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


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          21,855
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,832
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,606)
<INVENTORY>                                     49,471
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               153,429
<PP&E>                                          54,603
<DEPRECIATION>                                (20,809)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 197,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102,918
<BONDS>                                        155,440
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           180
<OTHER-SE>                                    (63,349)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   197,551
<SALES>                                        109,242
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,242
<CGS>                                           76,309
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,309
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,015
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,129
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,789
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,576
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,213
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,213
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Deutsche Telekom AG (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002,
of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

<Table>
<S>                                                      <C>    <C>
                                                                /s/ Kai-Uwe Ricke
                                                                ---------------------------------------
                                                         Name:  Kai-Uwe Ricke
                                                         Title: Chairman of the Management Board
Date: June 27, 2003

                                                                /s/ Karl-Gerhard Eick
                                                                ---------------------------------------
                                                         Name:  Karl-Gerhard Eick
                                                         Title: Deputy Chairman of the Management Board
                                                                Finance and Controlling
Date: June 27, 2003
</Table>

     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code).

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Deutsche Telekom AG and will be retained by Deutsche Telekom AG
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          62,231
<SECURITIES>                                    20,324
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,192,474
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,162,016
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,545,131
<PP&E>                                       9,398,361
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,732,643
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,264,301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,906,838
<BONDS>                                        949,620
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,314,202
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,078,910
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               10,264,,301
<SALES>                                      6,554,377
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,581,801
<CGS>                                        5,961,824
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  495,699
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,687
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,502
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                106,547
<INCOME-TAX>                                    42,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             64,547
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    64,547
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
§ 701.12 Name and place of business of manufacturer, packer, or distributor. ( a ) The label of a cosmetic in package form shall specify conspicuously the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor.
( b ) The requirement for declaration of the name of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor shall be deemed to be satisfied in the case of a corporation only by the actual corporate name, which may be preceded or followed by the name of the particular division of the corporation. Abbreviations for “Company,” “Incorporated,” etc., may be used and “The” may be omitted. In the case of an individual, partnership, or association, the name under which the business is conducted shall be used.
( c ) Where the cosmetic is not manufactured by the person whose name appears on the label, the name shall be qualified by a phrase that reveals the connection such person has with such cosmetic; such as, “Manufactured for _______”, “Distributed by ________”, or any other wording that expresses the facts.
( d ) The statement of the place of business shall include the street address, city, State, and ZIP Code; however, the street address may be omitted if it is shown in a current city directory or telephone directory. The requirement for inclusion of the ZIP Code shall apply only to consumer commodity labels developed or revised after the effective date of this section. In the case of nonconsumer packages, the ZIP Code shall appear either on the label or the labeling (including the invoice).
( e ) If a person manufactures, packs, or distributes a cosmetic at a place other than his principal place of business, the label may state the principal place of business in lieu of the actual place where such cosmetic was manufactured or packed or is to be distributed, unless such statement would be misleading.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 0 2

- 00 088

- CV

Shannon Noble, Individually and as a General Partner of Stone Marketing & Imports;

and Stone Marketing & Imports , Appellants

v.

Ginny Simpson and Roger Simpson , Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GN003105 , HONORABLE JOHN K. DIETZ , JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellants Shannon Noble, individually and as a general partner of Stone Marketing

& Imports, and Stone Marketing & Imports filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal,

informing this Court that they no longer wish to prosecute their appeal. Accordin gly, we grant

appellants

= motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2).

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed on Appellants

= Motion

Filed: April 25, 2002

Do Not Publish
§ 520.1441 Milbemycin. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each flavored tablet contains 2.3, 5.75, 11.5, or 23.0 milligrams (mg) of milbemycin oxime.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See Nos. 013744 and 058198 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Dogs* — ( i ) *Amount.* For hookworm, roundworm, and whipworm, administer 0.23 mg per pound (mg/lb) of body weight (0.5 mg per kilogram (mg/kg)). For heartworm, administer 0.05 mg/lb of body weight (0.1 mg/kg). Administer once a month.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For prevention of heartworm disease caused by *Dirofilaria immitis,* control of hookworm infections caused by *Ancylostoma caninum,* and removal and control of adult roundworm infections caused by *Toxocara canis* and *Toxascaris leonina* and whipworm infections caused by *Trichuris vulpis* in dogs and puppies 4 weeks of age or greater and 2 pounds body weight or greater.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
( 2 ) *Cats* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer 0.91 mg/lb of body weight (2.0 mg/kg) once a month.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For prevention of heartworm disease caused by *Dirofilaria immitis* and the removal of adult *Toxocara cati* (roundworm) and *Ancylostoma tubaeforme* (hookworm) infections in cats 6 weeks of age or greater and 1.5 pounds body weight or greater.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[84 FR 12494, Apr. 2, 2019]
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion on Remand filed May 29 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00769

- CR

CURTIS JAMES PRITCHA RD , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 8

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1804094

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND

Appellant Curtis James Pritchard appeals his conviction for assault of a family member . On original submiss ion, appellant argued that there wa s insufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s costs of $ 342 reflected in the judgment . We agreed and modified the trial court’s judgment to delete the specific amount of costs assessed

. Pritchard v. State , No. 14

- 12

- 00 769

- CR; 201 4
WL 119003 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 14, 2014 ) vacated and2

remanded , No. PD

- 0070

- 14 ; 2014 WL 1512892 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 16, 2014). The Court of Criminal Appeals vacated our judgment and remanded in light of its opinion in Johnson v. State , 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The judgment includes an assessment of $ 342 in court costs. A supplemental clerk’s record was filed, which contains a certified, signed bill of costs listing $ 342 in court costs. We review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there is a basis for the costs, not to determine whether there was sufficient evidenc e offered at tria l to prove each cost

. Johnson v. State , 423 S.W.3d at 390 . Traditional sufficiency

- of

- the

- evidence standards of review do not apply. Id

. Generally, a bill of costs must (1) contain the items of cost, (2) be signed by the officer who charge d the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost, and (3) be certified. Id . at 392

– 93 ; see Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. arts. 103.001, 103.006 . T he record supports the assessment of costs in this case because the record contains a bi ll of costs that contains each item of cost, is signed by a representative of the district clerk’s office who is entitled to receive payment of the costs, and is certified

. See Johnson , 423 S.W.3d at 393

. The trial court assessed $ 342 in costs against app ellant. The sum of the itemized costs in the cost bill is $ 342

. There being no challenge to any specific cost or the basis for the assessment of such cost, the bill of costs supports the costs assessed in the judgment. Id . at 396

. The fact that the bill of costs was not prepared until after the court signed the judgment does not defeat the lawfulness of the bill of costs. Id. at 394. (“[M]atters pertaining to the imposition of court costs need not be brought to the attention of the trial court, including a bill of costs prepared after a criminal trial.”).3

On remand, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Brown. Do Not Publish

— T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's unaudited financial statements for the quarter ended September 30,
1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                  6,223
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                              78
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        6,301
<PP&E>                                 17,726
<DEPRECIATION>                          2,610
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         21,425
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  10,945
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             10,480
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           21,425
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        4,903
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             914
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        975
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         3,014
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     3,014
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            3,014
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           59.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                           59.09
        

</TABLE>
#### § 507.75 Presiding officer for an appeal and for an informal hearing.

The presiding officer for an appeal, and for an informal hearing, must be an Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director or another FDA official senior to an FDA Division Director.

[85 FR 16555, Mar. 24, 2020]
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the reference to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements (Form S-8, No. 33-99740, Form S-8, No. 33-40365, and
Form S-8, No. 333-9162) pertaining to the Power Control Technologies Inc. 1995
Stock Option Plan, the M&F Worldwide 1997 Stock Option Plan, and the M&F
Worldwide Corp. 2000 Stock Option Plan of M&F Worldwide Corp. of our report
dated February 13, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedules of M&F Worldwide Corp. included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                                              Ernst & Young LLP


March 27, 2001
New York, New York
Exhibit 10.40
 EVERGREEN SOLAR, INC.
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
CHANGE OF CONTROL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT
 
 RECITALS
     AGREEMENT
  Term of Agreement
 At-Will Employment




---



##### 



Acceleration of Vesting on Change of Control
 Severance Benefits
 Termination without Cause or Resignation for Good Reason in Connection with a Change
of Control
 Accrued Compensation
 Severance Payment
 Equity
 2




---



##### 



Continued
Employee Benefits
  Voluntary Resignation; Termination for Cause
 Disability; Death
 Exclusive Remedy
 Code Section 409A
 Distributions
 3




---



##### 



Amendment
 Limitation on Payments
    Definition of Terms
 4




---



##### 



Affiliate
 Benefit Plans
 Cause
       Change of Control
 5




---



##### 



Disability
 Good Reason
    6




---



##### 



Involuntary Separation Pay Limit
 Successors
 The Companys Successors
 Executives Successors
 Notice
 General
 Notice of Termination
 7




---



##### 



Arbitration The Company and Executive hereby agree to waive their right to have any
dispute with the other party resolved in a court of law by a judge or jury.
 Miscellaneous Provisions
 No Duty to Mitigate
 Waiver
 Headings
 Entire Agreement
 8




---



##### 



Choice of Law
 Severability
 Withholding
 Counterparts
 Remainder of page intentionally left blank
 9




---



##### 



COMPANY
    EVERGREEN SOLAR, INC.By:Title:EXECUTIVEDATE
    December 31, 2008 10
# C_2015398EN.01004201.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Balaguer (icexpresso + energy coffee)

(Case T-61/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community trade mark icexpresso + energy coffee - Earlier Community word marks X-PRESSO MONSTER, HAMMER M X-PRESSO MONSTER ESPRESSO + ENERGY and MIDNIGHT M X-PRESSO MONSTER ESPRESSO + ENERGY - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 398/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Luis Yus Balaguer (Movera, Spain)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 November 2013 (Case R 821/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Mr Luis Yus Balaguer.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Monster Energy Company to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Monster Energy Company to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.

1

---
# C_2014448EN.01000801.xml

| 15.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 448/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 26 September 2014 — Davitas GmbH v Stadt Aschaffenburg

(Case C-448/14)

(2014/C 448/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Davitas GmbH

Appellant:

Respondent: Stadt Aschaffenburg

Respondent:

Intervener: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

Intervener:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Is the product ‘De Tox Forte’ which is marketed by the appellant a food or a food ingredient with a new molecular structure within the meaning of Article 1(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 (1)?

1

In particular, does it suffice, in order to be able to answer this question in the affirmative, that that product, which contains the substance clinoptilolite in its particular primary molecular structure, was not yet being used as a food prior to 15 May 1997, or does that product, in addition, have to be produced via the production process by means of a procedure which results in a new or intentionally modified molecular structure, which means that it must be a substance which did not previously exist naturally in that form?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (OJ 1997 L 43, p. 1).

1

---
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 6, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23-438 Lower Tribunal No. 22-3374

________________ 

### Anti Age Automated Spa, Inc.,

Appellant,
vs. 

### Kerem Sunny Isles, LLC, etc.,

Appellee. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos Lopez, Judge. Vedder Price P.C., Nicole J. Wing, and Samuel M. Deau (Chicago, IL), for appellant. Solomon Cooperman Recondo and Weiss, and Joel M. Gaulkin, for appellee. Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7720 

To permit the Byrne JAG grant to be used for the purchase of fentanyl 

testing kits and opioid reversal agents. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 19, 2024 

Mr. KEAN of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. VAN DREW) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit the Byrne JAG grant to be used for the purchase 

of fentanyl testing kits and opioid reversal agents. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fight Against 

5 Fentanyl Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FENTANYL TESTING KITS AND OPIOID REVERSAL 

7 AGENTS. 

8 Section 501(a)(1)(E) of title I of the Omnibus Crime 

9 Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 

10 10152(a)(1)(E)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, including proVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:51 Apr 03, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7720.IH H7720

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7720 IH

1 grams to purchase fentanyl testing kits and opioid reversal 

2 agents’’ before the period. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Order entered October 22, 2020

In the

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01515-CR

No. 05-19-01517-CR

No. 05-19-01518-CR

No. 05-19-01519-CR

No. 05-19-01544-CR

No. 05-19-01546-CR

JIMMY DUANE TUCKER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 366-84179-2017 & 366-84425-2019

ORDER

We GRANT the State’s October 21, 2020 motion for an extension of time to 

file its brief in these appeals and ORDER the brief received with the motion filed 

as of the date of this order.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE