alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09

- 15

- 00 03 6

- CV



### _________________

IN RE MUJTABA ALI KHAN

________________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for writ of mandamus and request for temporary relief, Mujtaba

Ali Khan asks this Court to direct the judge of the 284th District Court of

Montgomery County, Texas to vacate a turnover order and to stay execution on a

final judgment

. Relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. We

deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and the motion for temporary relief. See

Tex. R. App. P. 52.8.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 26, 2015 Opinion Delivered January 27, 2015

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
# C_2006326EN.01000402.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven –Netherlands) — Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun UA v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-248/04) (1)

1

(Preliminary reference - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Sugar - Article 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 and Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 - Charge due for C Sugar disposed of on the internal market - Inapplicability of Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 - No possibility of repayment or remission on grounds of equity - Validity of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 and Regulation No 2670/81 - Principles of equality and legal certainty - Equity)

(2006/C 326/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun UA

Applicant:

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Validity of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 1981 L 177, p. 4) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota (OJ 1981 L 262, p. 14) where there is no procedure for the remission of additional levies comparable to that provided for in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ 1979 L 175, p. 1) — Remission on equitable grounds — Producer of non-quota sugar (C sugar) not involved in a case of fraud established by the national authorities and who, for reasons relating to the investigation, was not immediately informed thereof

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the first question has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 305/91 of 4 February 1991, or of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3559/91 of 6 December 1991.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 28.08.2004.

1

---
US.oe~crtmonf 01 TronJPcrtotlort

Q:t'c.eOI! ·.e-Si,;:'e;'-:lfyOt Ir':''''SD':'' ".J,.::,f'\

DESIGNATION OF AGENT FOR

SERVICE OF NOTICE. :'ROCESS. ORDERS

DECISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

Chief. Documentary Services Dr

Department of T ransportation

Washington. D.C, 20590

r\ nENTIO~: DOCKET SECTION, C-55

Blue Jet Sp. Z 0.0.

(Name of Company. please print)

office ill

02.-146 Warsaw, uL ;7 S!;,'c;:nic.47, F'olar.d

------------------ (Ac!.Jres'»

hereby de,igotes. pursuant to section .•610" of Title ";9 of the l:.S. Code tforrnerly -ectlon I005tb) of the Fe Jeral A\ iu.ion Act

or 1958. a, amended) ['l~ person named below JS irs A,;cnr upcn whom service of ~II notices ~nd f ;0<:';.''-; am! all nrdl!r,. deci: ior»..

and requirel--~nl' otthc Deportment ofTransportctlcn may be nude for j,'j on behclf of "iJ carrier. hereby canceling all previc J'

designations of agent, made by it to the DOT.

NaIT,: of Agent Gary 8, Garofalo. Garcfalo Goerfich Hainbac.:l P . (sgmofalo~ -gh-airl~~~ __ .

(Please Pi int)

Address

1200 New Hamr;shire Ave. NvV, Suite 590, Wa~i1inJ!on DC 2J02.6 ~'~;)ne 202-776-3970

The Agent so designated has wrir.cn his name and also his initials i:l the following space:

Name a/;~" +",-_-=-="-+_~__ pEr-.</~tL/~ (o.n~.l;)._!'-L.S /)'L:.......C·tL~;L.~ _

l/ I -. . '<

iN WITNESS WHEREOF, 8!:Je Jet Sp, Z 0.0. _______ h&~caused 11.~~e

(Name of Cor.ipany)

presents !O be signeJ in its name by

"""'{\\./v,'" (1.,c.Nu'~

___ ...__) I-'[.:....:.l'_-_ ••• ~ • President

(Please Print)

\'f said company. and 10 be auesred under ::5 corporate seal by

(;flOCI-/OL A CF-O----

f'Z' d,' . ~1

on In;s _-,,<-~.,-'...;7";.."_ day of __ ---<./..J(~IA'_'!vc..::;~_I....:_'J _

(Secretary. or or..er Title)

By:
#### Joyce Scagliola *v.*Lester L. Scagliola

*Arnold M, Sweig,*for the appellee (defendant).

*Byszard 8. Mrotek,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

Argued May 7

decided May 7, 1974

The defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is granted.
#### § 700.35 Applicant.

A person who applies for relocation assistance benefits and agrees to relocate as required by the Act.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(Nos. 333-106328 and 333-114078) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-26797,333-30771, 333-39213, 333-39189, 333-69761, 333-69765,333-93413, 333-93407, 333-67790, 333-97891 and 333-111253)of Vital Images, Inc. of our report dated March 2, 2005, relating tothe consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

 
| PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
|----------------------------|
| Minneapolis, Minnesota     |
| March 15, 2005        |

 

67

----
# C_2007117EN.01002901.xml

| 26.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/29

---

Action brought on 23 March 2007 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament

(Case T-89/07)

(2007/C 117/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VIP Car Solutions (Hoenheim, France) (represented by G. Welzer, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

| — | annul the decision of the European Parliament not to award the contract PE/2006/06/UTD/1 — transport for Members of the European Parliament during sessions in Strasbourg, notified on 24 January 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament not to award the contract PE/2006/06/UTD/1 — transport for Members of the European Parliament during sessions in Strasbourg, notified on 24 January 2007;

| — | annul all subsequent acts; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all subsequent acts;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the sum of EUR 500 000 as damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the sum of EUR 500 000 as damages;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs of the legal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs of the legal proceedings;

| — | order the Parliament to pay one-off costs amounting to EUR 5 000 |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay one-off costs amounting to EUR 5 000

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges the decision of the European Parliament rejecting its tender in tender procedure PE/2006/06/UTD/1 — transport for Members of the European Parliament during sessions in Strasbourg (1).

1

In support of its action, the applicant relies, first, on an infringement of the award criteria contained in the call for tenders, particularly, concerning price inasmuch as it claims to have offered the lowest price and that that criteria should have accounted for 55 % in the award of the contract.

Moreover, the applicant asserts that the contested decision breached Article 100 of the Financial Regulation (2), under which certain details need not be disclosed where disclosure would harm the legitimate business interests of private undertakings or could distort fair competition between those undertakings. According to the applicant, the information which it requested, namely the price offered by the successful tenderer, does not fall within the scope of the Article and, consequently, the refusal to disclose it to the applicant is improper.

2

---

(1)  Contract notice ‘Chauffeur-driven car and minibus service for Members of the European Parliament during part sessions in Strasbourg’, OJ 2006 S 177-187988.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.

2

---
#### Carl G. Gustafson *et al. vs.*Zoning Board of Review of the City of Warwick.

MAY 19, 1950.

Present: Flynn, C. J., Capotosto, Baker, Condon and O’Connell, JJ.

Capotosto, J.

This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the respondent board granting to John *74Assalone a variance under the zoning ordinance of the city of Warwick. The writ was issued and the record of the board has been duly certified to this court.

*Charles H. Drwmmey, Edmund J. Carberry, Jr.,*for petitioners.

*Hailes L. Palmer,*City Solicitor, for respondent.

John Assalone’s land is in a residence B district. The variance granted by the board authorizes him to erect a building for bowling alleys and to maintain a parking lot in connection therewith, both of which uses are not permitted in such a district under the ordinance. Petitioners make two contentions: first, that Assalone’s application is so incomplete, misleading and otherwise defective as to be insufficient in law for consideration by the board; and secondly, that the decision of the board is arbitrary and capricious in that it disregards material facts and assumes others as to which there is no legal evidence. At the hearing before us counsel for the board made every reasonable effort to meet these contentions but when the deficiencies in the record appeared to him to be insurmountable he requested that the case be remanded to the board “for clarification.”

Our examination of the record discloses that the infirmities inherent in both Assalone’s application and the decision of the board are of such a nature that they cannot be cured by clarification. It is our judgment that in justice to all parties concerned the application for a variance involved in the instant case should be denied at this time, without prejudice, however, to the right of Assalone to institute completely new proceedings before the board by a proper application if he so desires. In the circumstances no further discussion of the record now before us is necessary.

The petition is granted, the record is quashed without prejudice as above set forth, and the papers in the case are ordered sent back to the respondent board.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dwayne Mitchell, Appellant.

[828 NYS2d 1]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered February 3, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of SSVa years to life, unanimously affirmed.

*359The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility.

Defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). At defendant’s first trial, which ended in a hung jury, prior counsel called a certain witness. At the retrial, substitute counsel was unable to locate this witness, and the court ruled that counsel failed to make a sufficient showing of diligence to permit introduction of the witness’s prior testimony under CPL article 670. We conclude that counsel’s failings in this regard did not cause defendant any prejudice or deprive him of a fair trial, because the record of the first trial reveals that this witness’s testimony was of indirect and very limited exculpatory value. The fact that the trial at which she testified resulted in a hung jury does not warrant a different conclusion, particularly since the People presented a stronger case at the second trial, including a new corroborating witness. As for defendant’s attacks on his counsel’s cross-examination and summation strategy, to the extent these claims are reviewable on direct appeal, we conclude that counsel’s choice of focus met the standard of reasonableness, and that even if counsel had pursued the lines of cross-examination and summation suggested by defendant on appeal, there is not even a reasonable possibility that the outcome would have been different.

The hearing court properly exercised its discretion in reopening the suppression hearing, before rendering its decision on the merits, to permit the People to present an additional witness, since the danger of the evidence being tailored to meet the court’s requirements was minimal under the circumstances *(see People v Widgeon,*303 AD2d 330 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 589 [2003]).

The court properly imposed a consecutive term for third-degree weapon possession. The evidence established that defendant possessed the weapon before the shooting, in a separate event from the murder and second-degree weapon possession *(see People v Hamilton, 4*NY3d 654 [2005]; *People v Rosario,*26 AD3d 271 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 897 [2006]). Concur— Buckley, EJ., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4312]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self 
Employed Correspondence Exam Practitioner Engagement Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/
Self Employed Correspondence Exam Practitioner Engagement Project 
Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting 
public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service 
at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, April 27, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 
206-220-6098.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self 
Employed Correspondence Exam Practitioner Engagement Project Committee 
will be held Wednesday, April 27, 2011, at 9 a.m., Pacific Time via 
telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or 
submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference 
lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Janice 
Spinks. For more information please contact Ms. Spinks at 1-888-912-
1227 or 206-220-6098, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, 
Seattle, WA 98174 or post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: February 18, 2011.
Shawn Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2011-4312 Filed 2-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Date: 02

- xx

- 2015

California Environmental Protection Agency

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Enclosure A

Rules that were Adopted or Amended by the Following

Air Pollution Control and Air Quality Management Districts

and are Submitted as Revisions to the

California State Implementation Plan

District Rule

Number Date Adopted

or

Amended Title

Monterey Bay

Unified APCD 1002 12/17/14 Transfer of Gasoline into

Vehicle Fuel Tanks

(amended)

Monterey Bay

Unified APCD 201 10/15/14 Sources Not Requiring

Permits (amended)

San Joaquin Valley

APCD 4905 01/22/15 Natural Gas

- Fired, Fan

- Type

Central Furnac es (amended)

South Coast AQMD 1111 09/05/14 Reduction of NOx Emissions

from Natural Gas

- Fired, Fan

Type Central Furnaces

(amended)

South Coast AQMD 1151 09/05/14 Motor Vehicle and Mobile

Equipment Non

- Assembly

Line Coating Operations

(amended)

South Co ast AQMD 1153.1 11/07/14 Emissions of Oxides of

Nitrogen from Commercial

Food Ovens (adopted)California Environmental Protection Agency

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Enclosure A (continued)

Rules that were Adopted or Amended by the Following

Air Pollution Control and Air Quality Management Districts

and are Submitted As Revisions to the

California State Implementation Plan

District Rule

Numbe r Date Adopted

or Amended Title

Ventura County

APCD 74.33 01/13/15 Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Transfer or Dispensing

(adopted)

2
COLUMBUS MCKINNON CORPORATION THRIFT 401(K) PLAN
                  AMENDMENT NO. 5 OF THE 1998 PLAN RESTATEMENT


     Columbus  McKinnon  Corporation  (the  "Corporation")   hereby  amends  the
Columbus McKinnon  Corporation  Thrift 401(K) Plan (the "Plan"),  as amended and
restated in its entirety  effective  January 1, 1998, and as further  amended by
Amendment  Nos. 1 through 4, as permitted  under  Section  14.1 of the Plan,  as
follows:

1.   Section 4.3, entitled  "Adjustments",  is amended effective January 1, 2002
     by changing Section 4.3(a) to read as follows:

          "(a)  LIMITS  ON  HIGHLY  COMPENSATED  EMPLOYEES.  The  Committee  may
     establish and modify from time to time maximum  limits on the percentage of
     Base  Salary  that may be  contributed  to the Plan  during a Plan  Year or
     portion of a Plan Year by Participants  who are, or who are expected to be,
     Highly  Compensated  Employees  for such Plan Year if it believes that such
     limits are  appropriate  in order to satisfy any limitation of Section 4.2.
     Pursuant to the authority granted in the preceding sentence,  the Committee
     has limited Salary Reduction  Contributions of Highly Compensated Employees
     to rates not  exceeding  9 percent for the Plan Year  beginning  January 1,
     2002."

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  this  instrument  of amendment has been executed by a
duly authorized officer of the Corporation this 20th day of December, 2002.


                                          COLUMBUS McKINNON CORPORATION


                                          By /s/ R.L. Montgomery
                                             ------------------------------


                                          Title Executive Vice President
                                                -----------------------------


<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 1151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-44]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ11-10-000]


City of Azusa, CA; Notice of Filing

December 30, 2010.
    Take notice that on December 23, 2010, the City of Azusa, 
California (Azusa) filed its annual revisions to is Transmission 
Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment and a related modification to 
Appendix I to Azusa's Transmission Owner Tariff (TO), consistent with 
its TO filed in Docket No. EL03-21-000 and the California Independent 
System Operator Corporation Electric Tariff.
    Azusa also requests any necessary waivers by the Commission to 
allow this filing to be accepted for filing and approved by the 
Commission to become effective as of January 1, 2011.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8fc9caddccc0e1e3e6e1eadcfaffffe0fdfbcfe9eafdeca1e8e0f9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e7a1a2b5a4a8898b8e8982b4929797889593a781829584c9808891">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 24, 2011.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-44 Filed 1-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### §1249. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–230, §24, Sept. 8, 1959, 73 Stat. 466

Section, act Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title II, §209(i), 42 Stat. 1468, related to allotment to Department of Agriculture of amount necessary for administration of functions vested therein.
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Micro Interconnect
Technology, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Pingji Lu,
Chief Executive Officer and President of Micro Interconnect Technology, Inc.,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Micro
Interconnect Technology, Inc. as of and for the period covered by the Report.

Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission,
this certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.

November 15, 2004                /s/ Pingji Lu
                                 Pingji Lu
                                 Chief Executive Officer and President