alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
566 P.2d 1335

#### Roger V. ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Robert W. PICKRELL, Judge of the Superior Court, Maricopa County, and Sharon M. Anderson, Real Party in Interest, Respondent.

No. 13203.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

July 13, 1977.

*590Bendheim & Mote by Alice L. Bendheim, Phoenix, for petitioner.

Law Offices of Otto H. Linsenmeyer by Marvin W. Manross, Phoenix, for respondent and real party in interest.

STRUCKMEYER, Vice Chief Justice.

This special action arises out of a petition for divorce filed by Sharon M. Anderson against her husband, Robert V. Anderson, in the Superior Court of Maricopa County. Following the entry of judgment, the Superior Court entered an order finding that Sharon M. Anderson would not be financially able to give a supersedeas bond to stay execution of the judgment and granted her motion to stay pending the appeal upon “filing a written understanding with the Court in place of supersedeas bond.” Robert V. Anderson then brought this special action here, asserting that the stay upon written understanding in place of a supersedeas bond is in excess of the Superior Court’s authority. The order of the Superi- or Court staying the execution of the judgment in Cause No. DR 50394 of the Maricopa County Superior Court is vacated.

The function of a supersedeas is, of course, to stay the enforcement of a judgment or decree of court brought up on appeal. Its effect is to restrain a party and the lower court from taking affirmative action to enforce the judgment or decree. While an appeal with proper supersedeas stays the execution of the judgment, it does not detract from its decisiveness and finality. *Huron Holding Corp. v. Lincoln Mine Operating Co.,*312 U.S. 183, 61 S.Ct. 513, 85 L.Ed. 725 (1941).

This Court by the Constitution of Arizona, Art. 6, § 5, subsec. 5, has the “Power to make rules relative to all procedural matters in any court.” This power may not be supplemented, annulled or superseded by an inferior court such as the Superior Court or respondent judge. *See State*v. *Blazak,*105 Ariz. 216, 462 P.2d. 84 (1969).

By rule, this Court has provided how a judgment is stayed on appeal. Rule 62(d), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., provides:

> “When an appeal is taken the appellant by giving a supersedeas bond may obtain a stay * *

Rule 62(d) is the only way by which an appellant may stay a judgment of the Superior Court while an appeal is pending. There is no provision whatsoever by which the Superior Court may stay an execution of a judgment on filing a written understanding in place of the supersedeas bond provided by Supreme Court Rule 62(d).

The order in Cause No. DR 50394 of the Superior Court in and for the County of Maricopa staying the execution of its judgment is set aside and vacated.

CAMERON, C. J., and HAYS, HOLO-HAN and GORDON, JJ., concur.
# C_2014184EN.01004701.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/47

---

Action brought on 20 April 2014 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-37/14)

2014/C 184/79

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Parliament not to allow him to carry over 16 days leave not taken in 2012 to 2013 after the applicant had been on long-term sick leave as a result of a serious illness.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision refusing to carry over the applicant’s leave, beyond the limit of 12 days, from 2012 to 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision refusing to carry over the applicant’s leave, beyond the limit of 12 days, from 2012 to 2013;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 21 January 2014 of the Secretary General of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 4 October 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 21 January 2014 of the Secretary General of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 4 October 2013;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

---
Editorial Note on Part 570
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 88 FR 45066, July 14, 2023.

§ 570.255 Part 7 of a GRAS notice: List of supporting data and information in your GRAS notice. ( a ) In part 7 of your GRAS notice, you must include a list of all of the data and information that you discuss in Part 6 of your GRAS notice to provide a basis for your view that the notified substance is safe under the conditions of its intended use as described in accordance with § 570.250(a)(1).
( b ) You must specify which data and information that you list in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section are generally available, and which data and information are not generally available.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7607 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at Block 1025, Lots 18 & 19, Northeast Corner 

of US Route 9 South and Main Street in the Township 

of Middle, County of Cape May, New Jersey, as the 

‘‘George Henry White Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 7607 EH

1 SECTION 1. GEORGE HENRY WHITE POST OFFICE BUILD2 ING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at Block 1025, Lots 18 & 19, 

5 Northeast Corner of US Route 9 South and Main Street 

6 in the Township of Middle, County of Cape May, New Jer7 sey, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘George Henry 

8 White Post Office Building’’. 

9 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg10 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

11 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

12 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘George Henry White 

13 Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7607 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostWhite Post Office Building’’. of Cape May, New Jersey, as the ‘‘George Henry Main Street in the Township of Middle, County Northeast Corner of US Route 9 South and al Service located at Block 1025, Lots 18 & 19,
CAUSE NO. 01-15-00124-CV

SUNBELT RENTALS, INC. § IN THE 1st COURT OF APPEALS

§

VS. §

§

SOUTHWEST PIPE §

SERVICES, INC. AND §

JOE BRIERS §

DEFENDANTS’, SOUTHWEST PIPE SERVICES, INC. AND JOE BRIERS 

SECOND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO FILE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Defendants, Southwest Pipe Services, Inc and Joe Briers, 

(hereinafter “SWP”) and files this their Motion for Continuance to File Brief and will 

respectfully show this Honorable Court the following: 

SWP’s brief is currently due June 16, 2015. Counsel for Appellants has been working 

diligently to complete the brief, however, it will not be completed by the deadline prescribed 

by the Court. Due to unexpected family obligations the past week, counsel has been unable 

to complete the brief by the deadline. Therefore, Appellants request a continuance for the 

filing of the brief of at least 10 days. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellants pray that the due date for the 

brief be extened at least 10 days fom June 16, 2015. 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00124-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

6/16/2015 12:50:22 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/16/2015 12:50:22 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Respectfully submitted,

 JASON A. POWERS, ATTORNEY

_________________________________

Jason A. Powers

SBOT 24027745

PO Box 272425

Houston, Texas 77277

Tele: (832) 647-8493

Fax: (832) 415-0593

jason@jasonapowers.com

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on June 16, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

instrument has been sent to all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

 

_________________________________

Jason A. Powers
§ 573.760 Poloxalene. The food additive poloxalene may be safely used in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The additive consists of polyoxy-propylene-polyoxyethylene glycol non-ionic block polymer meeting the following specifications: ( 1 ) Molecular weight range: 2,850-3,150.
( 2 ) Hydroxyl number: 35.7-39.4.
( 3 ) Cloud point (10 percent solution): 42 °C-46 °C.
( 4 ) Structural formula:
( b ) In feed as a surfactant for the flaking of feed grains when added to liquid grain conditioner in an amount not to exceed 1.0 percent of the conditioner. The conditioner is added to the feed at a rate of 1 quart per ton of feed.
( c ) The label and labeling shall bear, in addition to the other information required by the Act: ( 1 ) The name of the additive.
( 2 ) Adequate directions and warnings for use.
Exhibit 23.1














Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We have issued our report dated March 24, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of Astea International Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Astea International Inc. and Subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-168793, effective August 12, 2010, File No. 333-107757, effective August 8, 2003, File No. 333-61981, effective August 21, 1998, File No. 333-34865, effective September 3, 1997, and File No. 333-33825, effective August 18, 1997).











/s/ Grant Thornton LLP





Philadelphia, Pennsylvania









March 24, 2011
§ 520.534 Decoquinate. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each gram of powder contains 8 milligrams (0.8 percent) decoquinate.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.170 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use. Calves* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Feed 22.7 milligrams per 100 pounds of body weight (0.5 milligram per kilogram) per day.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the prevention of coccidiosis in ruminating and nonruminating calves, including veal calves, caused by *Eimeria bovis* and *E. zuernii.*
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Feed in whole milk at the rate of 22.7 milligrams per 100 pounds body weight daily (0.5 milligram per kilogram) for at least 28 days.
[64 FR 10103, Mar. 2, 1999, as amended at 64 FR 30386, June 8, 1999; 79 FR 28819, May 20, 2014]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9591-9592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4354]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-43-000]


Florida Power & Light Company; Notice of Filing

February 24, 2010.
    Take notice that on February 17, 2010, Florida Power & Light 
Company (FPL) filed a petition for declaratory order pursuant to Rule 
207 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207 
(2009), requesting that the Commission clarify the scope of its 
jurisdiction over

[[Page 9592]]

interconnection agreements between a public utility and a qualifying 
facility.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#89cfccdbcac6e7e5e0e7ecdafcf9f9e6fbfdc9efecfbeaa7eee6ff"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="793f3c2b3a36171510171c2a0c0909160b0d391f1c0b1a571e160f">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 19, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4354 Filed 3-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2015056EN.01000501.xml

| 16.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 November 2014 — Gemeente Borsele, Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-520/14)

(2015/C 056/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants in cassation: Gemeente Borsele, Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Appellants in cassation:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | Should Article 2(1)(c) and Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to the transport of school pupils, on the basis of an arrangement as described in the present judgment, a municipality should to this extent be regarded as a taxable person within the meaning of that directive? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Should Article 2(1)(c) and Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to the transport of school pupils, on the basis of an arrangement as described in the present judgment, a municipality should to this extent be regarded as a taxable person within the meaning of that directive?

1

| 2) | For the purpose of answering that question, should the arrangement as a whole be considered, or should this assessment be made for each transport operation separately? |
| --- | --- |

2)

For the purpose of answering that question, should the arrangement as a whole be considered, or should this assessment be made for each transport operation separately?

| 3) | If the latter is the case, should a distinction be made according to whether pupils are transported over a distance of between 6 and 20 kilometres or over a distance exceeding 20 kilometres? |
| --- | --- |

3)

If the latter is the case, should a distinction be made according to whether pupils are transported over a distance of between 6 and 20 kilometres or over a distance exceeding 20 kilometres?

---

(1)  Council Directive of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

---
# .^ ?Z,q=ft-oi

Mr. Mario Perez TDCJ-CID #1534249 Connally Unit 

### 899 Fm. 632 RE Kenedy,Tx.78119 COURTOF March 21,2015 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 

## CourtClerk-Mr-AbelAcosta Alflipl P.O. Box 12308 Capitol Station Austin,Tx.78711 

### Re: Exparte Mario Perez, Trial Court Nos. 2006-CR^5055B-Wj., 2006-CR-5056B-W1,' 

### 2006-CR-50"57B~Wi "(399thDistrict Court Bexar County,Texas)
Dear Court Clerk: Greetings,! reeieved your notation,verifying that the Court reeieved mymoat recent missive.All in regards;to the Writ of Habeas Corpus's in above cause numbers..The Court 

### of Criminal Appeals response stated,(on March ]0^201.5 application for Writ of Mandamus has been presented to the'Court.)NoWjcould you please inforrame,if the Court has granted an order towards the application for Writ of Mandamus.Also could you pleasenotify me upon recieving my ibree. applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus,their supporting documents, and related -records to your office.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND ASSISTANCE. Respectfully submitted,



## CC: File. 252015
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00803-CV

Denise MCVEA,

Appellant

v.

James Michael KISSLER,

Appellee

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-14927

Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE MARION

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of 

the appeal are taxed against appellant.

SIGNED August 6, 2014.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
# C_2014223EN.01000302.xml

| 14.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 58 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 15 April 2014 — Juan Pedro Ludeña Hormigos v Banco Santander, S.A.

(Case C-188/14)

2014/C 223/04

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 58 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Juan Pedro Ludeña Hormigos

Applicant:

Defendant: Banco Santander, S.A.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 22.1 of Law 16/09 of 13 November on payment services compatible with Community law, insofar as it allows a bank to apply and/or increase the cost of services by changing the conditions initially agreed upon? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 22.1 of Law 16/09 of 13 November on payment services compatible with Community law, insofar as it allows a bank to apply and/or increase the cost of services by changing the conditions initially agreed upon?

| 2. | Is it sufficient protection for that user that he may terminate the contract without charge? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it sufficient protection for that user that he may terminate the contract without charge?

| 3. | Are contractual terms agreed between the parties that provide the same options as those provided for in the provision referred to in the first question lawful? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are contractual terms agreed between the parties that provide the same options as those provided for in the provision referred to in the first question lawful?

| 4. | Lastly, if the reply to the foregoing questions is affirmative, is the notice period of two months compatible with Community law? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Lastly, if the reply to the foregoing questions is affirmative, is the notice period of two months compatible with Community law?

---
LAW OFFICES 

GAROFALO GOERLICH HAINBACH PC 

1200 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE NW SUITE 590 

WASHINGTON DC 20036-6802 

 

AARON A. GOERLICH TELEPHONE 202 776-3970

DIRECT DIAL 202 776-3974 FACSIMILE 202 776-3975

AGOERLICH@GGH-AIRLAW.COM WWW.GGH-AIRLAW.COM

February 24, 2015

Lauralyn Remo, Chief

Air Carrier Fitness Division

Office of Aviation Analysis

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Joint Application of Southern Air Inc. and Florida West International

Airways, Inc. for De Facto Transfer of International Route Authority

Docket DOT-OST-2015-0033

Dear Ms. Remo:

We have completed polling of the air carrier representatives served with the referenced 

application filed February 19, 2015. There were no objections to the application. 

Sincerely,

Aaron A. Goerlich

Garofalo Goerlich Hainbach PC

Counsel for Southern Air Inc.

cc: Docket DOT-OST-2015-0033

Damon Walker, DOT

Marshall S. Sinick, Counsel for FWIA
§ 520.1315 Maropitant. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each tablet contains 16, 24, 60, or 160 milligrams (mg) maropitant as maropitant citrate.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See Nos. 054771 and 086117 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs* — ( 1 ) *Indications for use and amount.* ( i ) For prevention of acute vomiting in dogs 2 to 7 months of age, administer a minimum dose of 2.0 mg per kilogram (/kg) body weight once daily for up to 5 consecutive days.
( ii ) For prevention of acute vomiting in dogs 7 months of age and older, administer a minimum dose of 2.0 mg/kg body weight once daily until resolution of acute vomiting.
( iii ) For prevention of vomiting due to motion sickness in dogs 4 months of age and older, administer a minimum of 8.0 mg/kg body weight once daily for up to 2 consecutive days.
( 2 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[72 FR 9243, Mar. 1, 2007, as amended at 78 FR 28823, May 20, 2014; 80 FR 53459, Sept. 4, 2015; 88 FR 27699, May 3, 2023]