alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013304EN.01002101.xml

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/21

---

Action brought on 14 August 2013 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA)

(Case T-426/13)

2013/C 304/36

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cosmetica Cabinas, SL (El Masnou, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 June 2013 given in Case R 1642/2012-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 June 2013 given in Case R 1642/2012-1;

| — | Award the applicant the costs incurred by the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Award the applicant the costs incurred by the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘AINHOA’ for services and goods in Classes 3, 35 and 39 — Community trade mark registration No 2 720 811

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the rights of the CTM proprietor in respect of services in Classes 35 and 39 and rejected the application for revocation in respect of ‘cosmetic products’ in Class 3

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) 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

---
# C_2015056EN.01001101.xml

| 16.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/11

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Juergen Schneider, Erika Schneider v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-382/14) (1)

1

(2015/C 056/15)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.

1

---
#### *Ford Servs., LLC, Petitioner, v. City of Sedro-Wooley, Respondent,*

No. 91997-6.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 72131-3-I, June 29, 2015, 2015,188 188 Wn. App. 1034. *Denied*December 2, 2015.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Hiroaki Nishio 

COMPLAINANT 

v. 

Commonwealth Ports Authority 

RESPONDENT. 

Docket No. 16-13-03 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above-referenced 

complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport 

Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16 (Rules of Practice). Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, 

§ 16.ll(a), the date by which the Director, FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management 

Analysis will issue a Director's Detennination in this matter is hereby extended to on or before 

December 28,2015. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

Se,ef~ ~lr Date ' 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September...%2_, 2015, I placed in the United States mail (first 

class, postage paid), a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time addressed to: 

Hiroaki Nishio 

P.O. Box 5910 CHRB 

Saipan, MP 96950 

Complainant 

Maryann Q. Lizama 

Acting Executive Director 

Commonwealth Ports Authority 

Saipan International Airport 

P.O. Box 501055 

Saipan, MP 96950-1055 

Respondent 

Robert Tenorio Torres 

Attorney at Law 

P.O. Box 503758 CK 

Saipan, MP 96950 

Counsel to the Respondent 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

Claudia Roberts -= Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
No. 10-7341.

#### Gregory Steven Horn, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1103, 131 S. Ct. 807,

178 L. Ed. 2d 546,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9545.

December 6, 2010.

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

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

Same case below, 612 F.3d 524.
No. 10-7316.

#### Thomas J. Johnson, Petitioner v. D. K. Sisto, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1151, 131 S. Ct. 934,

178 L. Ed. 2d 776,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 389.

January 10, 2011.

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

SECRETARY 

February 21, 2014 

Mr. ShawnM. Garvin 

Regional Administrator 

· U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 


1650 Arch Street (Mail Code: 3RAOO) 


Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 


Dear Mr. Garvin: 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region III, has requested Pennsylvania's 

concurrence to list the Baghurst Alley Site located in Upper Salford Township, Montgomery 

County, on the CERCLA (Superfund) National Priorities List (NPL). The Department of 

Environmental Protection staff bas evaluated the Baghutst Alley Site in accordance with the 

Environmental Cleanup and Brownfields Program policy and supports EPA's proposal to list the 

site on the NPL. 

The continued cooperation ofthe federal and state government to implement the CERCLA 

program is an essential element of its success. Pennsylvania's commitment to this partnership 

and implementation ofthe Commonwealth's Environmental Cleanup and Brownfields Program 

will assure the goals ofboth programs are achieved. 

If you have any questions regarding this issue or Pennsylvania's participation in the CERCLA 

program, please contact Vince Brisini, Deputy Secretary for Waste, Air, Radiation and 

Remediation, by e-mail atvbrisini@pa.gov or by telephone at 717.772.2725, or Walter Harner, 

....... ChiefoftheSiteRemediation.Di:visio:n,..b:ye,maiLatwharner@pa . .gov_or.:by.telephoneat::. 

717.787.1915. 

Sincerely, 

E. Christopher 

2'-dU~~ Abruzzo 


Secretary 


Rachel Carson State Office Building 1 P.O. Box 2063 I Harrisburg, PA 17105~2063 

717.787.2814 www.depweb.state.pa.us
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS
EASTLAND , TEXAS
JUDGMENT Baron Aviation Services, Inc.
, * From the 3 5 th District Court of Brown County, Trial Court No. CV1711504

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 131

- C V * November 2 , 2023

Larry Kitchen
, * Opinion by Williams , J. (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J., Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion,

we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and we re nder judgment in favor of Appellant

. The c ost s incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Larry

Kitchen

.
No. 10-372.

#### Gregory Forrester, Petitioner v. Arkansas.

562 U.S. 1135, 131 S. Ct. 905,

178 L. Ed. 2d 748,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 220.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied.

Same case below, 2010 Ark. 291.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0003458

03-NOV-2014

11:24 AM
No. 10-6934.

#### In re Jimmy Richard Husband, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1043, 131 S. Ct. 612,

178 L. Ed. 2d 455,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8909,

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1799]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Dkt. C-3584]


Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc.; Prohibited Trade Practices 
and Affirmative Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Modifying order.

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

SUMMARY: This order reopens a 1995 consent order--that required the 
Louisiana-based corporation to divest several supermarkets in the New 
Orleans area--and this order modifies the consent order by replacing a 
provision requiring Schwegmann to obtain prior Commission approval for 
certain transactions, with a prior notice provision for any acquisition 
of retail supermarkets in the New Orleans area that Schwegmann makes 
through June 6, 2005. The Commission determined that the changed 
provisions are warranted and consistent with the Statement of FTC 
Policy Concerning Prior Approval and Prior Notice Provisions and 
therefore justified reopening the proceeding and modifying the order.

DATES: Consent order issued June 2, 1995. Modifying order issued 
February 24, 1997.\1\

    \1\ Copies of the Modifying Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 600 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Ducore, FTC/S-2115, Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326-2526.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Matter of Schwegmann Giant Super 
Markets, Inc. The prohibited trade practices and/or corrective actions 
as set forth at 60 FR 35032, are changed, in part, as indicated in the 
summary.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interpret or apply sec. 5, 38 
Stat. 719, as amended; sec 7, 38 Stat. 731, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 
45, 18)
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1799 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature:

Project No.: 0317.01.005.510 Page 1 of 1

Project Name: DMR2011 CBI?

Yes

No

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Incoming

Outgoing

Date: 12/13/13 Time: 1:45 am

pm

Company Name: Sanford Springs Water Treatment Plant ERG Staff Name: Kimberly Bartell

Contact Name: Tim Ransom Contact Phone Number: (256) 447-3391

General Subject: 2011 DMR Discharges for Sanford Springs Water Treatment Plant

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

County Water Department: 256-927-8348

Water Treatment Plant (Tim Ransom): 256-447-3391 

On December 13th, I called the county water department and was given the water treatment plant phone number. 

I called the water treatment plant and spoke with Tim Ransom. He confirmed the aluminum concentrations for 

outfall 001. The flow values are the correct number, but the units are incorrect. The units should be gallons per 

minute (GPM) not million gallons per day. Outfall 001 is a backwash/flush outfall for the facility and only 

discharges for about 10 minutes per day: the flow rate is low.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000032312
<NAME> EMCEE BROADCAST PRODUCTS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         261,304
<SECURITIES>                                 1,773,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,522,279
<ALLOWANCES>                                    70,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,080,313
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,269,609
<PP&E>                                       2,789,358
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,249,467
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,101,948
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,191,070
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        73,450
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,241,074
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,101,948
<SALES>                                      4,738,493
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,738,493
<CGS>                                        3,738,735
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,141,109
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (48,419)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                41,901
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,724
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,300,873)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (474,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (826,873)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (826,873)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determ ined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 14, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40892 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Pl aint iff- Appellee,
versus CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL FISHER, Defendant-Appellant.

---------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-2579-ALL

---------------------------------------------------------------- Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *Christopher Michael Fisher appeals his sentence following his conviction of aliensmuggling for profit. He contends that the district court erred by adjusting his offense level because he recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. The district court did not err by adjusting Fisher’s offense level. Fisher carried apassenger in a cargo compartment underneath the floorboard of the sleeper section of his tractortrai ler that was not designed to hold people. Moreover, Fisher was deliberately ignorant of the2

hiding positions of his passengers. See Unit ed States v. Rodri guez-Mesa , 443 F.3d 397, 403 (5th Cir. 2006). AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37106-37107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18184]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. MT98-13-000]


Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

July 2, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 26, 1998, Tuscarora Gas Transmission 
Company (Tuscarora) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, effective 
July 26, 1998.

First Revised Sheet No. 63
First Revised Sheet No. 66
First Revised Sheet No. 67


[[Page 37107]]


    Tuscarora states that it is submitting these minor tariff revisions 
to comply with its current understanding of the requirements of the 
Commission's regulations. The revised tariff sheets reflect (i) the 
addition of the requirement in Section 250.16(b) that Tuscarora orally 
respond within 48 hours to complaints from shippers or potential 
shippers, and (ii) the elimination of certain categories of information 
no longer required from an affiliated shipper for a valid service 
request pursuant to Order No. 566.
    Tuscarora states that copies of its filing were mailed to all 
affected customers and the state commissions of Nevada, Oregon and 
California.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. 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 proceedings. 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 in the Public 
Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18184 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2015398EN.01003901.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Cases T-659/13 and T-660/13) (1)

1

((Transport - Directive 2010/40/EU - Intelligent Transport Systems - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 - Provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles - Article 3(1), Article 8 and Article 9(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation No 885/2013 - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 - Data and procedures for the provision of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users - Article 5(1), Article 9 and Article 10(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation No 886/2013))

(2015/C 398/49)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, Z. Malůšková and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

In Case T-659/13, application for annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing ITS Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles (OJ 2013 L 247, p. 1) and, in the alternative, application for annulment of Article 3(1), Article 8 and Article 9(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation No 885/2013, and, in Case T-660/13, application for annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to data and procedures for the provision, where possible, of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users (OJ 2013 L 247, p. 6) and, in the alternative, application for annulment of Article 5(1), Article 9 and Article 10(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation No 886/2013.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-659/13 and T-660/13 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-659/13 and T-660/13 for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

1

---
# C_2015016EN.01002304.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 58 de Madrid — Spain) — Juan Pedro Ludeña Hormigos v Banco de Santander SA

(Case C-188/14) (1)

(2015/C 016/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DONOVAN COSBY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 185 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DONOVAN COSBY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 186 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DONOVAN COSBY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 187 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court
[185 EAL 2020, 186 EAL 2020 and 187 EAL 2020] - 2

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of December, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
No. 10-5651.

#### N-A-M, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 1141, 131 S. Ct. 898,

178 L. Ed. 2d 758,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 222.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 587 F.3d 1052.
No. 10-7438.

#### Launeil Sanders, Petitioner v. Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

562 U.S. 1130, 131 S. Ct. 942,

178 L. Ed. 2d 742,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 332.

January 10, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).

Same case below, 395 Fed. Appx. 939.
Exhibit 23


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-69549 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 33-49812, 33-19600 and
333-56819 on Form S-8 of E'town Corporation of our reports dated March 9, 2000
and to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-68579
and 33-51917 on Form S-3 of Elizabethtown Water Company of our report dated
March 9, 2000, appearing in or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of E'town Corporation and Elizabethtown Water Company for the year
ended December 31, 1999.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Parsippany, New Jersey
March 30, 2000
# C_2014045EN.01004503.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/45

---

Order of the General Court of 25 November 2013 — Euromed v OHIM — DC Druck-Chemie (EUROSIL)

(Case T-523/13) (1)

1

2014/C 45/83

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

1

---