alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group, Function, Integration, and Rehabilitation Sciences Subcommittee.                    

*Date:*                         October 10-11, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Anne Krey, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6908,                         *ak41o@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 13, 2005.

Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-18868  Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140--1-M
# C_2008107EN.01004401.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/44

---

Action brought on 24 December 2007 — Iordanova v Commission

(Case F-53/07)

(2008/C 107/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ivanka Iordanova (Varna, Bulgaria) (represented by: G. Kerelov, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/14/06 of 3 April 2007 refusing to admit the applicant to that competition and damages for material and non-material loss.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/14/06 of 3 April 2007 refusing to admit the applicant to that competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/14/06 of 3 April 2007 refusing to admit the applicant to that competition;

| — | Order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages fixed in accordance with the principles of equity at EUR 28 718 for the material and non-material loss suffered as a result of the unlawful decision of the selection board, plus interest from the date of lodging the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages fixed in accordance with the principles of equity at EUR 28 718 for the material and non-material loss suffered as a result of the unlawful decision of the selection board, plus interest from the date of lodging the application;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---
# C_2009055EN.01002303.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/23

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 January 2009 — Commercy v OHIM — easyGroup IP Licensing (easyHotel)

(Case T-316/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark easyHotel - Earlier national word mark EASYHOTEL - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of similarity of the goods and services - Articles 8(1)(b) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Legal aid - Application lodged by the receiver for a commercial company - Article 94(2) of the Rules of Procedure)

(2009/C 55/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commercy AG (Weimar, Germany) (represented by: F. Jaschke, initially, and S. Grosse and I. Müller, subsequently, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Koerl and S. Möbus, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 June 2007 (Case R 1295/2006-2) concerning invalidity proceedings between Commercy AG and easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application for legal aid; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application for legal aid;

| 2. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action;

| 3. | Orders Commercy AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Commercy AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.

1

---
# C_2008022EN.01002603.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/26

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat (Austria) lodged on 14 November 2007 — Silberquelle GmbH v Maselli-Strickmode GmbH

(Case C-495/07)

(2008/C 22/51)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Patent- und Markensenat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Silberquelle GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Maselli-Strickmode GmbH

Defendant:

Question referred

Are Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Trade Mark Directive) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark is being put to genuine use if it is used for goods (here: alcohol-free drinks) which the proprietor of the trade mark gives, free of charge, to purchasers of his other goods (here: textiles) after conclusion of the purchase contract?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. l.

1

---
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

This AMENDMENT NO. 2 is made as of the 30th day of June, 2014 to the Credit Agreement (defined below) by and among Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., the Other
Borrowers parties from time to time , The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, as Administrative Agent (the “Administrative Agent”) and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (the “Supplemental Lender”). All capitalized terms used but not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Credit Agreement. 
 The Borrowers, the Administrative Agent
and the Lenders are parties to the $2,500,000,000 Revolving Credit Agreement dated as of April 30, 2013 (as amended, restated, modified or supplemented from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”). 

Pursuant to Section 2.09 of the Credit Agreement, the Borrowers may, at their option, seek to increase the Total Revolving Credit
Commitment by obtaining additional Commitments upon satisfaction of certain conditions. 
 The Supplemental Lender is a new
Lender that is a lending institution whose identity the Administrative Agent will approve by its signature below. 
 In
consideration of the foregoing, the Supplemental Lender from and after the date hereof shall have a Revolving Credit Committed Amount of $95,000,000 as of the date hereof, the Supplemental Lender hereby assumes all of the rights and obligations of a
Lender under the Credit Agreement. 
 The Borrowers have executed and delivered to the Supplemental Lender as of the date
hereof, if they were requested by the Supplemental Lender, Notes in the form attached to the Credit Agreement as Exhibit A to evidence the Commitment of the Supplemental Lender. 

[signature page follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Administrative Agent, the Borrowers and the Supplemental Lender have
executed this Amendment as of the date shown above. 
  

			
	AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Gregory E. Weigard
	Name:	 	Gregory E. Weigard
	Title:	 	Assistant Treasurer


  

			
	 BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA

ARGENTARIA, S.A. (BBVA)

		
	By:	 	/s/ Nurys Maleki
	Name:	 	Nurys Maleki
	Title:	 	Vice President


  

			
		
	By:	 	/s/ Luca Sacchi
	Name:	 	Luca Sacchi
	Title:	 	Managing Director


  

			
	 THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC,
 as Administrative Agent

		
	By:	 	/s/ Brett Thompson
	Name:	 	Brett Thompson
	Title:	 	Director


 Consented to: 
  

			
	THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, as Issuer
		
	By:	 	/s/ Brett Thompson
	Name:	 	Brett Thompson
	Title:	 	Director

  

			
	HSBC BANK USA, N.A., as Issuer
		
	By:	 	/s/ David A. Mandell
	Name:	 	David A. Mandell
	Title:	 	Managing Director









			
	BNP PARIBAS, as Issuer
		
	By:	 	/s/ Christopher Sked
	Name:	 	Christopher Sked
	Title:	 	Managing Director

  

			
		
	By:	 	/s/ Nicole Rodriguez
	Name:	 	Nicole Rodriguez
	Title:	 	Vice President
# C_2010024EN.01004702.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2009 — Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Grebenshikova (SOLVO)

(Case T-434/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark SOLVO - Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks VOLVO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 24/82

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: T. Dolde, V. von Bomhard and A. Renck, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen and A. Folliard Monguiral, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Elena Grebenshikova (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Björkenfeldt, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2007 (Case R 1240/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Volvo Trademark Holding AB and Ms Elena Grebenshikova.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 2 August 2007 (Case R 1240/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Volvo Trademark Holding AB and Ms Elena Grebenshikova; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 2 August 2007 (Case R 1240/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Volvo Trademark Holding AB and Ms Elena Grebenshikova;

| 2. | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Volvo Trademark Holding; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Volvo Trademark Holding;

| 3. | Orders Ms Grebenshikova to bear her own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Volvo Trademark Holding. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ms Grebenshikova to bear her own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Volvo Trademark Holding.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Donald L. Grill, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fentura Financial, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: March 15, 2007                                                       /s/Donald L. Grill   Donald L. Grill   Chief Executive Officer andPresident
The Estate of Donna S. Ray, by Thomas D. Ray and Robert A. Wilson, IV, Administrators of the Estate of Donna S. Ray, and Thomas D. Ray, Individually v. B. Keith Forgy, M.D., P.A., individually and as Agent/Apparent Agent of Grace Health Care System, Inc., Blue Ridge Health Care Systems, Inc., Carolinas Health Care System, Inc., and as an Agent/Apparent Agent, Employee, and Shareholder of Mountain View Surgical Associates, Grace Hospital, Inc., Grace Health Care System, Inc., Blue Ridge Health Care System, Inc., and Carolinas Health Care System, Inc.

No. 248P13-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Phillip T. Jackson, Ann-Patton Hornthal, Attorneys at Law, For Grace Hospital, Inc., et al.

Paul D. Coates, Jon Ward, Attorneys at Law, Greensboro, For Ray, Donna S. (Estate of), et al.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd of March 2016 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-2190

ALBERT EDEZE BIKIM,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals.

Submitted: July 30, 2008 Decided: September 23, 2008

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICES OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,

Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory Katsas, Assistant Attorney

General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, T. Bo

Stanton, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Albert Edeze Bikim, a native and citizen of Cameroon,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider the denial of

his motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review. 

We review the Board’s decision to deny a motion to

reconsider for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314,

323-24 (1992); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008). A motion for

reconsideration asserts that the Board made an error in its earlier

decision, Turri v. INS, 997 F.2d 1306, 1311 n.4 (10th Cir. 1993),

and requires the movant to specify the error of fact or law in the

prior Board decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2008); Matter of

Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 402 (B.I.A. 1991) (noting that a motion

to reconsider questions a decision for alleged errors in appraising

the facts and the law). The burden is on the movant to establish

that reconsideration is warranted. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 110

(1988). “To be within a mile of being granted, a motion for

reconsideration has to give the tribunal to which it is addressed

a reason for changing its mind.” Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247,

249 (7th Cir. 2004). Motions that simply repeat contentions that

have already been rejected are insufficient to convince the Board

to reconsider a previous decision. Id.

We find the Board did not abuse its discretion. The

Board adequately considered and rejected the arguments Bikim raised
- 3 -

in his motion to reconsider. Bikim failed to provide evidence

showing that the alleged newly discovered evidence, such as his

political party membership cards, could not have been presented

earlier. We note we do not have jurisdiction to consider the

Board’s denial of Bikim’s motion to reopen because he failed to

file a timely petition for review from that order. See Stone v.

INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405 (1995). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
# C_2012138EN.01001102.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Slovakia v Commission

(Case T-247/07) (1)

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted on account of the accession of new Member States - Act of Accession of 2003 - Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and financial consequences of their elimination - Objective pursued by a provision of primary law - Decision 2007/361/EC)

(2012/C 138/18)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented initially by J. Čorba and subsequently by B. Ricziová, agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and A. Tokár, agents)

Interveners in support of the Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by T. Nowakowski, subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz, and finally by M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, agents) and Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Krasuckaitė, agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2007 L 123, p. 14), in so far as it concerns the Slovak Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, in so far as it concerns the Slovak Republic; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, in so far as it concerns the Slovak Republic;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by the Slovak Republic. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by the Slovak Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

---