alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the United States Court of Appeals

For the Fifth Circuit

_______________

m 01-21256

_______________

RICHARD M. COAN,

AS TRUSTEE FOR AROCHEM INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND AROCHEM CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A., ET AL.,

Defendants,

ERNST & YOUNG,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

m H-94-CV-3930

_________________________

December 10, 2002
2

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and 

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The plaintiff sued Ernst & Young for

breach of contract, the statute of limitations

having expired on an action for professional

malpractice. The district court granted

summary judgment, finding no issues of

material fact.

We have read the briefs and have heard the

arguments of counsel, and have consulted pertinent portions of the record. The summary

judgment record does not reflect actual knowledge on the part of Ernst & Young. On the

basis of applicable caselaw and the summary

judgment record, we affirm, essentially for the

reasons given by the district court.

*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is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.
**Subject:** Meeting with Holcim Inc. – Reconsideration Issues

**Location:** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Research Triangle Park, NC **Date:** November 13, 2012 **Participants:** Holcim (US), Inc. Hector Ybanez RTII nternational Mike Laney U.S. E nvironmen tal Protection Agency (EPA) Keith Barnett Sharon Nizich Hector Ybanez of Holcim requested the meeting with EPA to describe their stance on specific areas being addressed under the portland cement reconsideration. Mr. Ybanez covered the following areas:  Correlation between THC emissions and organic HAP emissions.  Correlation between PM emissions and parameter levels from CPMS.  Clinker pile work practices.  HCl performance specifications.  In clusion of startup and shutdown in calculating 30 - day rolling averages.  Use of PM CEMS for combined sources.  NSPS modifications.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17997]


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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


National Endowment for the Arts; Combined Arts Panel

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting 
of the Combined Arts Panel, Media Arts (B) Section (Creation & 
Presentation category) to the National Council on the Arts will be held 
on July 20-22, 1998. The panel will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on 
July 20 and 21 and from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on July 22, in Room 716 
at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, 
D.C., 20506. A portion of this meeting, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 
on July 22, will be open to the public for a policy discussion on field 
issues and needs, Leadership Initiatives, Millennium projects, and 
guidelines.
    The remaining portions of this meeting, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. 
on July 20 and July 21, and from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. 
to 4:00 p.m. on July 22, are for the purpose of Panel review, 
discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on applications for 
financial assistance under the National Endowment on the Arts and the 
Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in 
confidence to the agency by grant applicants. In accordance with the 
determination of the Chairman of May 14, 1998, these sessions will be 
closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(4), (6) and (9)(B) of 
section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
    Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory 
panels which are open to the public, and, if time allows, may be 
permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion 
of the panel chairman and with the approval of the full-time Federal 
employee in attendance.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please 
contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20506, 202/682-5532, 
TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
    Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained 
from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, 
National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, D.C., 20506, or call 202/
682-5691.

    Dated: July 1, 1998.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 98-17997 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
# C_2014409EN.01004202.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/42

---

Order of the General Court of 18 September 2014 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-698/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Application at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible - Application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Action lodged out of time - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))

2014/C 409/61

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2013 in Case F-127/12 Marcuccio v Commission ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:161, seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

| 3. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to refund to the General Court the sum of EUR 2  000 pursuant to Article 90 of its Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to refund to the General Court the sum of EUR 2  000 pursuant to Article 90 of its Rules of Procedure.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

1

---
Notice of Revised Rulemaking and Public Comment Period 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

6 NYCRR Part 212, General Process Emission Sources 

Pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law Sections 1-0101, 1-0303, 3-0301, 19-0103, 19-

0105, 19-0107, 19-0301, 19-0303, 19-0305, 19-0311, 71-2103 and 71-2105, the New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation (Department) hereby gives notice that it is proposing to 

revise existing 6 NYCRR Part 212, General Process Emission Sources, and include these revisions 

in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Department on December 23, 2009 proposed 

amendments to Part 212. This rulemaking proposal addresses public comments received on the 

December 23, 2009 proposal. 

Part 212 is being revised to include new requirements for the control of oxides of nitrogen 

(NOx) at hot mix asphalt production plants throughout the state. Under this re-proposal, hot mix 

asphalt plants must perform operational practices, including annual burner tune-ups and stockpile 

management, beginning in 2011. Beginning in 2012, each plant will be required to analyze the 

economic feasibility of installing a low NOx burner when it comes time for the current burner to be 

replaced. All active plants will need to perform this analysis by 2020. A low NOx burner will also be 

required at any new hot mix asphalt plant. 

Pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations for the State Environmental Quality 

Review Act, the Department has prepared a Negative Declaration stating that the proposed actions 

will not have a significant negative effect on the environment. 

The Department invites all persons, organizations, corporations, and government agencies 

that may be affected by the proposed revisions to submit comments in writing. 
Requests for information and comments related to Part 212 may be obtained from Scott Griffin, 

NYSDEC Division of Air Resources, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-3251, telephone: (518) 402-

8396, or email: 212asph@gw.dec.state.ny.us. Written statements may be submitted to the 

Department at the above address, until 5:00 P.M., July 16, 2010. 

The proposed regulation, SIP revisions, and associated supporting information may be 

obtained from any of the following Department offices: 

REGION 1, NYSDEC-Region 1, SUNY @ Stony Brook, 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook, NY 11790, 

Attention: Merlange Genece 

REGION 2, 1 Hunters Point Plaza, 47-40 21st Street, Long Island City, NY 11101, Attention: Samuel 

Lieblich 

REGION 3, 21 South Putt Corners Road, New Paltz, NY 12561, Attention: Kenneth Grzyb 

REGION 4, 1130 North Westcott Rd., Schenectady, NY 12306, Attention: Donald Spencer 

REGION 5, 232 Golf Course Rd., Warrensburg, NY 12885, Attention: James Coutant 

REGION 6, Watertown State Office Bldg., 317 Washington St., Watertown, NY 13601, Attention: 

Thomas Morgan 

REGION 7, 615 Erie Boulevard West, Syracuse, NY 13204-2400, Attention: Reginald Parker 

REGION 8, 6274 East Avon-Lima Road, Avon, NY 14414, Attention: Thomas Marriott 

REGION 9, 270 Michigan Ave., Buffalo, NY 14203, Attention: Larry Sitzman
#### *Hyde et al., Petitioners, v. Univ. of Wash. Med. Ctr. et al., Respondents,*

No. 91703-5.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 70830-9-1, April 13, 2015, 186 Wn. App. 926. *Denied*September 30, 2015.
No. 10-7863.

#### Bernard Andrew White, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1190, 131 S. Ct. 1023,

178 L. Ed. 2d 846,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 741.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2017112EN.01000301.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — Brandconcern BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-577/14 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 51(2) - Word mark LAMBRETTA - Genuine use of the mark - Application for revocation - Partial revocation - Communication No 2/12 of the President of EUIPO - Limitation of the temporal effects of a judgment of the Court))

(2017/C 112/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Brandconcern BV (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte, and by G. Casucci, N. Ferretti and C. Galli, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Scooters India Ltd, (represented by: C. Wolfe, Solicitor, and by B. Brandreth and A. Edwards-Stuart, Barristers)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Brandconcern BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Brandconcern BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015, p. 3.

1

---
#### Richard Williams et al., Respondents, v Turner Construction Inc. et al., Appellants.

[768 NYS2d 314]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered December 6, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiffs damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Viewed in light of the relevant considerations *(see Morsette v “The Final Call,*” 309 AD2d 249, 256 [2003]), the jury’s awards of $300,000 and $1 million for past and future pain and suffering, respectively, do not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances. As for the award for lost future earnings, the assumption of the economics expert supporting the award, that plaintiff was completely unable to work, was fairly inferable from the record *(see Czerniejewski v Stewart-Glapat Corp.,*269 AD2d 772, 773 [2000]), and given plaintiffs age and long experience in his field and the nature of the physical disability for which, it is not disputed, defendants are liable, there was no need for a charge that plaintiff was required to seek vocational rehabilitation to mitigate his damages (c*f. Thompson v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,*284 AD2d 232, 233 [2001]). Even if the motion for a collateral source hearing had been timely made, we would find that defendant general contractor had not carried its burden *(see Faas v State of New*
      *218
      *York,*249 AD2d 731, 733 [1998]) to show that plaintiff employee’s “future cost or expense” from lost earnings “was or will, with reasonable certainty, be replaced or indemnified, in whole or in part, from any collateral source” (CPLR 4545 [c]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Ellerin, JJ.
#### Camille Y. Gillies et al., Respondents, v Antiqua Crawford et al., Respondents, and Sauveur Prosper, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[56 NYS3d 540]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Sauveur Prosper appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated April 14, 2016, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In the early morning hours of March 28, 2011, two automobiles collided at the intersection of Tilden Avenue and Veronica Place in Brooklyn. One vehicle was operated by the defendant Antiqua Crawford and owned by the defendant Mark Ward. Both plaintiffs were passengers in that vehicle. The second vehicle left the scene. A police accident report prepared in connection with the incident purportedly contained the license plate number of the second vehicle, which corresponded to an automobile that, at the time of the accident, was registered to the defendant Sauveur Prosper in New York. Additionally, dur*814ing his deposition, the plaintiff Alan Ennis provided a general description of the second vehicle, which was consistent with Prosper’s automobile. In his own deposition, Prosper denied that his vehicle was involved in the accident.

Prosper subsequently moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, submitting the police accident report and deposition testimony in support of the motion, and contending that his vehicle was not involved in the subject accident. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and we affirm insofar as appealed from.

“A defendant moving for summary judgment dismissing a complaint cannot satisfy its initial burden merely by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff’s case” *(.Lorenzo v 7201 Owners Corp.,*133 AD3d 641, 641 [2015]; *see Shahid v City of New York,*144 AD3d 1127 [2016]; *Setter v Fire Is. Ferries, Inc.,*139 AD3d 840, 841 [2016]; *Kanic Realty Assoc., Inc. v Suffolk County Water Auth.,*130 AD3d 876, 878 [2015]). Here, Prosper’s submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether his vehicle struck the vehicle operated by Crawford *(see generally Jiann Hwa Fang v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*148 AD3d 791 [2017]; *Cruz v Finney,*148 AD3d 772 [2017]; *Setter v Fire Is. Ferries, Inc.,*139 AD3d at 841; *Kadashev v Medina,*134 AD3d 767 [2015]; *Lorenzo v 7201 Owners Corp.,*133 AD3d 641 [2015]). Since Prosper failed to sustain his prima facie burden, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1



Rule 13a  14(a)/15d  14(a) Certification

of the Chief Executive Officer



I, James R. Bazet, certify that:



1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cobra Electronics Corporation;



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 to the period covered by this 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;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under
our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or
not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |                              
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2005 |  | /s/ James R. Bazet           
|                     |  | James R. Bazet               
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16975]



[[Page 34679]]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Midwest Mezzanine Fund II, L.P. (License No. 05/05-0234); Notice 
of Issuance of a Small Business Investment Company License

    On November 14, 1997, an application was filed by Midwest Mezzanine 
Fund, II, L.P., at 208 South LaSalle Street, 10th Floor, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604-1003, with the Small Business Administration (SBA) 
pursuant to Section 107.300 of the Regulations governing small business 
investment companies (13 CFR 107.300 (1997)) for a license to operate 
as a small business investment company.
    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Section 301(c) of the 
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, after having 
considered the application and all other pertinent information, SBA 
issued License No. 05/05-0234 on May 4, 1998, to Midwest Mezzanine Fund 
II, L.P. to operate as a small business investment company.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59.011, Small 
Business Investment Companies)

    Dated: May 8, 1998.
Don A. Christensen,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 98-16975 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
No. 10-5328.

#### Chitunda Tillman, Sr., Petitioner v. New Line Cinema, et al.

562 U.S. 824, 131 S. Ct. 385,

178 L. Ed. 2d 20,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6547.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 25, 2010, 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.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.

Same case below, 374 Fed. Appx. 664.
No. 10-6788.

#### Juan Lizcano, Petitioner v. Texas.

562 U.S. 1182, 131 S. Ct. 999,

178 L. Ed. 2d 834,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 822.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
#### *State, Respondent, v. Sancomb, Petitioner,*

No. 91717-5.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 71632-8-1, April 20, 2015, 187 Wn. App. 1006. *Denied*September 30, 2015.
No. 10-6083.

#### Patricia Mills, Petitioner v. Wayne County Board of Education.

562 U.S. 1182, 131 S. Ct. 996,

178 L. Ed. 2d 832,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 878.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of West Virginia, Kanawha County, denied.
#### *Kulman, Respondent, v. Giroux, Petitioner,*

No. 91776-1.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 45722-9-II, May 5, 2015, 187 Wn. App. 1024. *Denied*September 30, 2015.