alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013215EN.01001502.xml

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/15

---

Action brought on 24 May 2013 — Golam v OHIM — meta Fackler Arzneimittel (METABIOMAX)

(Case T-281/13)

2013/C 215/21

Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, 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: meta Fackler Arzneimittel GmbH (Springe, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 March 2013 in Case R 2022/2011-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 March 2013 in Case R 2022/2011-2;

| — | reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety;

| — | order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sofia Golam

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘METABIOMAX’ for goods in Classes 5, 16 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 8885261

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: meta Fackler Arzneimittel GmbH

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘metabiarex’ which has been registered under No 857721, for goods in Class 5

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: decision of the Opposition Division annulled in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009

Pleas in law:

---
No. D-2495.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Steven M. Woghin.

562 U.S. 808, 131 S. Ct. 397,

178 L. Ed. 2d 262,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7585.

October 4, 2010.

Steven M. Woghin, of Cold Spring Harbor, New York, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7088

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GEORGE CHAMBERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District

Judge. (CR-94-89)

Submitted: October 15, 2003 Decided: November 10, 2003

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Chambers, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

George Chambers appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion to modify sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

(2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See United States v. Chambers, No. CR-94-89 (E.D. Va. June

24, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 10-79.

#### Metro Fuel LLC, Petitioner v. City of New York, New York.

562 U.S. 981, 131 S. Ct. 414,

178 L. Ed. 2d 323,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8291.

October 18, 2010.

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

Same case below, 594 F.3d 94.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44984

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

ERIC ABEL ROYBAL

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 568

Filed: September 1, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Samuel A. Hoagland , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for possession of methamphetamine, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender , Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Eric Abel Roybal entered an Alford plea 1 to the charge of possession of a controlled

substance

. Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(c)(1)

. The district court sentenced Roybal to a unified term of

seven years with two years determinate , suspended the sentence and placed Roybal on probation

for a period of seven years. Roybal appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion

by denying his request for a withheld judgment and imposing an excessive sentence

.

1 See North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970).2 The district court determined that Roybal did not satisfy the requirements to be eligible

for a withheld judgment. At sentencing, the court addressed Roybal’s substance abuse problems,

his untruthful behavior, and the struggle Roybal would hav e on probation. The district court’s

find ing is supported by the record. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to

enter a withheld judgment.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluati ng the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); S tate v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and ha ving reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Roybal ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
# C_2015221EN.01000901.xml

| 6.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Formula One Licensing BV v OHIM — Idea Marketing (F1H2O)

(Case T-55/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark F1H2O - Community, international, Benelux and national word and figurative marks with the element ‘F1’ - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier trade marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 221/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Formula One Licensing BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented initially by B. Klingberg and subsequently by K. Sandberg, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Idea Marketing SA (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by B. Brisset and O. Vanner, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2012 (Case R 1247/2011-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Formula One Licensing BV and Idea Marketing SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Formula One Licensing BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Idea Marketing SA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Formula One Licensing BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Idea Marketing SA.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0567

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

GARRETT MICHAEL O’HOWELL,

Defendant and Appellant. 

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until July 5, 2022, to prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

June 3 2022

06/03/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0567
Exhibit 10.01

                                SENTO CORPORATION

          Summary of Compensation for Service as a Nonemployee Director
         (Approved by Unanimous Written Consent Dated December 13, 2004)


Compensation for Board Meeting Attended: $4,000 (Chairman: $8,000)

Compensation for Board Committee Meeting Attended: $2,000

No compensation will be paid for teleconference meetings unless the Board of
Directors determines that their frequency or duration justifies payment as a
regular meeting of the Board of Directors.

Annual Grant of Options: 7,500 (Chairman: 11,250)
No. 10-5347.

#### Theodore Dade, Jr., Petitioner v. Department of Commerce.

562 U.S. 916, 131 S. Ct. 281,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6948.

178 L. Ed. 2d 185,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 368 Fed. Appx. 122.
J

~~ t EO sr qT ~

s
2 z UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

~ 4T qC PROI , ~~

\ 0 

### Q(',T 1 ~' 

### lv

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION William B. Mackie Acting Director, National TRU Program Carlsbad Field Office Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221 Dear Mr. Mackie: We received your letter dated September 30, 2010, requesting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) concurrence on the draft re-certification memo the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) plans to issue to the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at the Argonne National Laboratory-East (ANL-E). We concur with CBFO's draft re-certification memo allowing ANL-E CCP to add to the previously-certified AERHDM waste stream approximately 120 containers of remote-handled (RH) debris waste. In accordance with EPA regulations at 40 CFR 194.8 (69 FR 42571-42583), on January 16, 2007, EPA approved the RH TRU waste characterization program at ANt; E(See EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49, II-A4-73). The EPA limitations applicable to the characterization of RH TRU waste are appropriately included in Attachment 4 of the draft re-certification memo. The waste characterization equipment, procedures and processes included in the ANL draft re-certification memo are consistent with EPA's existing approvals at the site. Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft re-certification memo for ANL-E CCP. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 202-343-9422. Sincerely,

Edward Feltcorn Center for Waste Management and Regulations

Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable 0 Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Papercc: (Electronic Distribution)

Christine Gelles, DOE HQ Alton Harris, DOE HQ Ed Ziemianski, CBFO Ava Holland, CBFO QA J.R. Stroble, CBFO NTP Norma Castaneda, CBFO NTP Court Fesmire, CBFO NTP Martin Navarrete, CBFO QA Dennis Miehls, CBFO QA Jonathan Edwards, EPA Tom Peake, EPA Raymond Lee, EPA Steve Zappe, NMED
No. 10-6857.

#### Wendell E. S. T. El Shabazz, Petitioner v. Committee on Character and Fitness, Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department.

562 U.S. 1050, 131 S. Ct. 611,

178 L. Ed. 2d 445,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8968.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department, denied.
**EXHIBIT      31.1**

|                                                                                                         |   |   | **ECHELON                CORPORATION**                                                                                                         |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                         |   |   |                                                                                                                                           |
|                             Date: March 16, 2007 |   | By:    | /s/                M. Kenneth Oshman                                                                                                           |
|                                                                                                         |   |   |                                                                                                                                           |
|                                                                                                         |   |   | M.                Kenneth Oshman,Chairman                of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive                Officer) |
2016-0990.

#### State v. Cunningham.

Allen App. No. 1-15-61, 2016-Ohio-3106.

O’Neill, J., dissents.
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.30  ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This Addendum (the Addendum) is made effective as of the 12th day of
December, 2002 and is intended to amend a certain Employment Agreement (the
Agreement) by and between Erie Indemnity Company and John J. Brinling, Jr.
effective as of December 16, 1997.

WHEREAS, the Company has determined that it is in the best interest of the
Company and its Shareholders to secure the continued employment of the
Executive in accordance with the terms of the Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has previously considered
and agreed to extend the term of the Agreement from its original term; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company at its meeting of December
10, 2002 has again agreed to extend the term of the Agreement for a period of
one (1) additional year as contained herein; and

WHEREAS, the Executive is agreeable to the extension of the Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as
follows:

1.     Paragraph 1 of the Agreement with respect to the Term is hereby amended
by extending the Term to expire on December 15, 2004.

2.     All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force
and effect.

|         |                                                             |                        |     |     |                                                                                
|-------- | ----------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | --- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|ATTEST:  |                                                             | ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY
|/s/      | Jan R. Van Gorder
Jan R. Van Gorder
Secretary               |                        | By: | /s/ | F. William Hirt
F. William Hirt
Chairman of the Board                          
|        
|WITNESS: |                                                             |                       
|/s/      | Martina R. Gonzales
Martina R. Gonzales
Executive Secretary |                        |     | /s/ | John J. Brinling, Jr.
John J. Brinling, Jr.
5691 Culpepper Drive
Erie, PA 16505

54
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. SECTION 10A,
                   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

    I, James M. Smith, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 to the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004) of EDO Corporation
(the "Registrant");

     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect this amended report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

Date: July 29, 2005
                                       /s/James M. Smith
                              --------------------------------------------------
                                          James M. Smith
                                          Chairman, President and Chief
                                          Executive Officer
# C_2013359EN.01001602.xml

| 7.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/16

---

Action brought on 26 September 2013 — Kicks Kosmetikkedjan/OHIM — Kik Textilien und Non-Food (KICKS)

(Case T-531/13)

2013/C 359/32

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: K. Strömholm, 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: Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany)

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; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs, or alternatively, if applicable, an intervening party to do so; |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs, or alternatively, if applicable, an intervening party to do so;

| — | authorise the registration of the contested application No. 924 6166 in its entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

authorise the registration of the contested application No. 924 6166 in its entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘KICKS’ for goods and services in classes 3, 8, 14, 21 and 35 — application No 9246166

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German and international word mark ‘kik’ for services in class 35

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: upheld the opposition for the contested goods and services

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
### The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-2474

___________ Alexander B. Davis, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Missouri. * United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 27, 1996 Filed: July 5, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Alexander B. Davis appeals from the district court’s denial of his 1 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing. After carefully reviewingthe record before us and the parties’ briefs, we conclude th e district court's judgment was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
August 8, 2016 

Mr. Jeremy Salo 

Jeremy Salo 

26652 Wilton Court 

New Hudson, MI 48165 

Re: FAA–2015–8448 

Dear Mr. Salo: 

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already. 

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst