alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 134 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18683]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on 
Safety Research Program

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Safety Research Program will hold a 
meeting on July 17, 1998, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
    Friday, July 17, 1998--1:00 p.m. until the conclusion of business.
    The Subcommittee will discuss the comments and recommendations 
included in the June 16, 1998 ACRS report regarding ``Core Research 
Capabilities'' and the associated response from the NRC Office of 
Nuclear Regulatory Research.
    Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the 
concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman; written statements will be 
accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are 
open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the 
Subcommittee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral 
statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff engineer named below 
five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made.
    During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittee, along 
with any of its consultants who may be present, may exchange 
preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance 
of the meeting.
    Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the 
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on 
requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time 
allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS 
staff engineer, Mr. Amarjit Singh (telephone 301/415-6899) between 7:30 
a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EDT). Persons planning to attend this meeting are 
urged to contact the above named individual one or two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the 
proposed agenda, etc., that may have occurred.


    Dated: July 8, 1998.
Sam Duraiswamy,
Chief, Nuclear Reactors Branch.
[FR Doc. 98-18683 Filed 7-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.27 MB)

Tags:historypage_director

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
# C_2014052EN.01003703.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/37

---

Action brought on 27 November 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO)

(Case T-637/13)

2014/C 52/72

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cafe' do Brasil SpA (Melito di Napoli, Italy)

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 partially the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 September 2013 given in Case R 1434/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul partially the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 September 2013 given in Case R 1434/2012-4;

| — | Order the other party, should it intervene, to bear the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the other party, should it intervene, to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘Caffè KIMBO’ in black, red, gold, white, light sky blue, dark sky blue, yellow and light green for goods in Classes 30, 32, and 43 — Community trade mark application No 4 273 884

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Spanish trade mark registration No 291 655 for the word mark ‘BIMBO’ for goods in Class 30 and earlier well-known Spanish and Portuguese word mark ‘BIMBO’

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1), (2) and (5) CTMR

Pleas in law:

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19229]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-3636-000]


Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Notice of Filing

July 9, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 6, 1998, Public Service Electric and Gas 
Company (PSE&G), of Newark, New Jersey tendered for filing an agreement 
for the sale of capacity and energy to Commonwealth Edison Company 
(ComEd), pursuant to the PSE&G Wholesale Power Market Based Sales 
Tariff, presently on file with the Commission.
    PSE&G further requests waiver of the Commission's Regulations such 
that the agreement can be made effective as of June 8, 1998.
    Copies of the filing have been served upon ComEd and the New Jersey 
Board of Public Utilities.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commissions Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions and protests should be filed on or before July 24, 1998. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine 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.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-19229 Filed 7-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 137 (Friday, July 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19061]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Polar Programs; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Polar Programs (#1209).
    Date & Time: August 5-7, 1998: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
    Place: Room 770, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Linda Duguay, Program Director, Arctic 
Natural Sciences Program, Office of Polar Programs, Room 755 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 
22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1029.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Arctic Natural Sciences 
Interdisciplinary proposals as part of the selection process for 
awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: July 13, 1998.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-19061 Filed 7-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
No. 10-11135.

#### Jairo Modesto Miranda-Garcia, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 869, 132 S. Ct. 219,

181 L. Ed. 2d 120,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6682.

October 3, 2011.

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

*121Same case below, 417 Fed. Appx. 895.
EXHIBIT (21) - SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT.

The  subsidiaries of the Company as of December 31, 1995, and the state in which
each was organized are as scheduled below:

                                State or
                                Jurisdiction
                                Under Laws of         Name Under Which
Name of Subsidiaries            Which Organized       Subsidiaries Do Business

F&M Bank-Winchester             Virginia              F&M Bank-Winchester

 Big Apple Mortgage                                   Big Apple Mortgage
   Company, Inc.(1)             Virginia              Company, Inc.
 Winchester Credit                                    Winchester Credit
    Corporation(1)              Virginia              Corporation
 Rouss Finance Co.(1)           Virginia              Rouss Finance Co.
 Credit Bureau of                                     Credit Bureau of
    Winchester, Inc.(1)         Virginia                Winchester, Inc.
 RFC Mortgage Co.(1)            Virginia              RFC Mortgage Co.
 Apple Title Company            Virginia              Apple Title Company

F&M Bank-Central Virginia       Virginia              F&M Bank-Central
Virginia

F&M Bank-Massanutten            Virginia              F&M Bank-Massanutten

F&M Bank-Richmond               Virginia              F&M Bank-Richmond

F&M Bank-Martinsburg, Inc.      West Virginia         F&M Bank-Martinsburg

F&M Bank-Blakeley, Inc.         West Virginia         F&M Bank-Blakeley

F&M Bank-Keyser, Inc.           West Virginia         F&M Bank-Keyser

F&M Bank-Emporia                Virginia              F&M Bank-Emporia(2)

F&M Bank-Hallmark               Virginia              F&M Bank-Hallmark

F&M Bank-Peoples                Virginia              F&M Bank-Peoples

F&M Bank-Potomac                Virginia              F&M Bank-Potomac

(1)     Winchester Credit Corporation and Big Apple Mortgage Co., Inc.,
        are wholly-owned subsidiaries of F&M Bank-Winchester. Rouss
        Finance Company, RFC Mortgage Company and Credit Bureau of
        Winchester, Inc. are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Winchester
        Credit Corporation. All other subsidiaries listed are
        wholly-owned by the Company.
1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases

on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 96-10511 Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

KENNETH LERON SATTERWHITE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

VERSUS

GARY L. JOHNSON,
DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas

(4:95-CV-183-Y)

______________________________________________________ November 19, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM: 1

Texas prisoner Kenn eth Satterwhite, #393238, filing p ro se ,

appeals from the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition as an

abuse of writ. Satterwhite contends that the administration of2

antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs from April 1985 to May 1990

constitutes cause for his failure to raise defective-indictment and

ineffective-assistance contentions in an earlier petition. He also

contends that his counsel's ineffective assistance regarding the

defective indictment constitutes cause.

Assuming without deciding that (1) the certificate of probable

cause issued by the district court served as a certificate of

appealability req uired for appeals under the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), effective April 24, 1996, and

(2) tha t the district court had the authority to issue such a

certificate of appealabil i ty, we address the merits of

Satterwhite's appeal. We have examined the record and the briefs

of the parties and find no nonfrivolous issues. We reject

Satterwhite's contention that the administration of drugs

constituted cause for the reasons relied on by the district court.

In addition, we find his ineffective assistance of co unsel claim

barred; he raised it in an earl ier petition and may not raise it

again in a subsequent petition. M cDonald v. Estelle

, 590 F.2d 153,

155 (5th Cir. 1979). Moreover, his counsel's actions did not

prevent Satterwhite from raising claims in his previous federal

habeas petitions.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
# C_2013156EN.01005301.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/53

---

Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Eni v Commission

(Case T-211/13)

2013/C 156/99

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Eni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible;

| — | annul the contested measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested measures;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action contests the Commission’s decision of 26 February 2013 to reopen the procedure (C(2013) 1200 final) and the statement of objections of 26 February 2013 (C(2013) 1199) relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, adopted in Case AT.40032-BR/ESBR.

In support of the application, Eni alleges lack of competence, arguing that the Commission cannot reopen the procedure in order to amend the decision adopted in Case BR-ESBR in 2006 and, at the same time, to adopt a decision re-imposing the increase in the fine for repeated infringements.

Eni submits that in the judgment of 13 July 2011 (Case T-39/07), in addition to annulling in part the 2006 BR-ESBR decision on the basis that the Commission had failed to make a correct assessment of the aggravating circumstance of repeated infringement, the General Court exercised its jurisdiction in relation to the merits — under Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003 — by re-determining the amount of the fine and substituting its own assessment for that made by the Commission. In addition to being in breach of those findings, the contested measures are also contrary to Article 266 TFEU, to the principle governing the attribution of powers and ensuring institutional balance, referred to in Article 13 TFEU, as well as to the fundamental right to fair legal process laid down in Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to the ne bis in idem principle laid down in Article 7 ECHR.

ne bis in idem

Eni also claims that, contrary to the assertions made by the Commission, the General Court did not merely find that there had been a procedural defect in the Commission’s application of the concept of repeated infringement in the 2006 BR-ESBR decision; the Commission’s action is therefore based on a wholly erroneous legal and factual premiss and, from that point of view, too, is contrary to Article 7 ECHR.

---
Order issued November 7, 2012

In The 

## (Court of Appeals JJiiftJ 

## Eristrirt at &exas at Dallas

No. 05-11-00279-CV YVONNE BROWN, Appellant

V. FALLS ON CLEARWOOD, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-10-07137-A



### ORDER Before the Court is appellant's October 19, 2012 motion for rehearing. The Court requests that appellee file a response by November 19, 2012.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 137 (Friday, July 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19080]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 98-095]


Notice of Prospective Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Prospective Patent License.

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

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice that Lantis Laser, Inc., has applied 
for a partially exclusive license to practice the invention disclosed 
in NASA Case No. LAR-15564-1-SB, entitled, ``Method of Controlling 
Laser Wavelength(s),'' for which a U.S. Patent Application was filed 
and assigned to the United States of America as represented by the 
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 
Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent 
to NASA Langley Research Center.

DATES: Responses to this notice must be received by September 15, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Robin W. Edwards, Patent Attorney, 
NASA Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 212, Hampton, VA 23681-0001. 
Telephone (757) 864-3230; fax (757) 864-9190.

    Dated: July 13, 1998.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-19080 Filed 7-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7501-01-P
Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

MANDATE

TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF DALLAS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, on the 29th day of July, 2015, the 

cause on appeal to affirm between

MICHAEL DEE CAVE, Appellant

No. 05-14-01613-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

No. 1, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-59553-H.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck, 

Justices Bridges and Lang participating.

was determined; and this Court made its order in these words:

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of the Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth District of Texas, in this behalf, and have it duly obeyed and executed.

WITNESS the HON. CAROLYN WRIGHT, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, with 

the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Dallas, this 8th day of October, 2015.

LISA MATZ, Clerk
No. 11-136.

#### Colleen Bagley, et al., Petitioners v. Rod R. Blagojevich, et al.

565 U.S. 883, 132 S. Ct. 253,

181 L. Ed. 2d 146,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5613.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 646 F.3d 378.
No. 10-10230.

#### Toby Shaun Bordelon, Petitioner v. Terry Terrell, Warden.

565 U.S. 831, 132 S. Ct. 130,

181 L. Ed. 2d 51,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5313.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 11-32.

#### Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Petitioner v. Tony N. Issacs, et al.

565 U.S. 879, 132 S. Ct. 245,

181 L. Ed. 2d 140,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5232.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Hamilton County, denied.
# C_2016136EN.01002202.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/22

---

Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 18 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Helena Kolcunová v Provident Financial s. r. o.

(Case C-610/14) (1)

1

(2016/C 136/28)

Language of the case: Slovak

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

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

1

---