alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013367EN.01003301.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/33

---

Action brought on 4 October 2013 — Roeckl Sporthandschuhe v OHIM — Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires (representation of a hand)

(Case T-537/13)

2013/C 367/58

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: O. Baumann, 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: Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2013 in so far as it upheld the intervener’s complaint in part and refused registration of a Community trade mark in respect of goods in Class 18 (leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials, in particular purses, pocket wallets, key cases, included in class 18) and in Class 25 (clothing, in particular gloves, included in class 25); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2013 in so far as it upheld the intervener’s complaint in part and refused registration of a Community trade mark in respect of goods in Class 18 (leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials, in particular purses, pocket wallets, key cases, included in class 18) and in Class 25 (clothing, in particular gloves, included in class 25);

| — | order the intervener to pay the applicant’s costs, including the costs of the opposition and appeal proceedings, and order the defendant (OHIM) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the intervener to pay the applicant’s costs, including the costs of the opposition and appeal proceedings, and order the defendant (OHIM) to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, representing a hand, for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28 ‒ Community trade mark No 6 961 965

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires GmbH & Co. KG

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark and German figurative mark ‘Roeckl’, containing the representation of a hand, for goods in Classes 18 and 25

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed

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) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
Contact Profile: Create PIN

1. From the Home page, select the “Contact Profile” link.

2. The Contact Profile page is displayed in edit mode.

3. Select the PIN link at the top.

Notes:

a. The “Create a PIN” command is disabled if a PIN has already been created.

b. The “Change PIN” command is disabled if a PIN has not been created.

c. The “Change Security Answer” command is disabled if a PIN has not been created.

d. The “Forgot my PIN” command is disabled if a PIN has not been created.

4. Select Create a PIN.
Notes:

a. Enter the required data and select the Submit command.

Contact Profile: Change PIN

1. From the Home page, select the “Contact Profile” link.

2. The Contact Profile page is displayed in edit mode.

3. Select the PIN link at the top.

4. Select Change PIN.
Notes:

a. Enter the required data and select the Submit command.
Contact Profile: Change Security Answer

1. From the Home page, select the “Contact Profile” link.

2. The Contact Profile page is displayed in edit mode.

3. Select the PIN link at the top.

4. Select Change Security Answer.
Notes:

a. Enter the required data and select the Submit command.
Contact Profile: Forgot my PIN

1. From the Home page, select the “Contact Profile” link.

2. The Contact Profile page is displayed in edit mode.

3. Select the PIN link at the top.

4. Select Forgot my PIN.
Notes:

a. Enter the required data and select the Submit command.

b. A new PIN will be generated and emailed to the contact.

c. If an incorrect Security Answer is entered three times, the Security Answer is locked. Someone

in the Contracting group will be required to reset the PIN for the contact.
*DoD 4000.25-1-M, January, 2006*

*Change 1*

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP6.19. APPENDIX 6.19**

**REQUEST FOR VALIDATION OF MATERIEL OBLIGATIONS(FMS AND**GRANT AID TRANSACTIONS)(FROM ILCO to SAOs)**

AP6.19.1.  Enclosed are listings (in duplicate) of MOV Request documents and a complete set of the documents (strike out if not applicable).  Each of the enclosed validation requests, reflect quantities of the indicated item recorded as materiel obligations as of (enter cutoff date) and for which the requisition are aged 180 days or more past the requisitions document number date.  The requests are submitted to your activity for validation of the continuing need for the item in the original requisition document.

AP6.19.2.  It is required that the item indicated by each validation request be reconciled with your records.  It is also required that each validation request be reviewed to determine the continuing need for the item and quantity shown.

AP6.19.3.  Request that a copy of the enclosed listing/data Block 8 and Block 21 of the remarks block, respectively (strike out one) of documents be annotated to indicate:  (1)  the quantity of each item still required and (2)  the quantity of each item received prior to receipt of the validation requests.  A copy of the annotated listing/the annotated documents should transmitted by priority mail to this activity to arrive no later than (enter date), which is 35 calendar days prior to the supply source response due date.

AP6.19.4.  Acknowledge receipt of the enclosed MOV Request documents by inserting the date and signature below and return of the correspondence to this installation.

Enclosures  Listings of Validation Requests (in duplicate)

  MOV Request documents (as applicable)

_____________________________________________________________________

	(ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT)

_____________________________________________________________________

Above MOV Request documents were received 

_________________________________

	(Date)

	________________________

	(Signature)

**DO NOT DETACH**

***2***

APPENDIX 1.19

AP6AP6.19-1

APPENDIX 6.19
No. 11-5581.

#### Jose Danilo Brizuela-Ramos, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 915, 132 S. Ct. 330,

181 L. Ed. 2d 206,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6156.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 415 Fed. Appx. 528.
kjjj

DLA Distribution Red River, Texas

Lt. Col. Joseph J. Lee, USA

Commander

Lt. Col. Joseph J. Lee has served in a variety positions from tactical to operational 

assignments throughout heavy, light and special operations formations, 

supporting operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine. He hails from 

Prince George, Virginia, where he graduated from Virginia State University 

after earning his commission through ROTC in 2005. He later earned his 

Master’s of Science degree in Logistics Management with a concentration in 

Disaster Relief Logistics from the Florida Insitiute of Technology. 

Lee spent the last seven years supporting Special Operations throughout the 

world, most recently as the Logisitics Operations Chief for Special Operations 

Command Europe after his tour as the Commanding General’s Executive 

Officer and Headquarters Commander. As part of his key developmental 

assignments, he served as the Operations Officer for the 528th Special Operations Sustainment Brigade, responsible 

for the integration of signal, medical, intelligence and logistics support for Army Special Operations. Additionally, 

he served in the 1st Infantry Division as a Brigade Logistics Officer, where he supported an Infantry Brigade 

Comabt Team through multiple command post exercises to Africa and subsequently, as the XO for the 701st 

Brigade Support Battalion. At the company grade level, he commanded a forward support company in the 82nd 

Airborne Division, deployed to Southern Afghanistan and served as platoon leader and shop officer in the 3rd 

Infantry Division deployed to Iraq. 

Lee’s awards include the Bronze Star Medal, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal 

with two oak leaf cluster, the Joint Commendation Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster, 

multiple Afghanistan and Iraq Campaign Medals, the Operation Resolute Support Medal, the Combat Action 

Badge, the Senior Parachutists Badge and various other awards.

His military education includes the the Basic Officer Course, the Captains Career Course, the Calvary Leaders 

Course, the Command and General Staff College, Jumpmaster School, the Theater Logistics Course and the Joint 

and Combined Warfighter Course.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3143 

To posthumously promote Lieutenant Colonel Richard E. Cole, United States 

Air Force (retired), a colonel on the retired list. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 5, 2019 

Mr. ROY (for himself, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. FLORES, Mr. 

OLSON, and Mr. WEBER of Texas) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To posthumously promote Lieutenant Colonel Richard E. 

Cole, United States Air Force (retired), a colonel on 

the retired list. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS; PURPOSE. 

4 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds as follows: 

5 (1) Lieutenant Colonel Richard E. Cole, United 

6 States Air Force (retired), was born on September 

7 7, 1915, in Dayton, Ohio. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3143 IH

1 (2) On November 22, 1940, Lieutenant Colonel 

2 Cole enlisted as an aviation cadet in Lubbock, 

3 Texas. 

4 (3) In July 1941, Lieutenant Colonel Cole was 

5 commissioned as a second lieutenant and rated as a 

6 pilot. 

7 (4) Lieutenant Colonel Cole was one of the air8 men who took part in the Doolittle Raid on Japan 

9 in April 1942, serving as co-pilot to then Lieutenant 

10 Colonel James (Jimmy) Doolittle. 

11 (5) After the Doolittle Raid, Lieutenant Colonel 

12 Cole remained in China until June 1943. 

13 (6) Lieutenant Colonel Cole served again in the 

14 China–Burma–India Theater from October 1943 to 

15 June 1944. 

16 (7) Lieutenant Colonel Cole later served as Op17 erations Advisor to the Venezuelan Air Force from 

18 1959 to 1962. 

19 (8) Lieutenant Colonel Cole retired from the 

20 Air Force in 1966. 

21 (9) On September 19, 2016, the B–21 bomber 

22 developed by Northrop Grumman was formally 

23 named ‘‘Raider’’ in honor of the Doolittle Raiders. 

24 (10) Lieutenant Colonel Cole died on April 9, 

25 2019, at 103 years of age. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 3143 IH

1 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is as follows: 

2 (1) Recognizes the accomplishments, sacrifices, 

3 and legacy of Lieutenant Colonel Richard E. Cole, 

4 United States Air Force (retired). 

5 (2) Encourages citizens of the United States to 

6 remember the legacy of Lieutenant Colonel Cole and 

7 the legacy of all the Doolittle Raiders. 

8 SEC. 2. POSTHUMOUS ADVANCEMENT OF LIEUTENANT 

9 COLONEL RICHARD E. COLE, UNITED STATES 

10 AIR FORCE, ON THE RETIRED LIST. 

11 (a) ADVANCEMENT.—Lieutenant Colonel Richard E. 

12 Cole, United States Air Force (retired), is advanced to the 

13 rank of colonel on the retired list of the Air Force. 

14 (b) ADDITIONAL BENEFITS NOT TO ACCRUE.—The 

15 advancement of Richard E. Cole on the retired list of the 

16 Air Force under subsection (a) shall not affect the retired 

17 pay or other benefits from the United States to which 

18 Richard E. Cole would have been entitled based upon his 

19 military service or affect any benefits to which any other 

20 person may become entitled based on his military service. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

  79
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.2

                           ETHYL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF PRO-FORMA EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     for the years ended December 31, 1996 and 1995
                         (In thousands except per share amounts)



On February 29, 1996, the Company completed the acquisition of the worldwide lubricant
additives business of Texaco Inc., ("Texaco") including manufacturing and blending
facilities, identifiable intangibles and working capital.  As a result of the
aforementioned acquisition, the Company believes that the following PRO FORMA financial
information is important to enable the reader to obtain a meaningful understanding of the
Company's results of operations.  The PRO FORMA information is provided to present a
summary of the combined results of the Company and the worldwide lubricant additives
business of Texaco as if the acquisition had occurred as of January 1, 1995.  The pro
forma data is for informational purposes only and may not necessarily reflect the results
of operations of Ethyl hade the acquired business operated as part of the Company for the
years ended December 31, 1996 and 1995.



                                                       1996       1995
<S>                                                   <C>        <C>
Pro-forma net income                                  $94,504    $86,106
                                                      =======    =======

Average number of shares of common stock outstanding  118,444    118,436

Shares issuable upon the assumed exercise of
   outstanding stock options (1)                            4         10
                                                      -------    -------
Shares of common stock and common stock
   equivalents (1) (2)                                118,448    118,446
                                                      =======    =======

Pro-forma earnings per share (3)                        $0.80      $0.73
                                                      =======    =======

<FN>
Notes:

(1)   For fully-diluted earnings per share, the shares issuable upon the assumed exercise
      of outstanding stock options would be 4 and 11 in 1996 and 1995, respectively, and
      the shares of common stock equivalents would have been 118,448 and  118,447,
      respectively.

(2)   To determine the average number of shares of common stock and common stock
      equivalents, the average number of common shares and common stock equivalents
      outstanding (actual or assumed for equivalents) during each month were added
      together and the sum was then divided by 12.

(3)   Primary earnings per share and fully-diluted earnings per share are the same
      amounts.

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                         Consent Of Independent Auditors




The Board of Directors
Fairmount Chemical Co., Inc.




We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos.
2-84988 and 2-99610 on Form S-8 of Fairmount Chemical Co., Inc. of our report
dated March 6, 2000, relating to the balance sheets of Fairmount Chemical Co.,
Inc. as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related statements of operations,
changes in stockholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows
for the years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 1998 annual
report on Form 10-KSB of Fairmount Chemical Co., Inc.



                                                     /S/ KPMG LLP








Short Hills, New Jersey
March 28, 2000
No. 11-319.

#### Alejandro Fox, Petitioner v. Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, Local No. 24, AFL-CIO, et al.

565 U.S. 979, 132 S. Ct. 521,

181 L. Ed. 2d 350,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7741.

October 31, 2011.

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

Same case below, 428 Fed. Appx. 767.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40781

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARTIN GARZA, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:17-CR-88-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Martin Garza, Jr. appeals his guilty plea conviction of one count of 

possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Garza argues that 

the factual basis was insufficient to support his guilty plea conviction because 

the Government failed to meet its obligation to prove that he knew the type 

and quantity of drug involved in his offense. As Garza concedes, his argument 

is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 11, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40781 Document: 00514305131 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2018
No. 17-40781

2

2009). Garza’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the 

judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-40781 Document: 00514305131 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2018
No. 11-6496.

#### Donald Lamont Smith, Petitioner v. Virginia.

565 U.S. 990, 132 S. Ct. 527,

181 L. Ed. 2d 370,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7657.

October 31, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
EXHIBIT 23


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We  consent  to  the   incorporation  by  reference  in  E'town   Corporation's
Registration  Statement  Nos.  333-69549  and  333-65951  on Forms S-3 and Nos.
33-49812,  33-44210,  33-19600 and  333-56819 on Forms S-8 of our reports dated
February  24,  1999 and to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  Elizabethtown
Water  Company's  Registration  Statement  Nos.  33-68579 and 33-51917 on Forms
S-3 of our report  dated  February  24,  1999, 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, 1998.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Parsippany, New Jersey
March 30, 1999
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 39071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19400]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 994]


Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 183, Austin, Texas

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, an application from the Foreign Trade Zone of Central 
Texas, Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone No. 183, for authority to 
expand its zone to include a site at the MET Center industrial park in 
Austin, Texas, within the Austin Customs port of entry, was filed by 
the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on August 4, 1997 (Docket 63-97, 62 
FR 43700, 8/15/97);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act 
and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board has found that the requirements of the Act and 
the regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public 
interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The grantee is authorized to expand its zone as requested in the 
application, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including 
Section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of July 1998.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Dennis Puccinelli,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-19400 Filed 7-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
No. 11-5980.

#### Steve Starbala, et ux., Petitioners v. Homecomings Financial Network, Inc.

565 U.S. 975, 132 S. Ct. 542,

181 L. Ed. 2d 345,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7910.

October 31, 2011.

Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until November 21, 2011, 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.

Same case below, 125 Conn. App. 901, 10 A.3d 1109.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6090

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. ORRIE COKER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:00-cr-00997-SB-3) Submitted: March 21, 2008 Decided: April 10, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orrie Coker, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Orrie Coker seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and denying it for want of jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Coker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Coker’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims- 3 - based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Coker’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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.

DISMISSED