motion does not state the deadline for filing the “item in question.” Id

. (b)(1)(A). Second, even though appellant’s counsel is successor counsel, essentially new,

the motion should note the appellant’s full history/time on appeal and why the current
motion requesting more time should be granted, which would include the fact that first

counsel was removed and current counsel was appointed after so many days. Id

. (b)(1) (C). Third, and most importantly, while counsel asserts this is his first request for
an extension of time to file a brief, this is not the first extension requested. The motion
must state the number of extensions granted regarding the “ item in question. ” Id

. (b)(1)(D). The item in question is appellant’s brief.
This brief was to be filed seven months ago. With this extension, appellant w ould
be given almost nine months to file what should have been filed in 30 days. Nevertheless,

we are not unsympa thetic to new counsel’s situation.Glenn v. State Page 3

Accordingly, appellant’s motion is granted. Appellant’s brief is due February 25,
2018. However, should another motion not in compliance with Rule 10.5(b)(1) and this

order be filed, it will not be ruled on, and the C ourt may abate this appeal to the trial
court for further proceedings.

PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion granted Order issued and filed February 7 , 2018
**EXHIBIT 23(a)**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-103515, 333-81573, 333-52204, 333-81940,333-58820, 333-85486 and 333-115216 of Duke Energy Corporation on Form S-3, and Registration Statement Nos. 333-29563, 333-29585, 333-12093, 333-50317, 333-59279, and 333-84222 of Duke Energy Corporation on Form S-8, of our report dated March 15,2004 (August 9, 2004 as to Footnotes 3, 12, 24, and the “Litigation” section of Footnote 17) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the adoption of Statement of financial AccountingStandards No. 133, “*Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,”*as of January 1, 2001, the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, *“Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,”*as of January 1, 2002, the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 143, *“Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations,”*as of January 1, 2003, the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 149,*“Amendment of Statement 133 on Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,”*as of July 1, 2003, the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 150, *“Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments withCharacteristics of both Liabilities and Equity,”*as of July 1, 2003, and the adoption of Emerging Issues Task Force No. 02-03, *“Accounting for Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities,”* as ofJanuary 1, 2003, and explanatory paragraphs regarding the realignment of segments for financial reporting purposes as of January 1, 2004 and the revision of Duke Energy Corporation’s consolidated financial statements), appearing in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1, of Duke Energy Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

August 9, 2004 

 

1
# C_2015398EN.01003801.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a smiley with heart-shaped eyes)

(Case T-656/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a smiley with heart-shaped eyes - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 398/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Freitag and C. Albrecht, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Case R 997/2013-4) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a smiley with heart-shaped eyes.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders The Smiley Company SPRL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The Smiley Company SPRL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

1

---
# C_2015311EN.01000701.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v Rusal Armenal ZAO, Council of the European Union

(Case C-21/14 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Dumping - Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and China - Accession of the Republic of Armenia to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) - Article 2(7) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Whether compatible with the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT)))

(2015/C 311/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Rusal Armenal ZAO (represented by B. Evtimov, lawyer), Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and J. P. Hix, Agents, and by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Intervener in support of the appellant: European Parliament (represented by D. Warin and A. Auersperger Matić, Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Rusal Armenal v Council (T-512/09, EU:T:2013:571); |
| --- | --- |

1)

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Rusal Armenal v Council (T-512/09, EU:T:2013:571);

| 2) | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on the pleas in law on which it did not adjudicate; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on the pleas in law on which it did not adjudicate;

| 3) | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

1

---
# C_2015138EN.01001902.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — ŠKO-ENERGO s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-43/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the ozone layer - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Method of allocating allowances - Allocation of allowances free of charge - Application of gift tax to such an allocation))

(2015/C 138/25)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ŠKO-ENERGO s.r.o.

Applicant:

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of a gift tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings if it does not respect the 10 % ceiling on the allocation of emission allowances for consideration laid down in that article, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

1

---
No. 10-6329.

#### Steven Meszaros, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 978, 131 S. Ct. 491,

178 L. Ed. 2d 316,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7896.

October 12, 2010.

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

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 381 Fed. Appx. 55.
# Recognition Week spotlights work of public servants

/ Published May 4, 2016

Defense Logistics Agency employees make a difference, the agency’s senior enlisted leader said in a May 2 blog post in honor of Public Service Recognition Week. 

“Sometimes it’s hard to see the big picture as we go about our business each day, but the important work you do positively impacts many people around the world.," said Army Command Sgt. Maj. Charles Tobin, in a post to the DLA employee intranet. "Whether you work at an office in headquarters or a warehouse overseas, your combined efforts help protect our nation’s interests.”Celebrated the first full week in May since 1985, PSRW is a time set aside to honor the men and women who serve America as federal, state, county and local government employees.The Public Service Recognition Week website notes that government employees lead efforts to cure diseases and prevent epidemics; support small businesses and struggling communities to strengthen the economy; promote student achievement and ensure equal access to quality education; provide public safety and national defense; protect the environment; and explore distant planets.“They do all these things and much more with a sense of patriotism, ingenuity, persistence and a strong commitment to help others,” states a letter of support from the 2016 PRSW co-chairs.Tobin described DLA employees’ dedication to warfighters as inspiring.“America needs more people like you, those willing to face challenges in support of a greater cause. Government service – public service – in support of our communities is largely selfless. One of the things that makes it worthwhile at DLA is that we are a family, working together and caring for each other,” he added.A presidential proclamation for this year’s observance is available on the White House website.
No. 10-7467.

#### Emilio Jose Saenz, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1117, 131 S. Ct. 842,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9687.

178 L. Ed. 2d 572,

December 13, 2010.

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

Calendar No. 671

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2414

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue temporary certificates

of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the

coastwise trade for the vessels IDUN VIKING, LIV VIKING, and

FREJA VIKING.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 23 (legislative day, AUGUST 18), 1994

Mr. LOTT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

SEPTEMBER 28 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Reported by Mr. HOLLINGS, without amendment

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue temporary certificates of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for

the vessels IDUN VIKING, LIV VIKING, and FREJA

VIKING.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 2414 RS

1 SECTION 1. COASTWISE TRADE AUTHORIZATION.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 27 of the

3 Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883) or any

4 other provision of law restricting the operation of foreign5 flag vessels in the coastwise trade of the United States,

6 as applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, the

7 foreign-flag vessels IDUN VIKING, LIV VIKING, and

8 FREJA VIKING may, during the period described in sub9 section (b), engage in the transportation by water of pas10 sengers in the coastwise trade of the United States, if—

11 (1) a binding contract for the construction or

12 rebuilding, in the United States, of coastwise-quali13 fied replacement vessels is executed within 9 months

14 after the date of enactment of this Act;

15 (2) all ship repair work on the vessels necessary

16 to their operation under this section is performed in

17 the United States; and

18 (3) all officers and crew members employed on

19 board the vessels during their operation under this

20 section are United States citizens.

21 (b) PERIOD OF AUTHORIZATION.—The period of

22 transportation authorized under subsection (a) for each

23 vessel begins on the date of enactment of this Act and

24 ends on the earlier of—

25 (1) the date that is 4 years after such date of

26 enactment; or
3

S 2414 RS

1 (2) the date of delivery of a coastwise-qualified

2 replacement vessel constructed in or rebuilt in the

3 United States.
Calendar No. 671

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2414

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

KING, LIV VIKING, and FREJA VIKING.the coastwise trade for the vessels IDUN VIwith appropriate endorsement for employment inissue temporary certificates of documentation

SEPTEMBER 28 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Reported without amendment
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03533

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
# RSO, Propulsion partnership yields results

/ Published Nov. 12, 2021
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, Ohio, 
A partnership between AFLCMC’s Propulsion Directorate and the Rapid Sustainment Office is realizing the promise of additive manufacturing by producing real engine parts for real jets. One of the charges for the RSO is to increase mission readiness by finding new technologies and scaling them across the Air Force enterprise.  As the organization responsible for the life cycle support of jet engines, the Propulsion Directorate is in the perfect position to effect wide-scale change.    “Advanced manufacturing identifies new and emerging technologies to improve readiness and drive down sustainment costs, especially for those parts that have obsolescence issues and are really hard to identify sources,” said Zack Miller, Advanced Manufacturing Program Office Chief.  “Advanced manufacturing includes 3D printing, directed energy deposition and laser clad welding for repair services.”

Within the RSO, the Advanced Manufacturing Program Office was established in November of 2020 to counteract obsolescence issues, improve mission readiness and also drive down sustainment costs“Many of our parts take 18 to 24 months to deliver and that's obviously not good enough,” said Beth Dittmer, Propulsion Integration Division Chief.  “Advanced Manufacturing allows us to either manufacture the parts a lot quicker or repair them a lot quicker.  It also allows us to save parts that we were traditionally throwing away because they were beyond their life.” In addition to jets spending less time on the tarmac waiting for parts, the cost savings allows the Air Force to spend that money on other programs or efforts.The first manifestation of this effort is the Pacer Edge program which includes collaboration with General Electric, maker of the F110 engine used on F-16 fighters.  The program objective was to stand up the capability for Air Force React Lab at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma to print hardware that can go on propulsion systems.  While work on the three-phase program is far from done, Dittmer said it led to production of the first part. “We got our first part, which was the F110 sump pump cover approved through airworthiness earlier this year,” she said.  “It is now flying on F-16 aircraft.” *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center website.*