alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet, Statement of operations, Statement of Cash Flows and Notes thereto
incorporated in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,344
<SECURITIES>                                 2,246,032
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,344
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,247,376
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          376,859
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            3,629
<PREFERRED>                                    850,000
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,016,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,247,376
<SALES>                                          9,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,545
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (44,545)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (44,545)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (44,545)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
# C_2012217EN.01001803.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2012 — Seven Towns Ltd v OHIM (Representation of seven squares of different colours)

(Case T-293/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community mark representing seven squares of different colours - Sign of which a Community trade mark may consist - Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 217/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Seven Towns Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Schäfer, lawyer,)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1475/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of a sign representing seven squares of different colours as a Community mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.

1

---
# C_2010100EN.01005602.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/56

---

Action brought on 5 February 2010 — Riesenthel v OHIM — Dynamic Promotion (Hampers, crates and baskets)

(Case T-53/10)

2010/C 100/83

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Peter Riesenthel (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: E. Aliki Busse, 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 of OHIM: Dynamic Promotion Co. Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 November 2009 and 10 December 2009 (Case R 621/2009-3); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 November 2009 and 10 December 2009 (Case R 621/2009-3);

| — | in the alternative, order restitutio in integrum in relation to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, order restitutio in integrum in relation to the applicant;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community design No 2 179 550 001 for ‘Hampers, crates and baskets’

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Dynamic Promotion Co. Ltd

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Peter Riesenthel

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal as inadmissible

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of the right to be heard and incorrect exercise of discretion by the Board of Appeal

Pleas in law:

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20186

DOROTHY A. EDWARDS; AFRO-AMERICAN POLICE OFFICERS LEAGUE; HOUSTON POLICE ORGANIZATION FOR SPANISH SPEAKING OFFICERS;; LIONEL AARON; BENNIE CONWAY; CLEMENT BOYD CROSBY, JR.; JOSE GARCIA, JR; RICHARD C. GARCIA; MARIA L. GUILLORY; ANTHONY R. JAMMER; CHARLES A. MCCLELLAND; SILAS MONTGOMERY, JR.; CLYDE PHILPOTT; CARL WAYNE REED; RICHARD M. SPENCER; BRUCE D. WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

CITY OF HOUSTON,

Defendant-Appellee,

v.

WILLIE FIELDS; BENNIE L. GREEN;
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

HOUSTON POLICE PATROLMEN’S UNION, AND INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS,HARIL WALPOLE, ET AL., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;

Third Party Intervenors,* 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.

2HOUSTON POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, [Union]; DOUG ELDER; MARK CLARK, individually and as representatives of the general membership of Houston Police Officers Association and all Class A Police Officers Holding the Rank of Police Officer and Sergeant of Police,

Third Party Intervenors and Movants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston

(H-92-2510)

May 9, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We have reviewed the facts and arguments of counsel as set

forth in their respective briefs and have been further informed by

the excellent explication of the issues of this appeal by counsel

at oral argument. As a result, we are convinced that the instant

appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 should be and therefore is dismissed.

See Carson v. American Brands, Inc. , 450 U.S. 79 (1981); Baltimore

Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger , 348 U.S. 176 (1955).

DISMISSED.
(68 South. 135)

No. 21080.

#### STATE v. MEEKS.

(March 22, 1915.)

*(Syllabus by the Court.)*

Criminal Law <&wkey;1114 — Presentation eor Review — Aotirmance.

Where, in a criminal case, the transcript contains no plea, demurrer, motion, bill of exception, or assignment of error, and there is no error patent upon the face of the record, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed. State v. Johns, 49 La. Ann. 1250, 22 South. 328.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2918, 2921; Dec. Dig. &wkey;> 1114.]

Appeal from City Court of Shreveport; L. C. Blanchard, Judge.

John Bleeks was convicted of retailing spirituous and intoxicating liquors without a license, and appeals.

Affirmed.

Cal. D. Hicks, of Shreveport, for appellant. R. G. Pleasant, Atty. Gen., Wm. A. Mabry, Dist. Atty., of Shreveport (G. A. Gondran, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.

MONROE, C. J.

Defendant has lodged an appeal in this court from a conviction and sentence for “retailing spirituous and intoxicating liquors without first having obtained a license from the police jury of Caddo parish” ; but we find no plea, demurrer, motion, bill of exception, or assignment of error in the transcript, and no errors are patent.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM2.5). We are supportive of thelevels ofstandards proposed by many of the leading medical, state and local health groups, and environmental

justice organizations across the nation, which are:

• Reducing the Annual PM2.5 standard to 11 micrograms per cubic meter• Reducing the 24-hr (daily) PM2.5 standard to 25 micrograms per cubic meter• Reducing the Annual PM] 0 standard to 75 micrograms per cubic meter

While we are definitely not known as a ‘science-based’ or ‘environmental organization’, we have members that A understand the science and the public health impacts of PM2.5 and especially how short and long term exposure

of PM2.5 disproportionately affects many ofthe communities our children, grandchildren and our aging parentslive, work, play and pray in everyday oftheir lives. Breathing unhealthy air is unacceptable.

Because ofthe disproportionate impact of air pollution sources, especially in low-income communities of color,it is important that the Environmental Protection Agency work to enact rules that will reduce the number of

hospital emissions, emergency department visits for cardiovascular and respiratory problems — including

asthma, and premature death - that have been shown to increase in areas with higher emissions of particle

pollution, especially for older adults, children and people oflower economic status. These susceptible

populations represent a critical mass in our communities.

Consequently, we thought it was critical that we elevate a voice that you might not have heard before on the J importance ofthe proposed changes in the PM2.5 standard. In the spirit of Executive Order 12898, we hope

that the EPA staffwill move the process forward in an expeditious and efficient manner implement and execute

the revisions we have offered and protect people of color and/or lower income communities that are already

overburdened.

Sincerely,

Angela J. Meszaros, California Environmental Rights Alliance

Antonio Diaz, People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights

Brent Newell, Center on Race, Poverty and the EnvironmentDiane Takvorian, Environmental Health Coalition

Jose T. Bravo, Just Transition Alliance

Martha Dma Arguello, Physicians for Social Responsibility — Los AngelesRoger Kim, Asian Pacific Environmental Network

Tammy Bang Luu, The Labor/Community Strategy Center
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 21.01


                       ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Jurisdiction or State of
 Name of Subsidiary of Alliance Semiconductor Corporation                Incorporation
 --------------------------------------------------------         ------------------------
<S>                                                               <C>
 Alliance Semiconductor Holding Company, LLC                               Delaware

 Alliance Semiconductor International Corporation                       Cayman Islands

 Alliance Semiconductor International Corporation                          Delaware

 Alliance Semiconductor (India) Private Limited                              India

 Alliance Semiconductor, South Africa, LLC                                 Delaware

 Alliance Venture Management, LLC                                         California

 Alliance Ventures I, LP                                                  California

 Alliance Ventures II, LP                                                 California

 Alliance Ventures III, LP                                                California

 Alliance Ventures IV, LP                                                 California

 Alliance Ventures V, LP                                                  California

 Dioptech, Inc.                                                            Delaware

 Nimbus Technology, Inc.                                                  California

 SiPackets, Inc.                                                          California

 Solar Venture Partners, LP                                               California
</TABLE>
# C_2007094EN.01002002.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/20

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4286 — China Shipbuilding/Mitsubishi/Wärtsilä/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 94/07)

On 23 April 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4286. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4286. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
EXHIBIT 32.1
 Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009
filed on the date hereof with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ JOHANN DREYERJohann DreyerChief Executive Officer
#### Trudy Gomberg, Plaintiff-Appellant, *v.*Raymond Gomberg, Defendant-Appellee.

(No. 59718;

First District (1st Division)

November 18, 1974.

*Rehearing denied December 17,1974.*

Rinella and Rinella, of Chicago (Owen L. Doss, of counsel), for appellant.

L. Louis Karton, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.
# C_2013085EN.01000501.xml

| 23.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/5

---

Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Changes to public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 85/05

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Limoges–Paris (Orly) |
| Original date of entry into force of the public service obligations | 8 November 2009 |
| Date of entry into force of the changes | The day after the publication of this notice |
| Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained | Decree of 9 January 2013 amending the public service obligations imposed on scheduled air services between Limoges and Paris (Orly)
  (NOR: DEVA1300178A)
  http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do
  For further information, please contact:





  Direction générale de l’aviation civile |
| DTA/SDT/T2 |
| 50 rue Henry Farman |
| 75720 Paris Cedex 15 |
| FRANCE |
| Tel. +33 158094321 |
| E-mail: osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr |

Member State

France

Route concerned

Limoges–Paris (Orly)

Original date of entry into force of the public service obligations

8 November 2009

Date of entry into force of the changes

The day after the publication of this notice

Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained

Decree of 9 January 2013 amending the public service obligations imposed on scheduled air services between Limoges and Paris (Orly)

(NOR: DEVA1300178A)

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do

For further information, please contact:

Direction générale de l’aviation civile

DTA/SDT/T2

50 rue Henry Farman

75720 Paris Cedex 15

FRANCE

Tel. +33 158094321

E-mail: osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr

---
### §265. Transfer of certain territory to standard central-time zone

The Panhandle and Plains sections of Texas and Oklahoma are transferred to and placed within the United States standard central-time zone.

The Secretary of Transportation is authorized and directed to issue an order placing the western boundary line of the United States standard central-time zone insofar as the same affect Texas and Oklahoma as follows:

Beginning at a point where such western boundary time zone line crosses the State boundary line between Kansas and Oklahoma; thence westerly along said State boundary line to the northwest corner of the State of Oklahoma; thence in a southerly direction along the west State boundary line of Oklahoma and the west State boundary line of Texas to the southeastern corner of the State of New Mexico; thence in a westerly direction along the State boundary line between the States of Texas and New Mexico to the Rio Grande River; thence down the Rio Grande River as the boundary line between the United States and Mexico: Provided, That the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway Company and the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company may use Tucumcari, New Mexico, as the point at which they change from central to mountain time and vice versa; the Colorado Southern and Fort Worth and Denver City Railway Companies may use Sixela, New Mexico, as such changing point; the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company and other branches of the Santa Fe system may use Clovis, New Mexico, as such changing point, and those railways running into or through El Paso may use El Paso as such point: Provided further, That this section shall not, except as herein provided, interfere with the adjustment of time zones as established by the Secretary of Transportation.

(Mar. 4, 1921, ch. 173, §1, 41 Stat. 1446; Pub. L. 97–449, §2(c), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2439.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1983—Pub. L. 97–449 substituted "Secretary of Transportation" for "Interstate Commerce Commission".

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

#### Repeals

Section 2 of act Mar. 4, 1921, repealed all conflicting laws and parts of laws.

#### Transfer of El Paso and Hudspeth Counties, Texas, to Mountain Standard Time Zone

Pub. L. 91–228, Apr. 10, 1970, 84 Stat. 119, provided: "That, notwithstanding the first section of the Act of March 4, 1921 (15 U.S.C. 265), the Secretary of Transportation may, upon the written request of the County Commissioners Court of El Paso County, Texas, change the boundary line between the central standard time zone and the mountain standard time zone, so as to place El Paso County in the mountain standard time zone, in the manner prescribed in section 1 of the Act of March 19, 1918, as amended (15 U.S.C. 261), and section 5 of the Act of April 13, 1966 (15 U.S.C. 266). In the same manner, the Secretary of Transportation may also place Hudspeth County, Texas, in the mountain standard time zone, if the Hudspeth County Commissioners Court so requests in writing and if El Paso County is to be placed in that time zone."
#### The Frances, Boyer, Master : Kennedy’s claim.

*Prize.*— Question *of fact.*

This was likewise a case of goods by the Frances, condemned in the Circuit Court of Rhode Island. They wore claimed by Duncan Kennedy, an American citizen, who appealed to this court. The case was submitted to the court, without argument.

Saturday, March 12th, 1814.

(Absent Livingston, J.),

Marshall, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court, as follows : — Duncan Kennedy, surviving partner of the house of George Stayley & Co., merchants, of New York, jcokqt claims eight boxes of merchandise, part of the cargo of the ship J Frances, as his property. *The invoice is headed—

> “ Glasgow, 8th July, 1812.

> “ Messrs. George Stayley *&*Co.

> Receive from James Smith.”

A letter from James Smith to George Stayley *&*Co., in speaking of the goods, terms them “ our goods,” and does not, in any manner, indicate that they are the goods of Stayley & Co. He concludes his letter with saying, “As it is to be hoped the trade will now open, I shall expect your instructions, saying what goods are best suited for the market.” The bill of lading is filled up with the name of George Stayley & Co., “ on account and risk as per invoice.”

There are several letters from George Stayley, in Glasgow, to his father ; but none of them indicate an opinion, that the property of the goods was in George Stayley & Co. The sentence, condemning these goods, must be affirmed.

Sentence affirmed.
#### § 93.510 Quarantine requirements.

Swine shall be quarantined for not less than 15 days, counting from the date of arrival at the port of entry. During their quarantine, wild swine shall be subject to such inspections, disinfection, blood tests, or other tests as may be required by the Administrator, to determine their freedom from disease and the infection of disease.