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>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,091,606
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,091,606
<PP&E>                                     189,875,741
<DEPRECIATION>                           (189,875,741)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,091,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,091,606
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,091,606
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2005217EN.01004301.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/43

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 28 June 2005

in Case T-386/04 Eridania SpA and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector - Pricing system - Regionalisation - Deficit areas - Classification of Italy - Marketing year 2004/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 1216/2004 - Action for annulment - Natural and legal persons - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 217/94)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-386/04: Eridania Sadam SpA and Others, established in Bologna (Italy), Italia Zuccheri SpA, established in Bologna, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, established in Termoli (Italy), CO.PRO. B — Cooperativa produttori bieticoli Soc. coop. rl, established in Minerbio (Italy), SFIR — Società fondiaria industriale romagnola SpA, established in Cesena (Italy), represented by G. Pittalis, I. Vigliotti, G. M. Roberti, P. Ziotti and A. Franchi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the Council of the European Union (Agent: F. Ruggeri Laderchi), — action for annulment of Article 1(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1216/2004 of 30 June 2004 fixing the derived intervention prices for white sugar for the marketing year 2004/2005 (OJ L 232, of 01.07.2004, p.25) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, M.E. Martins Ribeiro and K. Jürimae, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 28 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The application is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Associazione nazionale bieticoltori, the Consorzio nazionale bieticoltori and the Associazione bieticoltori italiani. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Associazione nazionale bieticoltori, the Consorzio nazionale bieticoltori and the Associazione bieticoltori italiani.

| 3. | The applicants, in addition to bearing their own costs, shall pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The applicants, in addition to bearing their own costs, shall pay those incurred by the Commission.

| 4. | The Council shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Council shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 284 of 20.11.2004

1

---
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 Certification Pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350)
 
 The
undersigned, as the chief executive officer of PAB Bankshares, Inc., certifies,
to the best of my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2007, which accompanies this certification fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PAB
Bankshares, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.  The foregoing
certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other
purpose.
 
 Dated
this 17th day of March, 2008.
 
 
 /s/M.BurkeWelsh,
      JrM. Burke
      Welsh, Jr.President
      and Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
PAB Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by PAB Bankshares, Inc. and furnished
to the SEC or its staff upon request.
# C_2006131EN.01002301.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Cagliari) — Gaetano Verdoliva v J.M. Van der Hoeven BV, Banco di Sardegna, San Paolo IMI SpA

(Case C-3/05) (1)

1

(Brussels Convention - Judgment authorising the enforcement of a judgment given in another Contracting State - Failure of, or defective, service - Notice - Time for appealing)

(2006/C 131/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d'appello di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gaetano Verdoliva

Applicant:

Defendants: J.M. Van der Hoeven BV, Banco di Sardegna, San Paolo IMI SpA

Defendants:

Intervener: Pubblico Ministero

Intervener:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte d'appello di Cagliari — Interpretation of Article 36 of the Brussels Convention — Enforcement of judgments — Defective service of a decision authorising enforcement — Meaning of ‘notice of procedural documents’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 36 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Republic of Greece and the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, is to be interpreted as requiring due service of the decision authorising enforcement in accordance with the procedural rules of the Contracting State in which enforcement is sought, and therefore, in cases of failure of, or defective, service of the decision authorising enforcement, the mere fact that the party against whom enforcement is sought has notice of that decision is not sufficient to cause time to run for the purposes of the time-limit fixed in that article.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 19.03.2005.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DENNIS C. HUDSON

, DENISE §

LYNN DUTTON, JUAN §

LOPEZ, and HOMERO §

and MARIA RAMIREZ, §

§ No. 226, 2022

Plaintiffs Below, §

Appellant s

, § Court Below

— Court of Chancery

§ of the State of Delaware

v. §

§ C .A. No: 2021

- 0800

THE STATE OF DELAWARE §

DEPARTMENT OF §

TRANSPORTATION

, §

§

Defendant Below, §

Appellee , and §

§

MEDING FAMILY, LLC, §

a Delaware limited liability company, §

KAY

- DE

- DID, LLC, §

a Delaware limited liability company, §

ROB’S RIDES, LLC, §

a Delaware limited liability company, §

and ROBERT WAYNE MEDING §

and MELINDA MEDING, §

§

Nominal Defendants §

Below, Nominal §

Appellees, §

Submitted: December 14 , 202 2

Decided: January 30 , 202 3

Before SEITZ

, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and TRAYNOR

, Justices

.2 ORDER

This 30 th day of January 202 3

, after consideration of the parties’ briefs and the

record on appeal, it appears to the Court that :

1. This order incorporates the fact ual background and reasoning set forth

in our order, filed today, in JMER Properties, LLC v. Del

. Dep ’ t of Transp

. , No. 225,

20 22 (the “ JMER Order”).

2. When , as described in the JMER Order, the Court of Chancery

dismissed JMER ’s action as unripe, it also dismissed a similar action brought by the

appellants

— a group of homeowners who reside near the Meding s’ p roperty

—

against the same defendants

. 1 Although never formally consolidated, t he two actions

were heard together in the Court of Chancery

.

3. The homeowners own three homes on the southern border of the

Meding property, each with direct access to S tate Route 1 through their driveways.

The gravamen of the homeowners’ complaint is that the Medings’ proposed new

entrance would require the homeowners to close their direct driveway access to S tate

R oute 1 and re

- orient access to their properties through their backya rds and onto a

secondary road network

.

4

. DelDOT’s position throughout this case , however, has been

unequivocal: it has no plans to close the homeowners’ driveways or eliminate the

1 Opening Br., Ex. 1.3

homeowners’ access to S tate Route 1. The Court of Chancery pledged to he ar the

homeowners’ complaint in the event that DelDOT ever reversed course and

eliminated the homeowners’ direct access to S tate R oute 1. Until then, and for the

reasons stated in the JMER Order, the homeowners’ action is not ripe

.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of

Chancery be AFFIRME D

.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
# Guyana

75 items

        -    Report  		2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: Guyana	  May 12, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		Secretary Blinken’s Roundtable with CARICOM Foreign Ministers	  April 21, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Guyana	  March 30, 2021 
        -    Special Briefing via Telephone  		Telephonic Press Briefing with Vice Admiral Steven Poulin, U.S. Coast Guard, and David Hogan, U.S. Department of State	  February 12, 2021 
        -    		Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs: Guyana Summary	   
        -    TIAS  		Guyana (20-918) – Agreement Concerning Cooperation to Suppress Illicit Traffic by Sea and Air	  September 18, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Investment Climate Statements: Guyana	  September 8, 2020 
        -    Other Release  		Public Release of Foreign Security Forces Units Ineligible for Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and Arms Export Control Act Assistance Pursuant to the State Leahy Law:  CY 2018 	  July 15, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Guyana	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Guyana	  June 10, 2020 

previous page1…345678next page

Back to Top
11th Conference on Air Quality Modeling

• Thursday Oral Comments Session Logistics

– Remember, the Conference is a Public Hearing.

• Everyone speaking today must identify themselves and their affiliation.

• All oral comments are being transcribed and will also be submitted to 

the proposed rulemaking Docket (ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0310).

• There will not be any Q&A during or following any oral comment.

• Comments can be submitted to the Docket through October 27, 2015.

– There is ample time across the balance of Thursday for the 

oral comments to be given to the record.

• However, no speaker will be allowed more than 15 minutes of time, 

which is the same time restriction and the public presentations.

• At such point that all audience members wishing to provide oral 

comments have done so, we will break for lunch.

• After lunch, we will reopen the public hearing for any additional oral 

comments. At such point that there are no more commenters, we will 

end the Conference and Public Hearing.

08/13/2015 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1
# C_2006108EN.01001602.xml

| 6.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/16

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 15 March 2006 — Daiichi Pharmaceutical v Commission

(Case T-26/02) (1)

1

(Competition - Cartels in the vitamin products sector - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Determination of the starting amount of the fine - Attenuating circumstances - Leniency Notice)

(2006/C 108/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J.Buhart and P.-M.Louis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R.Wainwright and L.Pignataro-Nolin, agents)

Defendant:

:

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3(f) of Commission Decision 2003/2/EC of 21 November 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.512 — Vitamins) (OJ 2003 L 6, p. 1),

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Reduces to EUR 18 000 000 the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3(f) of Commission Decision 2003/2/EC of 21 November 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.512 — Vitamins); |
| --- | --- |

1)

Reduces to EUR 18 000 000 the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3(f) of Commission Decision 2003/2/EC of 21 November 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.512 — Vitamins);

| 2) | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 3) | Orders the applicant to bear four fifths of its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission and the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs and to pay one fifth of the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the applicant to bear four fifths of its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission and the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs and to pay one fifth of the costs incurred by the applicant.

---

(1)  OJ C 97, 30.4.2002

1

---
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H.R. 2855

To provide that the President, Vice President, members of the President’s

Cabinet, and Members of Congress shall not be paid during a Federal

Government shutdown.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1996

Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. MARTINI, and Mr. GREENWOOD)

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

Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the Committee on

House Oversight, for a period to be subsequently determined by the

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To provide that the President, Vice President, members of

the President’s Cabinet, and Members of Congress shall

not be paid during a Federal Government shutdown.

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

HR 2855 IH

1 SECTION 1. PAY OF THE PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENT,

2 MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENT’S CABINET,

3 AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DURING A FED4 ERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN.

5 IN GENERAL.—The President, Vice-President, mem6 bers of the President’s Cabinet, and Members of Con7 gress—

8 (1) shall not receive basic pay for any period in

9 which there is a lapse in pay for Federal employees

10 because of a lack of appropriations; and

11 (2) shall only receive pay withheld in accord12 ance with paragraph (1) upon enactment of legisla13 tion restoring pay for all Federal employees for the

14 period involved.

Æ
HomeKyrgyzstan

# Kyrgyzstan

96 items

        -    TIAS  		Kyrgyz Republic (11-422) – Agreement Regarding Acquisition of Fuel for Operations at the Transit Center	  April 22, 2011 
        -    TIAS  		Kyrgyz Republic (09-711) – Agreement for Cooperation	  July 11, 2009 
        -    TIAS  		Kyrgyz Republic (08-815.1) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Nuclear and Other Radioactive Material	  August 15, 2008 
        -    TIAS  		Kyrgyz Republic (97-715.1) – Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperation with Trade and Investment	  July 15, 1997 
        -    TIAS  		Kyrgyzstan (94-112) – Treaty on Protection of Investment	  January 12, 1994 
        -    TIAS  		Kyrgyzstan (92-821) – Agreement on Trade Relations with Exchanges of Letters	  August 21, 1992 

previous page1…8910

Back to Top
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

    Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
            of Apogee Robotics, Inc. pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Apogee Robotics, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 1997 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Michael Anthony, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of Apogee Robotics, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: August 28, 2007


/s/ Michael Anthony
-------------------
Michael Anthony
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Michael Anthony
-------------------
Michael Anthony
Chief Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.1008 Appointment of representatives. ( a ) An affected party may appoint as its representative anyone not disqualified or suspended from acting as a representative in proceedings before the Secretary or otherwise prohibited by law.
( b ) If the representative appointed is not an attorney, the party must file written notice of the appointment with the ALJ or the Departmental Appeals Board.
( c ) If the representative appointed is an attorney, the attorney's statement that he or she has the authority to represent the party is sufficient.
#### Mercedes DUVALLON, Appellant, v. Rolando DUVALLON, Appellee.

Nos. 80-2240, 80-2241.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 16, 1982.

Mercedes Duvallon, in pro. per.

*1163James C. Burke, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, respondent below, appeals an order of the trial court of Dade County denying her motion to vacate an order of injunction. Appellant also appeals an order of the court adjudicating her guilty of willful and intentional contempt and sentencing her to serve a term of thirty days in jail. The appeals have been consolidated for appellate purposes.

Appellant urges reversal on the following grounds. First, the trial court erred in denying her motion to vacate the orders appealed. Second, the court erred in adjudicating her guilty of willful and intentional contempt when the rules of criminal procedure had not been complied with by the petition and the petitioner. Finally, appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the orders appealed.

Wide discretion rests in the trial court in granting, denying, or modifying injunctions. An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of this discretion unless some abuse thereof is clearly made to appear, or unless the trial court’s ruling is clearly improper. A presumption exists as to the correctness of the ruling of the trial court, and the burden is on the appellant to make error appear.

We have carefully considered appellant’s points on appeal in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of appellant (in person) and counsel for appellee, and we have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore the orders appealed are affirmed.

Affirmed.

BASKIN, Judge

(concurring in part, dissenting in part).

I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it denies appellant’s motion to vacate the injunction. With regard to the adjudication of contempt, however, I must dissent. I would reverse the Order because appellant was sentenced for indirect criminal contempt, *Pugliese v. Pugliese,*347 So.2d 422 (Fla.1977), and was entitled to due process of law, including those matters enunciated in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840(a). The order lacks a recital of facts constituting the contempt of which appellant was found guilty and was entered without affording appellant an opportunity to present matters in mitigation. While I recognize that appellant’s repeated appearances before the court may have suggested these requirements were somewhat superfluous, I nevertheless believe appellant should have been afforded the letter of the law. I would therefore reverse the Order of Contempt.
# C_2006086EN.01001902.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/19

---

Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

(Case C-93/06)

(2006/C 86/36)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by María Amparo Alcover San Pedro and Dr. Bernhard Schima, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to introduce the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Commission Directive 2003/73/EC of 24 July 2003 amending Annex III to Directive 1999/94/EC (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to introduce the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Commission Directive 2003/73/EC of 24 July 2003 amending Annex III to Directive 1999/94/EC (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the Directive expired on 25 July 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 186, 25.07.2003, p. 34.

1

---