alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 520.1422 Metoserpate hydrochloride. ( a ) *Chemical name.* Methyl-*o*-methyl-18-epireserpate hydrochloride.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.410 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use.* It is used in drinking water for replacement chickens as follows: ( 1 ) *Amount.* 568.5 milligrams per gallon (0.015 percent). ( i ) *Indications for use.* As a tranquilizer for flock treatment of chickens prior to handling.
( ii ) *Limitations.* To be used one time as a treatment for replacement chickens up to 16 weeks of age; usual drinking water should be withheld prior to treatment to provide adequate consumption of medicated drinking water; not for use in laying chickens; chickens slaughtered within 72 hours following treatment must not be used for food.
( 2 ) *Amount.* 2 to 4 milligrams per 2.2 pounds of body weight. ( i ) *Indications for use.* As an aid in control of hysteria.
( ii ) *Limitations.* To be used as a treatment for replacement chickens up to 16 weeks of age; usual drinking water should be withheld prior to treatment to provide adequate consumption of medicated drinking water; the drug should be administered at a dosage level of 4 milligrams per 2.2 pounds of body weight followed by 2 treatments at 4-day intervals of 2 milligrams per 2.2 pounds of body weight; not for use in laying chickens; chickens slaughtered within 72 hours following treatment must not be used for food.
[40 FR 13838, Mar. 27, 1975, as amended at 76 FR 17337, Mar. 29, 2011; 78 FR 28824, May 20, 2014]
# C_2016027EN.01004901.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — adp Gauselmann v OHIM (Multi Win)

(Case T-529/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Multi Win - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 027/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Lübbecke, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2014 (Case R 1326/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Multi Win as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders adp Gauselmann GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders adp Gauselmann GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Partnership's interim financial statements for the six months ended September
30, 1995 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                   1000
        
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           4,668
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      432
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (1)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,107
<PP&E>                                          42,384
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,179
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              403
<BONDS>                                         21,187
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,650
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,912
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      860
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 904
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    694
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                694
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       694
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.90
        

</TABLE>
619 P.2d 1062

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Carl William Rieck DAVIS, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 1938.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Sept. 29, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 5, 1980.

Review Denied Dec. 2, 1980.

*286Roy A. Mendoza, Pinal County Atty. by William J. Pearlman, Deputy County Atty., Florence, for appellee.

Harry Bagnall, Coolidge, for appellant.

OPINION

HATHAWAY, Chief Judge.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a class three felony, a violation of A.R.S. Secs. 13-1204(A)(1), 13-1204(A)(2) and 13-1203. He was sentenced to serve five years in prison. Appellant had originally *been*charged with the March 24, 1979, aggravated assault upon Robert Neis Ellingson and also upon Mrs. Ellingson. He was tried on August 14, 1979, and was found not guilty of the assault upon Mrs. Ellingson. The jury was unable to agree on a verdict as to the other assault counts. A second trial was held beginning October 10, 1979, and appellant was found guilty of the assault which is the basis of this appeal.

Appellant’s assignment of error is one of first impression in Arizona: He claims that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to introduce into evidence the fact that he had been tried for the crime of aggravated assault on Mrs. Ellingson and had been found not guilty. The testimony in the trial court which was admitted without objection showed that appellant shot Robert Ellingson in the throat. He then grabbed Mrs. Ellingson and held a pistol to her head. After Mrs. Ellingson pleaded for her life, appellant dropped the pistol. Mrs. Elling-son then ran and called the police.

Appellant did not in the trial court and does not now question the admissibility of the testimony showing an assault upon Mrs. Ellingson.1 The sole issue is whether appellant was entitled to introduce evidence that he had been tried and acquitted of assaulting Mrs. Ellingson. Although there is authority to the contrary, (see Annot., 86 A.L.R.2d 1132, 1135, 1145-46 (1962)), the better rule allows proof of an acquittal to weaken and rebut the prosecution’s evidence of the other crime. See *People v. Griffin,*66 Cal.2d 459, 58 Cal.Rptr. 107, 426 P.2d 507 (1967), and authorities cited therein. See also, *Womble*v. *State,*8 Md.App. 119, 258 A.2d 786 (1969); *State v. Smith,*271 Or. 294, 532 P.2d 9 (1975).

The judgment is reversed and the matter' remanded for a new trial consistent with the views expressed herein.

HOWARD and RICHMOND, JJ., concur.

1

. In State *v. Little,*87 Ariz. 295, 350 P.2d 756 (1960), the court held that under the facts presented, evidence of a crime of which the defendant had been acquitted was not admissible. Query: Does this mean such evidence is never admissible? See *Hernandez v. U. S.,*370 F.2d 171 (9th Cir. 1966).
**UNITED STATESSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWASHINGTON, D.C. 20549**

----

**FORM 10-Q**

----

**[X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2001

OR
**[   ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

Commission File Number 0-17589

**NTS-PROPERTIES VII, LTD.**

Incorporated pursuant to the Laws of the State of Florida

Internal Revenue Service - Employer Identification No. 61-1119232

10172 Linn Station Road, Louisville, Kentucky 40223

(502) 426-4800

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant  (1) has filed all reports  required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange  Act of 1934  during the  preceding  12 months (or for such  shorter  period  that the  registrant  was  required to file suchreports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.               Yes |X|      No  |   |

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**PART I**
Pages Item 1.Financial Statements Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2001 and December 31, 20003 Statement of Partners' Equity as of June 30, 20013 Statements of Operations for the Three Months and    Six Months Ended June 30, 2001 and 20004  Statements of Cash Flows for the Six Months Ended    June 30, 2001 and 20005  Notes to Financial Statements6-11  Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition    and Results of Operations12-18  Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk19  
**PART II**
  Item 1.Legal Proceedings20  Item 2.Changes in Securities20  Item 3.Defaults Upon Senior Securities20  Item 4.Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders20  Item 5.Other Information20  Item 6.Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K20  Signatures21
2

**PART I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION**

**Item 1 - Financial Statements**

**NTS-PROPERTIES VII, LTD.**
§ 510.210 Revocation of an import tolerance. ( a ) The Commissioner, on his or her own initiative or on the petition of an interested person, under § 10.25 of this chapter, may revoke an import tolerance if: ( 1 ) Scientific evidence shows an import tolerance to be unsafe; or
( 2 ) Information demonstrates that the use of a new animal drug under actual use conditions results in food being imported into the United States with residues exceeding the import tolerance.
( b ) The Commissioner will provide public notification under § 510.207(b) that will specify the basis for the decision and will be effective at the time the information is made available to the public.
( c ) A petition for revocation must be submitted in the form specified in § 10.30 of this chapter.
§ 640.120 Alternative procedures. ( a ) The Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, may issue an exception or alternative to any requirement in subchapter F of chapter I of title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations regarding blood, blood components, or blood products. The Director may issue such an exception or alternative in response to: ( 1 ) A written request from an establishment. Licensed establishments must submit such requests in accordance with § 601.12 of this chapter;
( 2 ) An oral request from an establishment, if there are difficult circumstances and submission of a written request is not feasible. Establishments must follow up such oral request by submitting written requests under paragraph (a)(1) of this section within 5 working days.
( b ) To respond to a public health need, the Director may issue a notice of exception or alternative to any requirement in subchapter F of chapter I of title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations regarding blood, blood components, or blood products, if a variance under this section is necessary to assure that blood, blood components, or blood products will be available in a specified location or locations to address an urgent and immediate need for blood, blood components, or blood products or to provide for appropriate donor screening and testing.
( c ) If the Director issues such an exception or alternative orally, the Director will follow up by issuing a written notice of the exception or alternative. Periodically, FDA will provide a list of approved exceptions and alternative procedures on the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Web site.
[80 FR 29906, May 22, 2015]
# C_2014102EN.01001601.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 23 January 2014 — ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt. v Attila Sugár

(Case C-32/14)

2014/C 102/22

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.

Applicant:

Defendant: Attila Sugár

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a procedure of a Member State comply with Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) if, under that procedure, in the event of a breach by the consumer of an obligation contained in a document in due form drawn up by a notary, the other party to the contract avoids inter partes proceedings before a court and asserts its claim to the amount it indicates by issuing what is known as an enforcement clause, without any examination being possible of the unfairness of a term of the underlying contract? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a procedure of a Member State comply with Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) if, under that procedure, in the event of a breach by the consumer of an obligation contained in a document in due form drawn up by a notary, the other party to the contract avoids inter partes proceedings before a court and asserts its claim to the amount it indicates by issuing what is known as an enforcement clause, without any examination being possible of the unfairness of a term of the underlying contract?

1

| 2. | In such a procedure may the consumer request the annulment of the enforcement clause already issued on the basis that there was no examination of the unfairness of a term of the underlying contract, whereas, according to the judgment in Case C-472/11, in court proceedings the court must inform the consumer if it finds that a term is unfair? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In such a procedure may the consumer request the annulment of the enforcement clause already issued on the basis that there was no examination of the unfairness of a term of the underlying contract, whereas, according to the judgment in Case C-472/11, in court proceedings the court must inform the consumer if it finds that a term is unfair?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts; OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

1

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONGXING LIN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71448

Agency No. A099-048-457

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 14, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Dongxing Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

NOV 10 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.

2006). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Lin’s CAT claim because

Lin failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured. See Go v.

Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1053-54 (9th Cir. 2011) (petitioner failed to show

sufficient probability of torture to satisfy high CAT standard). Thus, Lin’s CAT

claim fails.

Substantial evidence does not, however, support the BIA’s finding that Lin

failed to establish his actual and/or imputed political opinion was or would be a

central reason for arrest and mistreatment by the police, where Lin testified the

police questioned him about his actions “to oppose the government” and beat him

when he asserted the protest he led was an attempt to maintain his legal rights. See

Hu v. Holder, 352 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Even though there might have

been multiple motivations for the government’s mistreatment of [the petitioner],

his credible testimony compels a finding that one of the central reasons for his

alleged persecution was because of a protected ground – his expression of a

political opinion, actual or imputed.”).

2 10-71448
Thus, we grant Lin’s petition for review with respect to his asylum and

withholding of removal claims and remand for further proceedings consistent with

this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.

3 10-71448
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

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
Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), we, Hadi Makarechian, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company and Steven O. Spelman, Jr., Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 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
    result of operations of the Company.



| |     |                     
| | --- | --------------------
| | By: | /s/ HADI MAKARECHIAN

| |                                
| | -------------------------------
| |                                
| | Hadi Makarechian               
| | Chairman of the Board, Chief   
| | Executive Officer and President
| | (Principal Executive Officer)  



| |     |                           
| | --- | --------------------------
| | By: | /s/ STEVEN O. SPELMAN, JR.

| |                                                    
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| |                                                    
| | Steven O. Spelman, Jr.                             
| | Chief Financial Officer and Corporate
    Secretary
| | (Principal Financial Officer)                      

Date: October 15, 2003
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6144

WILLIAM ANDREW ESTES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JAMES HARDY, Administrator, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00019) Submitted: May 10, 2007 Decided: May 15, 2007 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Andrew Estes, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: William Andrew Estes seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Estes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Estes’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED