alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014380EN.01000301.xml

| 27.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/3

---

Action brought on 20 August 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-398/14)

2014/C 380/03

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by not ensuring an adequate level of treatment of urban waste water in the 52 listed agglomerations regarding which there is infringement, the Portuguese Republic did not comply with its duties under Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by not ensuring an adequate level of treatment of urban waste water in the 52 listed agglomerations regarding which there is infringement, the Portuguese Republic did not comply with its duties under Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment.

1

| — | Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC establishes in particular that, at the latest by 31 December 2005, discharges of urban waste water to fresh-water and estuaries from agglomerations with a population equivalent of between 2  000 and 10  000 must, before discharge, be subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment.

The Commission considers that there is a systemic problem in Portugal, as the Portuguese State has not taken planning measures, either at national or regional level, to ensure orderly compliance with the provisions of Directive 91/271/EEC.

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.

1

---
```

[House Document 116-32]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

116th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - House Document 116-32
 
              DESIGNATING BRAZIL AS A MAJOR NON-NATO ALLY

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                     THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

  NOTICE OF THE INTENT TO DESIGNATE BRAZIL AS A MAJOR NON-NATO ALLY, 
 PURSUANT TO 22 U.S.C. 2321k(a); PUBLIC LAW 87-195, SEC. 517 (AS ADDED 
   BY PUBLIC LAW 104-164, TITLE I, SEC. 147(a)(1)); (110 STAT. 1434)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

May 8, 2019.--Message and accompanying papers referred to the Committee 
              on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed

                                   ______
		 
                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
		 
89-011                    WASHINGTON : 2019                 

To the Congress of the United States:
    In accordance with section 517 of the Foreign Assistance 
Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2321k), I am providing 
notice of my intent to designate Brazil as a Major Non-NATO 
Ally.
    I am making this designation in recognition of the 
Government of Brazil's recent commitments to increase defense 
cooperation with the United States, and in recognition of our 
own national interest in deepening our defense coordination 
with Brazil.

                                                   Donald J. Trump.
    The White House, May 8, 2019.

                                  [all]
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6244

THOMAS LYNN ANDREWS, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-828-1) Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 19, 1999Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Lynn Andrews, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Lynn Andrews, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny acertificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Andrews v. North Carolina Attorney General , No. CA-97-828-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 1998). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions Rulemaking

MEMORANDUM TO RECORD

SUBJECT: Meeting with the National Tribal Caucus

DATE: January 9, 2014

TIME: 15 minutes

Participants: (Roll not taken)

EPA – Nancy Stoner, Mike Shapiro

National Tribal Caucus Representatives

Summary of Meeting: As part of an Office of Water update, EPA provided a 15-minute update

on the status of the rulemaking, including that the comment period closed and the number of

public comments received. EPA responded to questions about next steps.

.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

PATRICK JOHN ROPE, a.k.a. Patrick 

Rope,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-10460

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-01400-SRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 25, 2015**

Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Patrick Rope appeals the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of 

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rope argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 2 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-10460

the Guidelines range and to explain why it was imposing an above-Guidelines 

sentence. We review for plain error. See United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 

1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court erred when it failed to calculate the 

Guidelines range. See id. at 1105. The record reflects, however, that the court 

was aware of the Guidelines range and its explanation for the sentence was 

adequate. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc.) 

Thus, Rope has failed to show a reasonable probability that he would have 

received a different sentence absent the error. See United States v. Tapia, 665 

F.3d 1059, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011). Moreover, the record does not support Rope’s 

contention that the district court imposed the sentence to punish Rope’s violation 

conduct or previous criminal acts.

Rope also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The 

district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Rope’s breach of 

the court’s trust and the need to protect the public. See id.; United States v. 

Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                    [KPMG CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LETTERHEAD]

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Pivotal Corporation
(formerly Pivotal Software Inc.)

We consent to the use of our report included herein and to the reference to our
firm under the heading "Experts" in this registration statement on Form F-1.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chartered Accountants
Vancouver, Canada

August 2, 1999
# C_2014142EN.01001501.xml

| 12.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 10 February 2014 — Dragoș Constantin Târșia v Romanian State, through the Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Inmatriculare a Autovehiculelor

(Case C-69/14)

2014/C 142/20

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dragoș Constantin Târșia

Applicant:

Defendants: Romanian State, through the Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Inmatriculare a Autovehiculelor

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Can Articles 17, 20, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union, Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the principle of legal certainty laid down in European Union law and in the case-law of the Court of Justice be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that found in Article 21(2) of Law No 554/2004 which allows for revision of national judicial decisions when there is an infringement of the principle of the primacy of [European Union] law exclusively in administrative proceedings and which does not allow for revision of national judicial decisions delivered in proceedings other than administrative proceedings (civil or criminal proceedings) when there is an infringement of the same principle of primacy of [European Union] law at issue in those decisions?

---
NOS. 07-11-00413-CR AND 07-11-00414-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL D 

APRIL 10, 2012 

BRANDON MICHAEL-RAY BENSON, APPELLANT 

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

FROM THE 52ND DISTRICT COURT OF CORYELL COUNTY; 

NO. FAM-11-20729, FAM-11-20730; HONORABLE TRENT D. FARRELL, JUDGE 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Pending before the court is the motion of appellant Brandon Benson to dismiss 

his two appeals. Appellant and his attorney have both signed the motion. Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion. 

Accordingly, the two appeals are dismissed. No motions for rehearing will be 

entertained and our mandates will issue forthwith. 

 James T. Campbell 

 Justice 

Do not publish.
§ 573.490 Gamma-linolenic acid safflower meal. The food additive consists of the meal obtained after the removal of most of the oil from whole seeds or partially dehulled seeds or both obtained from a *Carthamus tinctorius* L. safflower Centennial variety genetically engineered to express the delta-6-desaturase gene from *Saprolegnia diclina* Humphrey. The 453 amino acid, delta-6-desaturase enzyme converts the fatty acid linoleic acid to gamma-linolenic acid during seed development. The resulting additive may be safely used in cattle and poultry feeds in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The additive shall contain not less than 20 percent crude protein, not more than 40 percent crude fiber, not more than 10 percent moisture, and not more than 2 percent crude fat.
( b ) The crude fat in the additive meets the following specifications: ( 1 ) Gamma-linolenic acid content not to exceed 55 percent.
( 2 ) Total content of stearidonic acid and cis, cis-6, 9-octadecadienoic acid not to exceed a total of 0.5 percent.
( 3 ) Total content of palmitic, stearic, oleic, linoleic, and other associated fatty acids to exceed a total of 40 percent.
( c ) The additive is used or intended for use in cattle and poultry feeds as a source of protein in accordance with good manufacturing and feeding practices.
( d ) To assure safe use of the additive, in addition to the other information required by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the label and labeling of the additive, any feed premix, or complete feed shall bear the following: ( 1 ) The name of the additive or the common name, safflower meal.
( 2 ) Adequate directions for use in cattle and poultry feeds.
( e ) The additive may be identified by the common or usual name, safflower meal.
[80 FR 35569, June 22, 2015]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0 2 70 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOR
- EL RUBEN QUIROZ,

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 December 21 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: James Jeremiah Shea Justice, Montana Supreme Court November 12 2020

11/12/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0270
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF FORTNER, BAYENS, LEVKULICH AND CO., P.C.

                                     EXHIBIT

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS'



To Board of Directors
Front Range Capital Corporation


         We consent to the use in the Form 10-QSB of Front Range Capital
Corporation for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2001 our
report dated July 25, 2001 relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Front
Range Capital Corporation and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2001 and the related
consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income for the three-month and
six-month periods then ended and cash flows for six-month period then ended.







                                      /s/ Fortner, Bayens, Levkulich & Co., P.C.


Denver, Colorado
August 13, 2001
#### Machinery, Scrap Iron, Etc., Local Union No. 714, I. B. of T., a Voluntary Unincorporated Association, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chicago Roll Forming Corporation, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Gen No. 53,416. (Abstract of Decision.)

First District, Third Division.

May 1, 1969.

*102Goldberg & Levin, of Chicago (Mayer Goldberg and Marvin Sacks, of counsel), for appellant;

Phillip S. Makin, of Chicago, for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE DEMPSEY.

Not to be published in full.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
     QUARTERLY REPORT 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000813807
<NAME>                        COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-24-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         11,248
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,156
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               26,238
<PP&E>                                         505,419
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (222,293)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 326,768
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          26,976
<BONDS>                                        317,939
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (18,147)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   326,768
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               48,013
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               37,635
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,827
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,551
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,551
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
#### Russell Anderson *v.*F. Francis D’Addario

King, C. J., Alcorn, House, Thim and Ryan, Js.

Argued October 9

decided October 9, 1969

*Arthur Levy, Jr.,*with whom, on the brief, was *Irwin E. Friedman,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Howard F. Zoarski,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

The trial court reached a permissible result on conflicting evidence.

There is no error.
# C_2014194EN.01001601.xml

| 24.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 14 April 2014 — A v B

(Case C-184/14)

2014/C 194/20

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A

Appellant:

Cross-appellant: B

Cross-appellant:

Question referred

Question referred

May the decision on a request for child maintenance raised in the context of proceedings concerning the legal separation of spouses, being ancillary to those proceedings, be taken both by the court before which those separation proceedings are pending and by the court before which proceedings concerning parental responsibility are pending, on the basis of the prevention criterion, or must that decision of necessity be taken only by the latter court, as the two distinct criteria set out in points (c) and (d) of [Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations] (1) are alternatives (in the sense that they are mutually exclusive)?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 7, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit
32.2











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 Annual Report of Wayside Technology Group, Inc (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Kevin T. Scull, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(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 the
      Company.














/s/
Kevin T.
Scull


Kevin T.
Scull


Vice
President and Chief Accounting Officer


March 12,
2009





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 520.1870 Praziquantel tablets. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each tablet contains: ( 1 ) 34 milligrams (mg) praziquantel.
( 2 ) 11.5 or 23 mg praziquantel.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See sponsors in § 510.600(c) of this chapter. ( 1 ) No. 058198 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section as in paragraph (c)(1) of this section and for use of product described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section as in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
( 2 ) Nos. 069043 and 086101 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section as in paragraphs (c)(1) of this section.
( c ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Dogs* — ( i ) *Amount.* 5 pounds (lb) and under, 1 ⁄ 2 tablet (17 mg); 6 to 10 lb, 1 tablet (34 mg); 11 to 15 lb, 11 ⁄ 2 tablets (51 mg); 16 to 30 lb, 2 tablets (68 mg); 31 to 45 lb, 3 tablets (102 mg); 46 to 60 lb, 4 tablets (136 mg); over 60 lb, 5 tablets maximum (170 mg). Administer directly by mouth or crumbled and in feed.
( ii ) *Indications for use* — ( A ) For removal of canine cestodes *Dipylidium caninum* and *Taenia pisiformis.*
( B ) For removal of the canine cestode *Echinococcus granulosus,* and for removal and control of the canine cestode *Echinococcus multilocularis.*
( iii ) *Limitations* — ( A ) If labeled only for use as in paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A) of this section: Not intended for use in puppies less than 4 weeks of age. Consult your veterinarian before administering tablets to weak or debilitated animals and for assistance in the diagnosis, treatment, and control of parasitism.
( B ) If labeled for use as in paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) of this section: Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
( 2 ) *Cats* — ( i ) *Indications for use.* For removal of feline cestodes *Dipylidium caninum* and *Taenia taeniaeformis.*
( ii ) *Dosage.* Cats 4 pounds and under, 11.5 mg; 5 to 11 pounds, 23 mg; over 11 pounds, 34.5 mg.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Administer directly by mouth or crumbled and in feed. Not intended for use in kittens less than 6 weeks of age. For over the counter use: Consult your veterinarian before administering tablets to weak or debilitated animals, and for assistance in the diagnosis, treatment, and control of parasitism.
[46 FR 60570, Dec. 11, 1981, as amended at 47 FR 26377, June 18, 1982; 55 FR 2234, Jan. 23, 1990; 58 FR 7864, Feb. 10, 1993; 58 FR 42853, Aug. 12, 1993; 68 FR 57351, Oct. 3, 2003; 69 FR 62181, Oct. 25, 2004; 78 FR 17596, Mar. 22, 2013; 81 FR 17607, Mar. 30, 2016; 86 FR 14819, Mar. 19, 2021; 87 FR 58961, Sept. 29, 2022; 88 FR 27699, May 3, 2023]