alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Warren WOODFORK v. INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC, INC.

No. 6396.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Oct. 9, 1974.

Joseph J. Laura, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Drury, Lozes & Curry, Madison C. Moseley, New Orleans, for defendant-ap-pellee.

Before STOULIG, BOUTALL and SCHOTT, JJ.

STOULIG, Judge.

Plaintiff, Warren Woodfork, has appealed a judgment dismissing his suit against defendant, Industrial Electric, Inc., for property damage of $133.16 to his automobile allegedly sustained in a collision with a truck owned by defendant. The dispute is factual and its resolution depends on which conflicting version of the incident is the more credible.

The accident occurred on Lafitte Street in the City of New Orleans at approximately 3 p. m. on March 14, 1973. According to plaintiff, he was driving behind defendant’s truck that was moving very slowly in a riverbound direction. He blew his horn, moved into the left lane and began overtaking the truck. While in the process of passing, he claims the defendant’s driver, Frank Timmons, drifted from the right lane in which he was proceeding into the passing lane and in so doing, hit the right front door of plaintiff’s car with the left rear of his truck.

Conversely, Timmons testified he did not maneuver his truck toward the left but remained wholly in the right lane. He stated he first became aware of the alleged accident when his attention was attracted by the repeated sounding of plaintiff’s horn. Further he denied telling the investigating officer that his truck had struck plaintiff’s automobile. From his testimony it is obvious that this witness had no knowledge of the accident if in fact one did occur.

As did the trial judge, we find the defendant’s version the more credible, particularly since we cannot envision how the vehicles would be damaged as they were under the facts described by plaintiff. The *381record amply supports the trial judge’s finding that the plaintiff failed to prove his case with a preponderance of the evidence.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
# C_2005296EN.01002501.xml

| 26.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 20 September 2005 — Deloitte Business Advisory v Commission

(Case T-195/05 R)

(Interim measures - Community tendering procedure - Loss of an opportunity - Urgency - Balance of interests)

(2005/C 296/54)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant(s): Deloitte Business Advisory (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Van Heuven, S. Ronse and S. Logie, lawyers)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Defendant(s):

Application for

interim measures seeking, first, an order suspending the operation of (1) the Commission decision rejecting the tender submitted, inter alia, by the applicant under a call for tenders bearing reference SANCO/2004/01/041 and (2) the decision to award the contract in question to a third party and, secondly, an order prohibiting the Commission (1) from informing the successful tenderer of the decision awarding the contract in question and (2) from proceeding with signature of the relevant contract, on pain of a periodic penalty payment.

Operative part of the Order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed;

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CHIRON CORPORATION**

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION**

In connection withthe periodic report of **CHIRON CORPORATION, aDelaware corporation**(the “Company”), on Form 10-K forthe period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, **DAVID V. SMITH, ChiefFinancial Officer**of the Company, hereby certify as of the datehereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of theUnited States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

(2)   theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

ThisCertification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with theSecurities and Exchange Commission.
| Date: March 16, 2005 | By:          |         | /s/ DAVID V.  SMITH           |
|---------------------------|--------------|--------------|-------------------------------|
|                      |         |         | **DAVID V. SMITH**            |
|                      | *** *** | *** *** | ***Vice President and***      |
|                      | *** *** | *** *** | ***Chief Financial Officer*** |

 

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6429

GREGORY GREEN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. TRAVIS M. HYMAN, Assistant Solicitor, Horry County; JIMMY A. RICHARDSON, II, Solicitor, Horry County; BRYAN STERLING, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; ALFREDO MORTELL, Warden, Manning Correctional Institution , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. ( 4:20

- cv - 03100

- RBH

- PJG )

Submitted : August 24, 2021 Decided: August 27, 2021

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Gregory Green, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gregory Green appeals the district court’s or der granting in part and denying in part his Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Green’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim s against some of the defendants

. Lim iting our review of the record to the issues raised in
Green ’s informal brief , we find no reversible error

. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also
Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ( “ The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that
brief. ” )

. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before t his court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Home2023 Treaties and Agreements...France (23-926.1) – Arrangement for the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Safety Matters

# 									France (23-926.1) – Arrangement for the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Safety Matters							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

September 26, 2023

Nuclear Energy

Signed at Vienna September 26, 2023; entered into force September 26, 2023.
Download Agreement						 [425 KB]

Tags

FranceNuclear EnergyTreaties

Back to Top
§ 416.185 Process for establishing a new class of new technology IOLs. ( a ) *Announcement of deadline for requests for review.* CMS announces the deadline for each year's requests for review of a new class of new technology IOLs in the final rule updating the ASC payment rates for that calendar year.
( b ) *Announcement of new classes of new technology IOLs for which review requests have been made and solicitation of public comments.* CMS announces the requests for review received in a calendar year and the deadline for public comments regarding the requests in the proposed rule updating the ASC payment rates for the following calendar year. The deadline for submission of public comments is 30 days following the date of the publication of the proposed rule.
( c ) *Announcement of determinations regarding requests for review.* CMS announces its determinations for a calendar year in the final rule updating the ASC payment rates for the following calendar year. CMS publishes the codes and effective dates allowed for those lenses recognized by CMS as belonging to a class of new technology IOLs. New classes of new technology IOLs are effective 30 days following the date of publication of the final rule.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3236

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to provide

a grace period for the prohibition on Consolidated Farm Service Agency

(CFSA) lending to delinquent borrowers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 15, 1996

Mr. COMBEST (for himself and Mr. THORNBERRY) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development

Act to provide a grace period for the prohibition on

Consolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA) lending to

delinquent borrowers.

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

3 REPEAL OF SECTION 373 OF THE CONSOLIDATED FARM

4 AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT

5 SECTION 1.—Section 373 of the Consolidated Farm

6 and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1922 et seq.) is

7 repealed.
2

HR 3236 IH

1 LOAN AND LOAN SERVICING LIMITATIONS

2 SEC. 2.—The Consolidated Farm and Rural Develop3 ment Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.) is amended by adding

4 at the end the following:

5 ‘‘SEC. 373. LOAN AND LOAN SERVICING LIMITATIONS.

6 ‘‘(a) DELINQUENT BORROWERS PROHIBITED FROM

7 OBTAINING DIRECT OPERATING LOANS.—The Secretary

8 may not make a direct operating loan under subtitle B

9 to a borrower who is delinquent on any loan made or guar10 anteed under this title.

11 ‘‘(b) LOANS PROHIBITED FOR BORROWERS THAT

12 HAVE RECEIVED DEBT FORGIVENESS.—

13 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para14 graph (2), the Secretary may not make or guarantee

15 a loan under this title to a borrower who received

16 debt forgiveness on a loan made or guaranteed

17 under this title.

18 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary may make a

19 direct or guaranteed farm operating loan for paying

20 annual farm or ranch operating expenses of a bor21 rower who was restructured with a write-down under

22 section 353.

23 ‘‘(c) NO MORE THAN ONE DEBT FORGIVENESS FOR

24 A BORROWER ON A DIRECT LOAN.—The Secretary may

25 not provide to a borrower debt forgiveness on a direct loan
3

HR 3236 IH

1 made under this title if the borrower has received debt

2 forgiveness on another direct loan made under this title.’’.

3 GRACE PERIOD FOR PROHIBITION ON LENDING TO

4 DELINQUENT BORROWERS

5 SEC. 3.—The amendment made by section 2 shall be6 come effective on July 5, 1996. This bill would provide

7 a grace period for implementation of section 373 of the

8 Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (the

9 ‘‘ConAct’’) (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.) until July 5, 1996.

10 Section 373 of the ConAct, which was added by the Fed11 eral Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996

12 (Public Law 104–127, April 4, 1996), prohibits direct op13 erating loans to a borrower who: (1) is delinquent on any

14 direct loan or guaranteed loan; or (2) has received debt

15 forgiveness on any direct or guaranteed loan, with an ex16 ception for a borrower who was restructured under section

17 353 of the ConAct.

Æ
Order entered Febru ary 3 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 0 1411

- CR

ANTHONY PHIFER , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 29 2nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F1 4

- 75027

- V



### O RDER

The Court REINSTATE S the appeal.

On January 14 , 2015 we granted the motion of Lori Ordiway to withdraw as appellant’s

appointed counsel and ordered the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent appellant . We

have rece ived the trial court’s order appointing Daniel Oliphant to represent appellant. We

DIRECT the Clerk to list Daniel Oliphant as appellant’s appointed attorney of record.
The clerk’s and reporter’s records have been filed. Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to

file his brief within FORTY

- FIVE DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Daniel
Oliphant and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jeffery G. BROWN, Terry M. Carr and David S. Hollowell.

No. 66875.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 1980.

In re State of Louisiana, through the District Attorney, James Lynn Davis, applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition. Parish of DeSoto. No. 40,114.

Denied.

MARCUS, J., would grant the writ.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Samuel DAUPHINE.

No. 80-K-1497.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1980.

In re Samuel Dauphine, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and stay order. Parish of Orleans. No. 272-869.

Writ denied.
§ 417.406 Application and determination. ( a ) *Responsibility for making determinations.* CMS is responsible for determining whether an entity meets the requirements to be an HMO or CMP.
( b ) *Application requirements.* ( 1 ) The application requirements for HMOs are set forth in § 417.143.
( 2 ) The requirements of § 417.143 also apply to CMPs except that there are no application fees.
( c ) *Determination.* CMS uses the procedures set forth in § 417.144(a) through (d) to determine whether an entity is an HMO or CMP.
( d ) *Oversight of continuing compliance.* ( 1 ) CMS oversees an entity's continued compliance with the requirements for an HMO as defined in § 417.1 or for a CMP as set forth in § 417.407.
( 2 ) If an entity no longer meets those requirements, CMS terminates the contract of that entity in accordance with § 417.494.
[60 FR 45675, Sept. 1, 1995]
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 13, 2014

NO. 03-14-00331-CV

Randolph A. Lopez, d/b/a Brown Hand Center and d/b/a Brown Medical Center, Appellant

v.

Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P., d/b/a Austin American-Statesman, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GOODWIN

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION --

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on March 18, 2014. Having 

reviewed the record, the Court holds that Randolph A. Lopez, d/b/a Brown Hand Center and 

d/b/a Brown Medical Center has not prosecuted his appeal and did not comply with a notice from 

the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of prosecution. The 

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
# C_2006121EN.01001802.xml

| 20.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/18

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2006 — Bioelettrica v Commission

(Case T -56/03) (1)

1

(2006/C 121/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.

1

---
HomeDSS Press Releases...Former Georgia Pastor Pleads Guilty to Sexually Assaulting a Ugandan Minor on Missionary Trip

# 									Former Georgia Pastor Pleads Guilty to Sexually Assaulting a Ugandan Minor on Missionary Trip							

DSS Releases

February 2, 2022

Wednesday, February 2, 2022 – 

Click here for more info

Tags

Child ProtectionDiplomatic SecurityDSS ReleasesGeorgiaUganda

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INFORMEDICS,
INC.'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ITS QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR
THE PERIOD  ENDED JULY 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                             861,874
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      374,125
<ALLOWANCES>                                        16,200
<INVENTORY>                                         16,186
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,402,796
<PP&E>                                             739,085
<DEPRECIATION>                                     667,690
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,718,599
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,457,432
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            26,745
<OTHER-SE>                                         186,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,718,599
<SALES>                                            252,495
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,142,606
<CGS>                                               81,932
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      907,211
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     831
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    520,448
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (65,400)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                455,048
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       455,048
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.17

        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 414

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

#### § 414.200 Purpose.

This subpart implements sections 1834(a), (h) and (i) of the Act by specifying how payments are made for the purchase or rental of new and used durable medical equipment, prosthetic and orthotic devices, and surgical dressings for Medicare beneficiaries.

[78 FR 72253, Dec. 2, 2013]
# C_2005159EN.01000101.xml

| 30.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

29 June 2005

(2005/C 159/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2054 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,03 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4491 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6669 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4333 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5471 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 78,99 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,897 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9556 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5735 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,03 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 247,66 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6963 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0521 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 36 041 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,46 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,407 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6264 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5828 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4864 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3698 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7219 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0314 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 243,25 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,1063 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,9765 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3101 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 713,47 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5815 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,472 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,566 |
| THB | Thai baht | 49,803 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2054

JPY

Japanese yen

133,03

DKK

Danish krone

7,4491

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6669

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4333

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5471

ISK

Iceland króna

78,99

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,897

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9556

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5735

CZK

Czech koruna

30,03

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

247,66

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6963

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0521

ROL

Romanian leu

36 041

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,46

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,407

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6264

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5828

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4864

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3698

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7219

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0314

KRW

South Korean won

1 243,25

ZAR

South African rand

8,1063

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,9765

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3101

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 713,47

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5815

PHP

Philippine peso

67,472

RUB

Russian rouble

34,566

THB

Thai baht

49,803

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
----

Action brought on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-42/06)

(2006/C 74/15)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Stromsky, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

No Community harmonisation governs the approval of natural and legal persons manufacturing and/or distributing refuse collection bags.

In those circumstances, national legislation requiring the approval of natural and legal persons manufacturing and/or distributing refuse collection bags must be evaluated in the light of Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, a prior authorisation procedure such as that laid down by Article 10a of the Regulations of the Brussels-Capital Region of 15 July 1993 on refuse collection, can restrict the free movement of goods.

To be justified with regard to the fundamental freedom of the free movement of goods, such a prior authorisation procedure must pursue a public interest purpose recognised by Community law and comply with the principle of proportionality, that is to say be appropriate to ensure the attainment of the objective pursued and not go beyond what is necessary for its attainment.

The Commission can conceive that an approval procedure might be such as to pursue the public interest purposes of protection of workers' health and of the environment.

However, the Commission submits that, in this case, the detailed rules of the approval procedure under Article 10a of the Regulations do not comply with the principle of proportionality because it is not easily accessible.

----