alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAK SUKYAS; EDWARD SUKYAS,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

ROMANIA; RADEF ROMANIA FILM,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 56557

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 01946

- FMO

- JC Central District of California, Los Angeles

ORDER

Before: WARDLAW and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS, * District Judge.

The memorandum disposition filed on March 19, 2019 is amended as

follows:

On page four of the memorandum disposition, in the paragraph beginning

“The district court did not address,” replace < Although the Sukyas brothers

sufficiently allege that the rights in issue

— their ownership rights in CIRO’s assets,

real estate, and business

— are property rights, we rema nd for the district court to

decide in the first instance whether CIRO “was indeed ‘taken in violation of

international law.’”> with <We remand for the district court to decide in the first

instance whether the Sukyas brothers’ ownership rights in CIRO’s a ssets, real

* The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge for the District of Vermont , sitting by designation. 

# FILED

APR 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

estate, and business are “rights in property,” and whether CIRO “was indeed ‘taken

in violation of international law.’”>.

With this amendment, Judges Wardlaw and Bennett vote to deny the

appellees’ petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, and Judge Sessions

so recommends. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en

banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en

banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for panel rehearing and rehe aring en banc

is therefore DENIED. No further petitions for panel or en banc rehearing shall be

permitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
#### § 1921.1 Applicability of rules.

This part provides rules of practice for administrative hearings relating to the enforcement of section 41 of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act and the safety regulations promulgated thereunder which are published in parts 1915 and 1918 of this subtitle. This part applies only to proceedings held under section 41(b)(5) of the Act. It does not apply to any other administrative proceedings held under section 41 of the Act.
§ 2570.97 Summary decision. For 502(c)(5) civil penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of 29 CFR 18.41. ( a ) *No genuine issue of material fact.* ( 1 ) Where no issue of material fact is found to have been raised, the administrative law judge may issue a decision which, in the absence of an appeal pursuant to §§ 2570.99 through 2570.101, shall become a final order.
( 2 ) A decision made under this paragraph shall include a statement of: ( i ) Findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the reasons therefore, on all issues presented; and
( ii ) Any terms and conditions of the rule or order.
( 3 ) A copy of any decision under this paragraph shall be served on each party.
( b ) *Hearings on issues of fact.* Where a genuine question of material fact is raised, the administrative law judge shall, and in any other case may, set the case for an evidentiary hearing.
#### § 1925.2 Safety and health standards.

Every contractor and subcontractor shall comply with the safety and health standards published in 41 CFR part 50-204, including any matters incorporated by reference therein.

[36 FR 9866, May 29, 1971. Redesignated at 36 FR 25232, Dec. 30, 1971]
#### § 22.45 Deposit in Treasury of United States.

All amounts collected pursuant to this part shall be deposited as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury of the United States, except as provided in 31 U.S.C. 3806(g) .
Exhibit 32.02

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-Q of Serena Software, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended
April 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert I. Pender, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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 at the dates and for
the periods presented.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    ROBERT I. PENDER, JR.Robert I. Pender, Jr.Senior Vice President, Finance And Administration, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial And Accounting
Officer)


Date: June 14, 2011

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Serena Software, Inc. and will be retained by Serena Software, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This Certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Submitted on petition for rehearing July 31,

rehearing denied and former opinion modified October 16, 1928.

#### FRANK BERNS *v.*JOHN J. BERNS et al.

(270 Pac. 918.)

Rehearing denied and former opinion modified October 16, 1928.

For appellants, *Messrs. Bolts & Winslow.*

For respondent Berns, *Mr. L. F. Callahan, Mr. S. S. Johnson*and *Mr. Rogers MacVeagh.*

For respondents Walter M. Pierce, Sam A. Kozer and Jefferson Myers, *Mr. E. J. Claussen.*

BEAN, J.

On petition for rehearing filed by appellants E. D. Johnson and Harry Johnson, and a motion for rehearing and modification of decree of respondents Theodore M. Berns and Antonio M. Berns, executors of the estate of Frank Berns, deceased, and upon reconsideration of the testimony and record herein. The former opinion will be modified in the following particulars:

In the foreclosure of the first mortgage of the State Land Board, the sum of $400 will be allowed as reasonable attorney’s fees in such foreclosure.

In the foreclosure of the Berns’ mortgage, the principal amount of which was $14,000, an attorney’s fee of $1,000 will be allowed as a reasonable sum for foreclosing such mortgage.

In all other respects the petitions for rehearing and for a modification of the original opinion will be denied.

Rehearing Denied and Former Opinion Modified.
#### § 2.39 Political or religious affiliation.

Decisions about awards of Federal financial assistance must be free from political interference or even the appearance of such interference and must be made on the basis of merit, not on the basis of the religious affiliation of a recipient organization or lack thereof.

[81 FR 19423, Apr. 4, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 82141, Dec. 17, 2020]
#### § 2570.134 Consequences of default.

For 502(c)(7) civil penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of § 18.5(a) and (b) of this title. Failure of the respondent to file an answer to the notice of determination described in § 2560.502c-7(g) of this chapter within the 30 day period provided by § 2560.502c-7(h) of this chapter shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of his or her right to appear and contest the allegations of the notice of determination, and such failure shall be deemed to be an admission of the facts as alleged in the notice for purposes of any proceeding involving the assessment of a civil penalty under section 502(c)(7) of the Act. Such notice shall then become the final order of the Secretary, within the meaning of § 2570.131(g) of this subpart, forty-five (45) days from the date of service of the notice.
#### § 1910.122 Table of contents.

This section lists the paragraph headings contained in §§ 1910.123 through 1910.126.

## § 1910.123 Dipping and coating operations: Coverage and definitions.

(a) Does this rule apply to me?

(b) What operations are covered?

(c) What operations are not covered?

(d) How are terms used in §§ 1910.123 through 1910.126 defined?

## § 1910.124 General requirements for dipping and coating operations.

(a) What construction requirements apply to dip tanks?

(b) What ventilation requirements apply to vapor areas?

(c) What requirements must I follow to recirculate exhaust air into the workplace?

(d) What must I do when I use an exhaust hood?

(e) What requirements must I follow when an employee enters a dip tank?

(f) What first-aid procedures must my employees know?

(g) What hygiene facilities must I provide?

(h) What treatment and first aid must I provide?

(i) What must I do before an employee cleans a dip tank?

(j) What must I do to inspect and maintain my dipping or coating operation?

## § 1910.125 Additional requirements for dipping and coating operations that use flammable or combustible liquids.

(a) What type of construction material must be used in making my dip tank?

(b) When must I provide overflow piping?

(c) When must I provide a bottom drain?

(d) When must my conveyer system shut down automatically?

(e) What ignition and fuel sources must be controlled?

(f) What fire protection must I provide?

(g) To what temperature may I heat a liquid in a dip tank?

## § 1910.126 Additional requirements for special dipping and coating operations.

(a) What additional requirements apply to hardening or tempering tanks?

(b) What additional requirements apply to flow coating?

(c) What additional requirements apply to roll coating, roll spreading, or roll impregnating?

(d) What additional requirements apply to vapor degreasing tanks?

(e) What additional requirements apply to cyanide tanks?

(f) What additional requirements apply to spray cleaning tanks and spray degreasing tanks?

(g) What additional requirements apply to electrostatic paint detearing?
#### § 1601.8 Where to make a charge.

A charge may be made using the EEOC's designated digital systems, in person, by facsimile, or by mail to any EEOC office or to any designated representative of the Commission. The addresses of the EEOC's offices appear at *www.eeoc.gov.*

[85 FR 65217, Oct. 15, 2020]
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 2 ,

2020

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 19

- 00519

- CR

AARON JAQUES , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas T ri al Court Cause No. 1391641

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Aaron Jaques signed and filed a written request to withdraw his notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not delivered an opinion, we grant appellant’s request.

Ac cor di ngly , we order the appeal dismissed. We direct the clerk of the court to issue the mandate of the court immediately.2 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant

Do Not Publish

– Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
#### YOUNG etc v MESZAROS et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10606.

Decided March 17, 1930

Frank A. Green, and G. Z. Weintraub, Cleveland, for Young.

James L. Lind, Cleveland, for Meszaros, et.

*333LEVINE, J.

From the statement of claim it appears that the negotiations between the parties were verbal and if plaintiff were to depend on such verbal agreement the conclusion reached by, the municipal court would be undoubtedly correct. A close examination of the statement of claim, however, discloses that the plaintiff relies wholly upon the written .agreement which is attached to the petition wherein the defendant promises, in writing, to pay $200.00 commission to plaintiff for services already performed. If under the same circumstances the defendant executed a promissory note to the plaintiff for $200.0,0 and suit was entered thereon, it would be no defense to the action that the note was given for services rendered in connection with the sale of real estate upon a verbal understanding between the parties. We can see no distinction between the promise made in the present case and the giving of a promissory note excepting that the former is non-negotiable.

The statute of frauds, it must be remembered, is purely defensive in its character, of which the party sued may avail himself. He may, if he chooses, waive that defense. In the present case this promise in writing for $200.00 commission for services already performed, merely amounts to a waiver of the defense of the statute of frauds of which the party could have availed himself if he chose.

If it be contended that there was no consideration for the written promise, and were the court to seriously consider said contention, it would not justify the trial court in rendering judgment upon the pleadings because the matter of consideration may be shown by parol evidence and need not be contained in the writing itself.

We are of the opinion that the statement of claim sets forth a valid cause of action, not for the real estate commission as such, but instead it is founded upon a written promise which may or may not have been supported by a consideration. It is, in our opinion, the duty of the trial court to overrule the objection to the introduction of any evidence and hear testimony upon the issues presented.

Holding as we do, the judgment of the municipal court is ordered reversed and the same is remanded for a new trial according to law.

Vickery, J., concurs. Sullivan, J., not sitting.
#### § 2520.102-1 [Reserved]
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0026 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0026

**2000/26/EC: Commission Decision of 21 December 1999 amending Decision 87/293/EEC authorising methods for grading pig carcases in Ireland (notified under document number C(1999) 4741) (Only the English text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 009 , 13/01/2000 P. 0029 - 0029 *

COMMISSION DECISION

of 21 December 1999

amending Decision 87/293/EEC authorising methods for grading pig carcases in Ireland

(notified under document number C(1999) 4741)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(2000/26/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigment(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3290/94(2),

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84 of 13 November 1984 determining the Community scale for grading pig carcases(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3513/93(4), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The Commission, by Decision 87/293/EEC(5), as last amended by Decision 98/284/EC(6), has authorised different methods for grading pig carcases in Ireland.

(2) The Irish Government has requested the Commission to remove the method "Introscope/midline" from the list of authorised methods for grading pig carcases in Ireland, as the said method is no longer used to grade pig carcases in Ireland.

(3) Decision 87/293/EEC should be amended accordingly.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Decision 87/293/EEC is hereby amended as follows:

1. The third indent of Article 1 is deleted.

2. Part 3 of the Annex is deleted.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to Ireland.

Done at Brussels, 21 December 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 105.

(3) OJ L 301, 20.11.1984, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 320, 22.12.1993, p. 5.

(5) OJ L 146, 6.6.1987, p. 66.

(6) OJ L 128, 30.4.1998, p. 69.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Keystone
Consolidated Industries, Inc.'s consolidated financial statements for the year
ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
consolidated financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          22,622
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,782
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,941
<INVENTORY>                                     53,930
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               134,437
<PP&E>                                         293,883
<DEPRECIATION>                                 181,129
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 374,131
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,753
<BONDS>                                        103,055
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            3,500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,029
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,182
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   374,131
<SALES>                                        354,073
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               357,344
<CGS>                                          316,599
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  316,599
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,711
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,513
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,612
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,909
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,541
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,368
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,368
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       1.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.28
        

</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JASON CARL DASCOTT

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 3463

[ December 26, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Daliah Weiss , Judge;

L.T. Case No s

. 1998CF012923AXXXMB and 2016CF01410AXXXMB

.

Jason C. Dascott, Wewahitchka, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A . Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

T

AYLOR

, D AMOORGIAN and C IKLIN
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          46,027
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,155
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,960
<PP&E>                                           3,869
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,841
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,469
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,331
<SALES>                                          7,604
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,604
<CGS>                                            5,225
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  32
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,207)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,207)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,207)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.40)


</TABLE>
#### § 1960.16 Compliance with OSHA standards.

Each agency head shall comply with all occupational safety and health standards issued under section 6 of the Act, or with alternate standards issued pursuant to this subpart. In complying with section 6 standards, an agency may, upon prior notification to the Secretary, prescribe and enforce more stringent permissible exposure levels or threshold limit values and may require more frequent monitoring of exposures without recourse to the approval procedures for alternate standards described in § 1960.17. In addition, after consultation with employees and safety and health committees and prior notification to the Secretary, an agency may utilize the latest edition of a reference standard if it is more stringent than the section 6 standard. After notification, the Secretary may require the use of the approval procedures for alternate standards for any of the situations described in this paragraph.
#### Yvonne A. LeBaron, Respondent, *v.*Auguste Bartoli et al., as Ancillary Administrators with the Will Annexed of the Estate of Francois Coty Deceased, Appellants.

Argued April 20, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*500
      *David Brady, Kenneth F. Simpson*and *Leo Brady*appearing specially for appellants.

*Samuel Seabury, Francis L. Kohlman*and *George Trosk*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Htjbbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.