alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013252EN.01003102.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/31

---

Action brought on 14 June 2013 — Tsujimoto/OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO)

(Case T-322/13)

2013/C 252/51

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japon) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, 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: Kenzo (Paris, France)

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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) of 25 March 2013 (Case R 1364/2012-2); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) of 25 March 2013 (Case R 1364/2012-2);

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KENZO’, for services in classes 35, 41 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 8 701 286

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark of the word mark ‘KENZO’, for goods in classes 3, 18 and 25

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the CTM application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 76(2) and 8(5) of CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
Greg Hesser Architectural Photography 

June 9 2015 

Docket Operation, M-30 

U.S. Dept Of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Room W12-140, West Ground Floor 

Washington, DC 20590-0001 

Subject 333 Petition for Exemption 

I Greg Hesser, of 4843 N. Willamette Blvd, Portland Or 97203 am petitioning the FAA for an exemption 

from sections 49 USC of the Federal Aviation Regulation. I personally will be the PIC of all aerial 

photography and adhere to all FAA rules regarding use of UAVs, following approval of this request. 

Pursuant to section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform act of 2012, public Law 112-95, I am 

requesting certain exemptions in order to conduct rural, residential and commercial aerial photography 

using a lightweight UAS DJI Phantom 3. 

Greg Hesser 

4843 N. Willamette Blvd 

Portland, Or 97203 

503-560-9063
(1) Adjusting Price $20.11 CWT

(2) Base Price $21.67 CWT

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT (1.56)

(4) Price change per gallon ($0.13)

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon ($0.07)

Price change per quart ($0.03) 

Price change per pint ($0.02)

Price change per 14-oz pg. ($0.01)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.01)

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.01)

Price change per half pint ($0.01)

(6) Price adjustment per gallon ($0.13)

Price adjustment per half gallon ($0.07)

Price adjustment per quart ($0.03)

Price adjustment per pint ($0.02)

Price change per 14-oz pg. ($0.01)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.01)

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.01)

Price adjustment per half pint ($0.01)

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positive or increases.

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032 Alt. I)

Based on California Marketing Area Federal Milk Order #51

 Effective Date: June 4th, 2023
No. 11-7522.

#### Ahmad Toussaint, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1133, 132 S. Ct. 1056,

181 L. Ed. 2d 775,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 51.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 430 Fed. Appx. 819.
NO. 07-02-0515-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	APRIL 1, 2003

	______________________________

	TERRY ANTHONY WILSON,

			Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

			Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 45,476-B; HON. JOHN B. BOARD, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	__________________________________

Before QUINN, REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	Terry Anthony Wilson (appellant) appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance.  The clerk’s and reporter’s records were filed on February 10, 2003.  Thus, appellant’s brief was due on March 12, 2003.  However, one was not filed on that date.  By letter, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the expired deadline and directed him to respond to our letter by Monday, March 31, 2003, or the appeal would be abated to the trial court pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8.   That date has lapsed, and appellant still has yet to file a brief.  

	Consequently, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 181st District Court of Potter County (trial court) for further proceedings.  Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following:

	1.	whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal;

	2.  	whether appellant is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel; and,

	3.  	whether appellant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel due to appellate counsel’s failure to timely file an appellate brief.  See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 394, 105 S.Ct. 830, 834-35, 83 L.Ed.2d 821, 828 (1985) (holding that an indigent defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel on the first appeal as of right and that counsel must be available to assist in preparing and submitting an appellate brief). 

	We further direct the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing subjects.  Should the trial court find that appellant desires to pursue this appeal, is indigent, and has been denied effective assistance of counsel, then we further direct the court to appoint new counsel to assist in the prosecution of the appeal.  The name, address, phone number, telefax number, and state bar number of the new counsel who will represent appellant on appeal must also be included in the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Furthermore, the trial court shall also cause to be developed 1) a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law and 2) a reporter’s record transcribing the evidence and argument presented at the aforementioned hearing.  Additionally, the trial court shall cause the supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before May 1, 2003.  Should additional time be needed to perform these tasks, the trial court may request same on or before May 1, 2003.

	It is so ordered.

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6311

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SYLVESTER D. JONES, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (4:06-cr-00036-F-2; 4:10-cv-00127-F)

Submitted: June 16, 2011 Decided: June 21, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sylvester D. Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. MayParker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sylvester D. Jones, Jr. seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
ZUBERLON LENARD 

WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-0060

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 1, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Waddell A. Wallace, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Mark Hanson, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Robert Humphrey, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
(1) Adjusting Price $17.64 CWT

(2) Base Price $17.24 CWT

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT $0.40

(4) Price change per gallon $0.03

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon $0.02

Price change per quart $0.01 

Price change per pint $0.00

Price change per 14-oz pg. $0.00

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.00

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.00

Price change per half pint $0.00

(6) Price adjustment per gallon $0.03

Price adjustment per half gallon $0.02

Price adjustment per quart $0.01

Price adjustment per pint $0.00

Price change per 14-oz pg. $0.00

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.00

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.00

Price adjustment per half pint $0.00

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positive or increases.

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032 Alt. 

Based on California Marketing Area Federal Milk Order #51

 Effective Date: Feb. 7, 2021
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

 NATHAN P. WILSON 300 DEXTER AVENUE LYNN DEVAUGHN

 CLERK MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104-3741 ASSISTANT CLERK

TELEPHONE 334-229-0733

August 30, 2024

CL-2023-0890

J.E.P. v. Madison County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from 

Madison Juvenile Court: JU-19-643.04).

CL-2023-0891

J.E.P. v. Madison County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from 

Madison Juvenile Court: JU-22-389.03).

CL-2023-0918

H.D.B. v. Madison County Department of Human Resources (Appeal 

from Madison Juvenile Court: JU-22-389.03).

CL-2023-0919

H.D.B. v. Madison County Department of Human Resources (Appeal 

from Madison Juvenile Court: JU-19-643.04).

ORDER

You are hereby notified that the following action was taken in the 

above cause by the Court of Civil Appeals: 

Application for Rehearing Overruled. No opinion written on 

rehearing.

Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, Fridy, and Lewis, JJ., concur.

Nathan P. Wilson, Clerk
No. 11-7117.

#### Adolphus Dixon, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1085, 132 S. Ct. 828,

181 L. Ed. 2d 536,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8722.

December 5, 2011.

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

Same case below, 401 Fed. Appx. 491.
No. 11-5029.

#### Seth Daniel Buffington, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

565 U.S. 1101, 132 S. Ct. 869,

181 L. Ed. 2d 567,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8948.

December 12, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 886, 132 S. Ct. 260, 181 L. Ed. 2d 152, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 5814.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1796 Prepped by Keeia Richards



## Document

Number: 

# •29) IV-H-5 4 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/2008 4:20:3 7

PM Sheet 29 of 107

### P. 2
Lyn n Hutchinso n 11/21/2002 11:08 A M 

### A-90-3 7 fV-H-5 4 To : Amy_L._Farrell@omb.eop.go v cc : Arthur_G._Fraas@omb.eop.gov , Lorraine_D._Hunt@omb.eop.gov , Lyn n Hutchinson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA , Bil l Wehrum/DC/USEPA/US@EPA , Bil l Harnett , (bcc : Pam Smith/RTP/USEPA/US ) Subject : update o

fapplicabilit

ysection s o

fRT C Opps. . jus t rea d David' s emai l mor e closel yt o lear n tha t th e proble m wa s wit h th e rul e no t th e preamble , s o w e redline d th e wron g version . I wil l redu e an d sen d a ne wfile .



# 2 2

# 2M B EP A AIR DOCKE

T
¿Sabía que a su hijo 

lo pueden vacunar de 

manera gratuita?

El Programa Vacunas para Niños puede ayudar

El Programa Vacunas para Niños (VFC, por sus siglas en inglés) 

proporciona vacunas gratuitas a los niños que reúnan los requisitos. 

En los Estados Unidos, aproximadamente la mitad de los niños 

menores de 19 años de edad reciben vacunas del VFC.

¿Reúne mi hijo los requisitos 

para el Programa VFC?

Los niños reúnen los requisitos si no han 

cumplido los 19 años y en los siguientes casos: 

• Son elegibles para Medicaid

• No tienen seguro

• Son indoamericanos o nativos de Alaska

Los niños cuyo seguro no cubra algunas 

o todas las vacunas que se recomiendan

de manera rutinaria (con poca cobertura

de seguro) aún pueden recibir vacunas a

través del programa VFC si van a un Centro

de Salud Federalmente Calificado o Centro

Médico Rural.

¿A dónde puedo llevar a vacunar 

a mi hijo?

• Pregunte si el médico o enfermero de su hijo

es un proveedor del VFC. A nivel nacional, 

miles de consultorios de proveedores están 

inscritos en el Programa VFC.

• Si su hijo no tiene un médico, pregunte

si el departamento de salud pública local

provee vacunas.

• Visite un Centro de Salud Federalmente

Calificado (FQHC, por sus siglas en inglés)

o Centro Médico Rural (RHC, por sus siglas

en inglés).

¿Cuánto tendré que pagar?

• A través del Programa VFC, todas las

vacunas recomendadas de manera

rutinaria son gratuitas.

• El médico puede cobrar por la aplicación

de cada dosis. Sin embargo, no puede

negarse a vacunar a su hijo si usted no

puede pagar el cargo.

• El médico puede cobrar cargos adicionales

por la visita al consultorio o los servicios

que no sean de vacunación, como un

examen de los ojos o análisis de sangre.

¿Dónde puedo obtener más 

información?

• Pregunte si el consultorio médico de su

hijo participa en el VFC.

• Si no tiene un consultorio médico habitual:

- Vea si su estado tiene un sitio web donde 

pueda buscar proveedores del VFC. 

- Llame al departamento de salud local

o estatal.

- Consulte findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov

para encontrar un Centro de Salud

Federalmente Calificado.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 151 (Thursday, August 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 41999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21008]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
clearance the following proposal for collection of information under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13.
    Bureau: International Trade Administration.
    Title: Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) Application.
    Agency Form Number: N/A.
    OMB Number: 0625-0139.
    Type of Request: Regular Submission.
    Estimated Burden: 9,314 hours.
    Estimated Number of Applicants: 100.
    Est. Avg. Hours Per Application: 20-120 hours (depending on the 
type of application).
    Needs and Uses: The Foreign Trade Zones Application is the vehicle 
by which individual firms or organizations apply for foreign-trade zone 
(FTZ) status, for subzone status, or for expansion of an existing zone. 
The FTZ Act and Regulations require that an application with a 
description of the proposed project be made to the FTZ Board (19 U.S.C. 
81b and 81f; 15 CFR Sec. 400.24-26) before a license can be issued or a 
zone can be expanded. The Act and Regulations require that applications 
contain detailed information on facilities, financing, operational 
plans, proposed manufacturing operations, need, and economic impact. 
Manufacturing activity in zones, which is primarily conducted in 
subzones, can involve issues related to domestic industry and trade 
policy impact. Such applications must include specific information on 
the Customs-tariff related savings that result from zone procedures and 
the economic consequences of permitting such savings. The FTZ Board 
needs complete and accurate information on the proposed operation and 
its economic effects because the Act and Regulations authorize the 
Board to restrict or prohibit operations that are detrimental to the 
public interest.
    Affected Public: State, local, or tribal governments or not-for-
profit institutions applying for foreign trade zone status, for subzone 
status, or for modification of existing status.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain a license, voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Victoria Baecher-Wassmer, (202) 395-7340.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, Departmental Forms Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5327, 14th and 
Constitution, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Victoria Baecher-Wassmer, OMB Desk 
Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503 within 30 days of the publication of this notice.

    Dated: July 31, 1998.
Linda Engelmeier,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information 
Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-21008 Filed 8-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4245-4246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1988]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-113-000]


Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

January 22, 1998.
    Take notice that on January 20, 1998, Colorado Interstate Gas 
Company (CIG), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets listed on 
Appendix A to the filing, with a requested effective date of May 1, 
1998.
    CIG states that the purpose of the filing is to reform its Gas 
Quality Control service and low-Btu purchase requirements pursuant to 
Section 1.15 of the Stipulation and Agreement in Docket No. RP96-190-
000, approved by the Commission on October 16, 1997.
    CIG states that the copies of the filing are being mailed to all 
holders of the tariff and to public bodies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said 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 of Practice and Procedure. All such motions 
or protests must be filed in

[[Page 4246]]

accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. All 
protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make the 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. 98-1988 Filed 1-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 11-6053.

#### Ezell Gilbert, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1116, 132 S. Ct. 1001,

181 L. Ed. 2d 743,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 193.

January 9, 2012.

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

*744Same case below, 640 F.3d 1293.