alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010246EN.01004202.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/42

---

Action brought on 1 July 2010 — Bermejo Garde v EESC

(Case F-51/10)

()

2010/C 246/74

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Moises Bermejo Garde (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, annulment of the vacancy notice ESC No 43/09 seeking to fill the post of Director of the Directorate for General Affairs and of all decisions taken on the basis of that vacancy notice. Secondly, an order that the defendant pay the applicant a sum in respect of damages.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the vacancy notice of the ESC No 43/09 seeking to fill the post of Director of the Directorate for General Affairs; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the vacancy notice of the ESC No 43/09 seeking to fill the post of Director of the Directorate for General Affairs;

| — | annul all decisions taken on the basis of the vacancy notice of the ESC No 43/09; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all decisions taken on the basis of the vacancy notice of the ESC No 43/09;

| — | order the defendant to pay EUR 1 000 in respect of damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 1 000 in respect of damages;

| — | order the European Economic and Social Committee to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Economic and Social Committee to pay the costs.

---
#### Murray, appellant, and Elston, respondent.

Decree unanimously affirmed. Opinion of the Vice-Chancellor (an*te, p.*310) adopted as the opinion of this court.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Proteo, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Birge
Bargmann, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, does hereby
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350), that to his 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 result of operations of
          the Company.


Date: NOVEMBER 13, 2006


/s/ Birge Bargmann
------------------------------
Birge Bargmann
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO PROTEO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY AND
WILL BE RETAINED BY PROTEO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Consolidated statements of operations found on pages F-3 to F-6 of the Company's
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                         551,954
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,345,870
<ALLOWANCES>                                   172,645
<INVENTORY>                                  3,027,656
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,001,815
<PP&E>                                       9,604,258
<DEPRECIATION>                                 677,839
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,856,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,096,905
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,527
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,898,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,856,405
<SALES>                                     18,690,454
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,550,949
<CGS>                                       13,842,816
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,523,226
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,680,410
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             646,947
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,447,032
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (615,919)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,062,951
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,062,951
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

NO. DA 23-0017

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DARREN CHARLES DEMARIE, 

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good 

cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to 

and including January 12, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s 

opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 5 2023

12/05/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0017
### §1663. Advertising of open end credit plans

No advertisement to aid, promote, or assist directly or indirectly the extension of consumer credit under an open end credit plan may set forth any of the specific terms of that plan unless it also clearly and conspicuously sets forth all of the following items:

(1) Any minimum or fixed amount which could be imposed.

(2) In any case in which periodic rates may be used to compute the finance charge, the periodic rates expressed as annual percentage rates.

(3) Any other term that the Bureau may by regulation require to be disclosed.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title I, §143, May 29, 1968, 82 Stat. 158; Pub. L. 96–221, title VI, §§613(f), 619(a), Mar. 31, 1980, 94 Stat. 177, 183; Pub. L. 111–203, title X, §1100A(2), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2107.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2010—Par. (3). Pub. L. 111–203 substituted "Bureau" for "Board".

1980—Pub. L. 96–221 in existing introductory text struck out applicability of rate determined under section 1637(a)(5) of this title, and amended section generally substituting items setting forth minimum or fixed amount, etc., set out in pars. (1) to (3), for items time period, etc., set out in pars. (1) to (5).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the designated transfer date, see section 1100H of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 552a of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### Effective Date of 1980 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–221 effective on expiration of two years and six months after Mar. 31, 1980, with all regulations, forms, and clauses required to be prescribed to be promulgated at least one year prior to such effective date, and allowing any creditor to comply with any amendments, in accordance with the regulations, forms, and clauses prescribed by the Board prior to such effective date, see section 625 of Pub. L. 96–221, set out as a note under section 1602 of this title.
#### § 550.6 Information and reports required from official establishment operators.

The information and reporting requirements in 9 CFR 320.6 for operators of official establishments apply with respect to fish and fish products as they do with respect to other species amenable to the FMIA.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ Nos. 96-40286 & 96-40287 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus STEPHON DAMONT JOHNSON, MICHAEL ERIC MERKSON, Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC Nos. 4:95-CR-22-1 & 4:95-CR-22-2

- - - - - - - - - - December 17, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Stephon Johnson and Michael Merkson appeal their convictions following conditional guilty pleas to aiding and abetting in the possession of less than 50 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute. They contend that the district court erred in denying their joint motion to suppress the evidence seized after their traffic stop.Nos. 96-40286 & 96-40287 - 2 - Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities convinces us that the district court’s refusal to suppress the marijuana found in the search was not error. See United States v. Kelley , 981 F.2d 1464, 1467-72 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

mUltett ~tate5 QCourt of ~peaI5

for tbe jfeberaI (!Circuit

APPLE INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND SAMSUNG

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,

Defendants-Cross Appellants.

2012-1600, -1606

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California in case no. 11-CV-1846,

Judge Lucy H. Koh.

ON MOTION

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. and Apple Inc.

each move for a stay, pending appeal, of the orders of the

United States District Court for the Northern District of

California unsealing certain trial and motion exhibits.

Case: 12-1600 Document: 39-1 Page: 1 Filed: 09/18/2012
APPLE INC. V SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 2

In deciding whether to grant a stay or injunction

pending appeal, this court "assesses [the] movant's

chances for success on appeal and weighs the equities as

they affect the parties and the public." E.!. Dupont de

Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 835 F.2d 277,

278 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also Standard Havens Prods. v.

Gencor Indus., 897 F.2d 511 (Fed. Cir. 1990). To prevail,

a movant must establish a strong likelihood of success on

the merits or, failing that, must demonstrate that it has a

substantial case on the merits and that the harm factors

militate in its favor. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770,

778 (1987).

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

The motions are granted.

FOR THE COURT

SEP 18 2012

Date

cc: Kathleen M. Sullivan, Esq.

William F. Lee, Esq.

William R. Stein, Esq.

s19

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

u.s. couJt'MPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

SEP 18Z01£

JAN HORBALY amK

Case: 12-1600 Document: 39-1 Page: 2 Filed: 09/18/2012
Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 404-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 404-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 404-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 404-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 404-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 404-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 404-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 404-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 8 of 8
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS

, §

§ No. 252 , 201 5

Plaintiff Below

, §

Appellant, § Court Below

– Court of

§ Chancery of the State of

v. § Delaware

§

P ERRY PHELPS, MICHAEL § C.A. No. 5121

- VCN

COSTELLO, JAMES §

SCARBOROUGH, MARK D. §

DRUM, MICHAEL FOWLER, §

LARRY SAVAGE and THOMAS §

AIELLO, §

§

Defendants Below, §

Appellees. §

Submitted: June 1, 2015

Decided: June 3 , 2015

Before HOLLAND

, VALIHURA and SEITZ

, Justices.

O R D E R

This 3 rd day of June 2015

, it appears to the Court that:

( 1 ) Th is appeal is from an order dated April 14, 2015

, dismissing

the appellant’s complaint in the Court of Chancery. The appellant, James

Arthur Biggins, is incarcerated at t he James T. Vaughn Correctional Center,

a Delaware correctional facility. The office of the Clerk received Biggins’

notice of appeal on May 19, 2015, thirty

- five days after entry upon the

docket of the April 14, 2015 order.2

(2) “It is well

- established tha t time is a jurisdictional requirement

in Delaware.” 1 A notice of appeal must be received by the o ffice of the

Clerk within thirty days after entry upon the docket of the order from which

the appeal is taken. 2 The only exception to the rule is when the appellant

can demonstrate that the failure to file the appeal within the thirty

- day period

is attributable to court personnel. 3

( 3) On May 19, 2015, the Clerk issued a notice directing Biggins to

show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimel y filed. 4

Biggins filed a response to the notice to show cause on June 1, 2015. In his

response, Biggins asserts that his appeal should be considered as filed on

May 8, 2015, the date he placed the appeal papers in the prison mail system

at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center. B iggins is mistaken. Delaware

has not adopted a rule that deems a prisoner’s notice of appeal “filed” at the

moment of delivery to prison authorities for mailing to the court. 5

( 4 ) Biggins does not dispute that his notice of a ppeal was received

after the thirty

- day appeal period , and neither Biggins nor the record

1 Smith v. State , 47 A.3d 481, 484 (Del. 2012).

2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i), 10(a) , 11(b)

.

3 See Bey v. State , 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979) (allowing untimely appeal when

documentary evidence showed court

- related personnel prevented perfection of timely

appeal).

4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b).

5 Smith v. State , 47 A.3d 481, 486 (Del. 2012).3

suggests that the delay in filing the appeal is attributable to court

- related

personnel. 6 Accordingly, t his case does not fall within the exception to the

general ru le that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule s

6(a)(i) and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

6 See Evans v. State , 2013 WL 310177 (Del. Jan. 25, 2013) (“Priso n personnel are not

court

- related personnel.”).
§ 93.420 Ruminants from Canada for immediate slaughter other than sheep and goats. ( a ) *General requirements.* The requirements for the importation of sheep and goats from Canada for immediate slaughter are contained in § 93.435. There are no BSE-related restrictions on the importation of cervids or camelids from Canada. All other ruminants imported from Canada for immediate slaughter, in addition to meeting all other applicable requirements of this part, may be imported only under the following conditions: ( 1 ) The ruminants must be imported only through a port of entry listed in § 93.403(b) or as provided for in § 93.403(f) and be inspected at the port of entry and otherwise handled in accordance with § 93.408.
( 2 ) The ruminants must be moved directly from the port of entry to a recognized slaughtering establishment in conveyances that are sealed with seals of the U.S. Government at the port of entry. The seals may be broken only at the recognized slaughtering establishment by an authorized USDA representative.
( 3 ) The ruminants must be accompanied from the port of entry to the recognized slaughtering establishment by APHIS Form VS 17-33, which must include the location of the recognized slaughtering establishment.
( b ) *Bovines.* In addition to meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, bovines may be imported from Canada for immediate slaughter only under the following conditions: ( 1 ) The bovines must have been born after March 1, 1999, the date determined by APHIS to be the date of effective enforcement of a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in Canada;
( 2 ) Before the animal's arrival at the port of entry into the United States, each bovine imported into the United States from Canada must be officially identified with unique individual identification that is traceable to the premises of origin of the animal. No person may alter, deface, remove, or otherwise tamper with the official identification while the animal is in the United States or moving into or through the United States, except that the identification may be removed at slaughter; and
( 3 ) The bovines must be accompanied by a certificate issued in accordance with § 93.405 that states, in addition to the statements required by § 93.405, that the conditions of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section have been met.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 0579-0234 and 0579-0393) [78 FR 72996, Dec. 4, 2013, as amended at 86 FR 68859, Dec. 3, 2021; 87 FR 29, Jan. 3, 2022]
§ 381.521 Transition to official establishment. ( a ) If an establishment is deselected from a cooperative interstate shipment program as provided in § 381.520 of this subpart, FSIS, in coordination with the State where the establishment is located, will develop and implement a plan to transition the establishment to become an official establishment. Except that an establishment that was deselected from a cooperative interstate shipment program because it is located in a State whose agreement for such a program was terminated may either transition to become an official establishment or transition to become a State-inspected establishment under the cooperative State poultry products inspection program.
( b ) An establishment that has been deselected from a cooperative interstate shipment program and successfully transitioned to become an official establishment may withdraw from the Federal inspection program and resume operations under the cooperative State poultry products inspection program after operating as an official establishment in full compliance with the Act for a year.
#### § 319.101 Corned beef brisket.

In preparing “Corned Beef Brisket,” the application of curing solution to the beef brisket shall not result in an increase in the weight of the finished cured product of more than 20 percent over the weight of the fresh uncured brisket. If the product is cooked, the weight of the finished product shall not exceed the weight of the fresh uncured brisket.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTMEBER 30, 1996 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q QUARTERLY
REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,468,888
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     44,146
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         161,234
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        36,564
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,710,832
<COMMON>                                       308,140
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                         (594)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            337,165
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 644,711
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     40,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           546,373
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              29,900
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       21
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 449,827
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,710,832
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      536,769
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            38,710
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     410,286
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     448,996
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         87,773
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               8,610
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  96,383
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        31,498
<NET-INCOME>                                    64,885
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   64,885
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        48,785
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       28,247
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         144,046
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.72
        

</TABLE>
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FLAVIO NUNEZ-REYES, aka Flavio 

Reyes,

No. 05-74350 Petitioner,

Agency No.

v.  A078-181-648

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney ORDER General,

Respondent. 

Filed September 24, 2010

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it

is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit

Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as

precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

16705