alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1

                                PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 THIRD AVENUE, 40TH FLOOR SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3099
                 TELEPHONE: 206 583-8888 FACSIMILE: 206 583-8500


                                December 17, 1998

Wall Data Incorporated
11332 N.E. 122nd Way
Kirkland, WA  98034-6931

        RE:    150,000 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK (NO PAR VALUE) OF
               WALL DATA INCORPORATED (THE "COMPANY")

Ladies and Gentlemen:

        We have acted as counsel to you in connection with the preparation of a
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (the "Registration Statement") pursuant to
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Act"), which you are filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to 150,000 shares of Common
Stock, no par value (the "Shares"), of Wall Data Incorporated (the "Company"),
which are to be issued pursuant to the Company's 1994 Nonofficer Stock Option
Plan As Amended and Restated on October 15, 1996.

        We have examined the Registration Statement and such other documents and
records of the Company as we have deemed relevant and necessary for the purposes
of this opinion. In giving this opinion, we are assuming the authenticity of all
instruments presented to us as originals, the conformity with originals of all
instruments presented to us as copies and the genuineness of all signatures.

        Based upon and subject to the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the
Shares that will be issued pursuant to the Plan, upon the due execution by the
Company and the registration by its registrar of the Shares and the issuance
thereof by the Company 


<PAGE>   2
Wall Data Incorporated
December 17, 1998
Page 2

in accordance with the terms of the Plan, and the receipt of consideration
therefor in accordance with the terms of the Plan, will be validly issued,
fully paid and nonassessable.

        We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement. In giving such consent, we do not admit that we are in
the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Act.

                                            Very truly yours,


                                            PERKINS COIE LLP
# C_2015236EN.01004002.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Lithomex v OHIM — Glaubrecht Stingel (LITHOFIX)

(Case T-273/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark LITHOFIX - Earlier national and international word marks LITHOFIN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Similarity of goods - No obligation for an examination to be carried out in relation to all the goods covered by the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 236/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lithomex ApS (Langeskov, Denmark) (represented by: L. Ullmann, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Bonne, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & Co. KG (Wendlingen, Germany) (represented by: T. Krüger, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2014 (Case R 2280/2012-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & Co. KG and Lithomex ApS.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lithomex ApS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lithomex ApS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.

1

---
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Hearth & Home article by Dr. James Houck regarding the proposed NSPS for Residential Wood Heaters. 

This document can be viewed at the USEPA Docket Center Public Reading Room.  Address: 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004. Telephone: 202-566-1744; Fax: 202-566-9744; Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov
p.1 

OAR Box 1819 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

156) IV-D-170 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/10/2008 8:57:01 AM Sheet 156 of 348 
P.2 

JAN 12 '88 11:08 EPA 

., ' WALTER b. JONES 

1 IT DllTMGT, NCKTM CAIOLWA 

TtumoNr COM 302: 22B-9101 

FT-8'1 

JJ?_- 0-/70 

Congre** of tf)* ®nfteb tfttate* 

$outfe of 3fcepre*etfattoe* 

tttfftngton*BC 20515 

January 4, 1988 

FIOYO J. LUPTON 

AOMWISrMTtVI AMIIMOT 

COMMITTOR 

AflRICULTURI 

MERCHANT MARINI 

ANO FISHERIES 

'TA 

"AA 

u 

Congressional Liaison Office 

Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, SW 

Washington* OC 20460 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Please be advised that I have received a number of letters from 

my constituents relative to the current controversy between on-board 

canisters and Stage II vapor recovery systems for reducing gasoline 

vapors. 

I would appreciate any and all relevant Information that you have 

on this subject 1n order that I might draft an appropriate response 

to my constituents. 

As usual, I appreciate the prompt and courteous service 1 always 

receive from the members of your fine staff* and If ,1 may be of 

further assistance 1n this regard, please advise. 

With best wishes* I am. 

Slr^arelv-

*jW* 

WALTER BT JONES 

Member of CongresK 

WBJ:Bjh 

fy?*;: 
P.3 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

JAN 2 5 1988 

CENTRA:. DOCKET
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Vixel Corporation

We consent to the use in this Amendment No. 2 to the Registration Statement on
Form S-1 of our report included herein dated May 1, 1997 relating to the
balance sheet of Arcxel Technologies, Inc. as of December 31, 1996 and the
related statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the
period from June 18, 1996 (inception) to December 31, 1996, and to the
reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in the prospectus.



KPMG LLP
Orange County, California
August 27, 1999
§ 582.1009 Adipic acid. ( a ) *Product.* Adipic acid.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Limitations, restrictions, or explanation.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used as a buffer and neutralizing agent in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
# C_2014315EN.01003701.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/37

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2014 — Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

(Case C-284/14)

2014/C 315/59

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 of 18 February 2013 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) valid, even though it was based not on an independent anti-dumping investigation carried out shortly before its adoption but on the continuation of an anti-dumping investigation which had at that time already been carried out in respect of the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007, the conduct of which, however, the Court of Justice of the European Union, in its judgment of 22 May 2012 in GLS C-338/10, (2) held to have infringed the requirements of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, (3) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 of 21 December 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, (4) with the consequence that the Court, in that judgment, declared Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China, (5) adopted on the basis of that investigation, to be invalid?

1

GLS

2

3

4

5

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 49, p. 29.

1

(2)  ECLI:EU:C:2012:158.

2

(3)  OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.

3

(4)  OJ 2005 L 340, p. 17.

4

(5)  OJ 2008 L 350, p. 35.

5

---
#### Albert Belpedio, Citizen and Taxpayer of the State of Illinois and the County of Cook, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Civil Service Commission of Cook County, Illinois, Perry L. Fuller, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission of Cook County, Illinois, Edward P. Brennan, Personnel Director of the Civil Service Commission of Cook County, Illinois, Joseph M. Taussig, Vice President of the Civil Service Commission of Cook County, Illinois, Joseph M. Solon, Secretary of the Civil Service Commission of Cook County, Illinois, P. J. Cullerton, Assessor of Cook County, Illinois, and Richard B. Ogilvie, President of the Board of Commissioners of Cook County, Illinois, Defendants-Appellants.

Gen. No. 52,664.

First District, Fourth Division.

April 2, 1969.

John J. Stamos, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Edward J. Hladis, Chief of Civil Division, and Ronald Butler and Dean H. Bilton, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellants.

David P. Schippers and Samuel J. Betar, of Chicago, for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE ENGLISH

delivered the opinion of the court.

*132On plaintiff’s complaint, and after hearing, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants, until further order of court, from conducting a Civil Service examination for positions in the office of the Assessor of Cook County. Defendants have appealed.

Examination of the record discloses that the injunction was entered without there having first been compliance with the mandatory statutory requirement that plaintiff file a bond to cover payment of such costs and damages as might be suffered by any defendants found to have been wrongfully enjoined. In this circumstance, the court was without authority to issue the injunction. Ill Rev Stats (1967), c 69, § 9. See also Hoffman v. City of Evanston, 101 Ill App2d 440, 444-446, 243 NE2d 478, and authorities there cited.

Accordingly, on the court’s own motion, the injunction order appealed from is reversed.

Reversed.

DRUCKER, P. J. and McCORMICK, J., concur.
# C_2016156EN.01003401.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Frucona Košice v Commission

(Case T-103/14) (1)

1

((State aid - Excise duties - Partial remission of a tax debt in the context of an arrangement - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Rights of the defence - Procedural rights of the interested parties - Private creditor test - Burden of proof))

(2016/C 156/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Frucona Košice a.s. (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: K. Lasok QC, B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, lawyer, and J. Holmes, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, P.-J. Loewenthal and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/342/EU of 16 October 2013 on State aid No SA.18211 (C 25/2005) (ex NN 21/2005) granted by the Slovak Republic for Frucona Košice a.s. (OJ 2014 L 176, p. 38).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2014/342/EU of 16 October 2013 on State aid No SA.18211 (C 25/2005) (ex NN 21/2005) granted by the Slovak Republic for Frucona Košice a.s.; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2014/342/EU of 16 October 2013 on State aid No SA.18211 (C 25/2005) (ex NN 21/2005) granted by the Slovak Republic for Frucona Košice a.s.;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Frucona Košice, including those incurred in connection with the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Frucona Košice, including those incurred in connection with the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.

1

---
```

[115th Congress Public Law 304]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 4401]]

Public Law 115-304
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To repeal section 2141 of the Revised Statutes to remove the prohibition 
   on certain alcohol manufacturing on Indian lands. <<NOTE: Dec. 11, 
                         2018 -  [H.R. 5317]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN ALCOHOL MANUFACTURING 
                              ON INDIAN LANDS.

    Section 2141 of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 251) is repealed.
SEC. 2. <<NOTE: 25 USC 251 note.>>  NO EFFECT ON TAXATION OR STATE 
                    AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ALCOHOL WITHIN STATE 
                    BORDERS.

    (a) No Effect on Taxation.--Nothing in section 1 or the repeal made 
by section 1 shall affect State or Federal taxation.
    (b) State Authority Unaffected.--Nothing in section 1 or the repeal 
made by section 1 shall diminish, enlarge, or otherwise affect a State's 
authority to regulate the importation and sale of alcoholic beverages 
within its own borders, including State authority over the manufacture, 
distribution, transportation, or sale of intoxicating liquors.

    Approved December 11, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5317:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115-703 (Comm. on Natural Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 115-363 (Comm. on Indian Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Sept. 12, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 27, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1045 Aldosterone test system. ( a ) *Identification.* An aldosterone test system is a device intended to measure the hormone aldosterone in serum and urine. Aldosterone measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of primary aldosteronism (a disorder caused by the excessive secretion of aldosterone by the adrenal gland), hypertension caused by primary aldosteronism, selective hypoaldosteronism, edematous states, and other conditions of electrolyte imbalance.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00343-CV

PALMETTO POINTE APARTMENTS,

Appellant

v.

Jonni SALTSMAN, Jacob Sparks and All Other Occupants,

Appellees

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CV01108

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the trial court’s final 

judgment is AFFIRMED. Costs are assessed against appellant Palmetto Pointe Apartments.

SIGNED January 10, 2024.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 CITY OF AZTEC, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 v. No. 28,739 4 NORA GONZALES, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 Sandra A. Price, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 12 Santa Fe, NM 13 for Appellant 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 SUTIN, Judge. 16 Summary reversal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed 17 summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary reversal has been filed 18 and the time for doing so has expired. 19 REVERSED. 202 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

__________________________________ 2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 3

WE CONCUR: 4

_________________________________ 5 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 6

_________________________________ 7 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 8
# C_2018392EN.01001401.xml

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Sberbank of Russia v Council

(Case T-732/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Applicant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to property - Right to carry on an economic activity))

(2018/C 392/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sberbank of Russia OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Rose QC, M. Lester QC, J.-A. Fearns and P. Crowther, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and J.P. Hix, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci, L. Havas and T. Scharf, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/971 of 22 June 2015 (OJ 2015 L 157, p. 50), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2431 of 21 December 2015 (OJ 2015 L 334, p. 22), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1071 of 1 July 2016 (OJ 2016 L 178, p. 21), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2315 of 19 December 2016 (OJ 2016 L 345, p. 65) and by Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1148 of 28 June 2017 (OJ 2017 L 166, p. 35), and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sberbank of Russia OAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sberbank of Russia OAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.

---
§ 556.610 Streptomycin. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerances for streptomycin are: ( 1 ) *Cattle and swine.* ( i ) Kidney: 2.0 ppm.
( ii ) Other edible tissues (excluding milk): 0.5 ppm.
( 2 ) *Chickens.* ( i ) Kidney: 2.0 ppm.
( ii ) Other edible tissues (excluding eggs): 0.5 ppm.
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See § 520.2158 of this chapter.
# C_2014159EN.01001901.xml

| 26.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/19

---

Action brought on 27 March 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-145/14)

2014/C 159/25

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Petrova and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that the existing landfill sites in the country could not continue to operate after 16 July 2009 unless they complied with the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (1), the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that the existing landfill sites in the country could not continue to operate after 16 July 2009 unless they complied with the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (1), the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the answers to the reasoned opinion (the last answers date from 16 July 2013 and from 10 February 2014) the Bulgarian national authorities admitted that there are to date 100 landfill sites in operation in the Republic of Bulgaria which have not been adapted to the requirements of Article 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC.

The Commission therefore deems it necessary to bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union so that the Court declares that the Republic of Bulgaria has infringed that provision.

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.

1

---
June 25, 2015

Mr. Dirk Carus 2835 W College Ave Appleton, WI 54915

Dear Mr. Carus:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 22, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2415), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure