alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

----

I Information

Commission

----

Euro exchange rates (1)

22 July 2004

(2004/C 188/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----

----

LIST OF EXPERTS APPOINTED AS MEMBERS OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEES

(2004/C 188/02)

List in alphabetical order of the scientists appointed by the Commission as members of the Scientific Committees established by Decision 2004/210/EC of 4 March 2004.

Reserve list of experts

List in alphabetical order of the scientists constituting the reserve list of experts as set out in Article 4 of Decision 2004/210/EC of 4 March 2004.

----

----

COMMISSION NOTICE

Appointment of the Chairman and members of the Conciliation Body established by Commission Decision 94/442/EC of 1 July 1994 setting up a conciliation procedure in the context of the clearance of the accounts of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee Section

(2004/C 188/03)

The Commission has appointed:

The Commission has named as a substitute member of the Body from 1 August 2004:

Mr Gert Ingmar Jönsson.

----

----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3472 — RELIANCE/TREVIRA)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2004/C 188/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)OJ C 217, 29.7.2000, p. 32; Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 has been replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

----

III Notices

Commission

----

Notice of invitation to tender for the reduction in the import duty on maize imported from non-member countries

(2004/C 188/05)

I.   SUBJECT

II.   TIME LIMITS

III.   TENDERS

IV.   SECURITY FOR TENDER

The tendering security shall be made payable to the competent authority.

V.   AWARD OF THE CONTRACT

The award of the contract shall establish:

----

(1)OJ L 249, 23.7.2004, p. 7.

(2)OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4.

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 1926

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.1200 [Reserved]
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 10631 Su m m ar y Cal endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. J O S E A N T U N E S -A G U IR R E , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 03- C R

- 351- 1

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e att orney ap poi n t ed t o represent Jose A n t u n es- A gu i rre ha s m oved f or l e av e t o w i t hdr aw a nd has f i l e d a b r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A n d er s v . Ca lif o rn ia , 386 U
. S. 7 38 ( 19 67 )
. Ant une s - Agui r r e ha s no tf i l e d a r e s po ns e . Our i nde pe nde ntr e vi e w o f t he r e c o r d a nd c o uns e l ’ s b r i e f di s c l o s e s no no nf

r ivo l o us is s u e fo ra p p e a l
. A c c o r d in g ly , co u n s e l’ s m o tio n fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w is G RA N TE D , c o uns e l i s e xc us e d f r o m f ur t he r r e s po ns ibi l i t i e s he r e i n , an d the A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D
. S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 14, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v SMITH

Case No. 86-121 AC (County Court Case No. 82044, 5BD)

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

April 16, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Jim Smith, Attorney General, and Michael J. Neiman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Harry W. Prebish for appellee.

Before MASTOS, FULLER, KORNBLUM, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The trial court suppressed blood alcohol test results because the *180chemist analyzing the breath sample did not note in his log the number imprinted by the crimper on the indium template.

Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Rule 10D-42.24 required the number of the test kit or ampule to be recorded in the log. The State contends that the rule is not applicable to an indium template because the number stamped on the template is the same on all templates crimped in the same crimper box. It is obvious, therefore, that the number stamped on the indium template could not be used to identify the sample with the accused.

The appellee argues that the logging of the crimper number is required so that any suspected malfunction can be traced back to the crimper that produced the sample. It is clear, however, that such tracing can just as easily be accomplished by reference to the DUI case file.

The purpose of the rule is not clear but considering the other information required to be kept in the log it seems that the requirement that the test kit number or ampule number be entered is for the purpose of identifying the sample.

Perhaps some number should be assigned to the test samples produced by the indium crimper for each sample which would allow identification of each sample with the accused in each case. This may be later addressed by the HRS or perhaps by the Legislature.

At present, in connection with analysis of breath samples collected by using the indium crimper, the recording of the crimper number in the log serves no purpose and should not be required.

There was substantial compliance with HRS rules with regard to the log required to be kept.

Reversed and remanded.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, W. Mark Lortz, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of TheraSense, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of TheraSense, Inc.



Date: November 13, 2003



By:

/s/ W. MARK LORTZName: W. Mark LortzTitle: Chief Executive Officer




I, Charles T. Liamos, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of TheraSense, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of TheraSense, Inc.



Date: November 13, 2003



By:

/s/ CHARLES T. LIAMOSName: Charles T. LiamosTitle: Chief Financial Officer
OFFlCE OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Hon. J. a. ccwdy 

Counts Auditor 

Wlohlta Caunty 

Wlahlta Falls, Texam 

le 2688 Yernon*s Annohat the Supeslnten&ent 

the C&ssioners' Court 

e Court House, and with neoure and fixtures. We would 

ng advised by yaur department 

an adUfn(3 machine oould be olasss provision and whether or not the 

ktiole 2688, Vernon's Aunotated Civil Statutes, 

after nakm provision r0r the eleotion of a County Super- 
872 

Hon. J. C. Gaudy, Page 2 

lntendent provides a8 follovtsr 

(Fie)n8hall be provided by the Commiasion- 

.ers* Courtwith an office in tho omrthouse, 

and with neoeesary offloe furniture and fixturea.” 

Addltloual statutqry proviso8 pertinent to our 

question r0imt 

Article 3S99b (21, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statuten, provides thatr 

“Suitable offiges and stationery and 

blanks neoeesary in fha performmoe of their 

duttes may in the disoretion of the %mmissioners* Court also be furnished to...... 

County Superlntendenta........and mpp be paid 

for on order of the Cosmissioneis’ Court out 

of the County Treasury.” 

Arttole 2700; Revfsed Civil Statutes, 1925, after 

fixing the salaries ot.County Superintendents once population baels provides: 

*In making the annual par oapfta app&- 

tionment to the sohools, the oounty aohool 

@ustees shall also make an annual allowanoe 

dut of the State and county available funds 

for salary and expenses of the arfioe of the 

oounty superintendent..... The oounty board 

of truetees may nalce suoh rurther provlsibnsae 

it deems neoeesary for orfloe and traveling 

expenses for the oounty euper$ntendent....v 

Artiole 2700 d-l, provides! 

So. 1. “That . . . . . the salary and OrrIce 

expenses of the oounty superintendent of pub110 instruatlon,,...shall be paid out, of the 

eohool funds ,of thsoorsvon end Independent 

sohool dietriots of the oounty.” 

Seo. 2. *That the County Eoard of Trustees 

shall annually . . ..ordcr a aoholastio per oapita 
t3Y4 

mm; J. C. Oondy, Page 4 

mperlntendent . Further, we have been unable to rind 

any other statutory or aoans%ltutional p~ovlslon whiah 

might oonfer that necessary authority. Suoh was the 

oonstntatiion &Den these statutory prwlslons in departmental option 210. -7, Dook 56, page 127 date4 Septeabar 2& Z921, by 1:. C. Sutton, Assistant Attorney General, 

toHan. 0. L. Orouoh and whiohthia opinion substantlatea. 

Therefore, it la our opinion and you ara respedtttally edvlaed that the.Ca&asloners* Court my uat 

ttae money dbxfved frcm the generaliunds & the oounty to 

Lisa an adding mohine for the oounty qwrintendent's 

. 

l'rustm that the above t3at+l'aatoriiy answers 

you2 Inquiry, we remain 

Very truly your0 

AT'kORl?ST CEEtlERAL OF TEXAS
Order entered August 7 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 00586
- CR
TIMOTHY MANIMOI , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F08
- 59321
- Y



### O RDER In this case, appellant raises an issue related to the costs assessed against him. The record, however, does not contain a cost bill or other document with an itemized list of costs assessed in this case. Accordingly, we OR DER the Dallas Count District Clerk to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization of the costs assessed in this case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court appointed attorney fees. In acc ordance with Texas Code of Criminal Proced ure article 103.001, the cost bill shall be signed by the officer who charged the costs or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost. We further ORDER that the sup plementalclerk’s record include a document explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a

particular fee, cost, or court appointed attorney fees.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, b y electronic transmission to Ga ry Fitzsimmons, D allas County District Clerk; Dallas County District Clerk’s Office , Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL PRESIDING JUSTICE
#### § 2200.208 Discovery.

Discovery, including requests for admissions, will only be allowed under the conditions and time limits set by the Judge.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 98 (Friday, May 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12626]


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

COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS


Request for Public Comments on a Request That the United States 
Consult With Mexico and Canada Concerning a Certain Filament Yarn; 
Amendment

May 15, 2000.
AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).

ACTION: Amending request for public comments concerning a request for 
consultations on certain filament yarn.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Walsh, International Trade 
Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, (202) 482-3400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as 
amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as 
amended.

    A notice published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2000 (65 FR 
11040) advised the public that CITA had been petitioned to initiate 
consultations with Mexico and Canada under Section 7(2) of Annex 300-B 
of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) for the purpose of 
amending the NAFTA rules of origin to permit the use of non-North 
American filament viscose rayon yarn classified in HTS headings 
5403.10, 5403.31, 5403.32 and 5403.41 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States in NAFTA originating goods. This notice amends, 
but does not cancel, that notice. The petition has been amended to 
request consultations on the use of non-North American filament yarn 
classified in HTS heading 5403.39 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States, in addition to the four filament viscose rayon yarn 
headings listed in that notice.
    There will be a 30-day comment period beginning on May 19, 2000 and 
extending through June 19, 2000. Anyone wishing to comment or provide 
data or information regarding domestic production or availability of 
filament yarn classified in HTS headings 5403.10, 5403.31, 5403.32, 
5403.39 and 5403.41 is invited to submit 10 copies of such comments or 
information to D. Michael Hutchinson, Acting Chairman, Committee for 
the Implementation of Textile Agreements, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
Washington, DC 20230.
    Comments or information submitted in response to this notice will 
be available for public inspection in the Office of Textiles and 
Apparel, room H3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
    The solicitation of comments is not a waiver in any respect of the 
exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) relating to matters which 
constitute a ``foreign affairs function of the United States.''

D. Michael Hutchinson,
Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements.
[FR Doc. 00-12626 Filed 5-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-F
#### FIGUEREDO CHEVROLET, INC. v SABATINO

Case No. 85-373 AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

December 12, 1986

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

James D. Adams, Quinton, Lummus, Dunwody *&*Adams, P.A., for appellant.

James R. Sabatino, Sabatino & Spindel, for appellee.

Before SIMONS, TENDRICH, DONNER, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the Final Judgment which held that there was a *166breach of warranty and assessed damages in the amount of costs necessary to convert the automobiles to the particular type of model the dealer had represented it to be. We find no error as to the finding that there was a breach of warranty. The proper element of damages should have been the “market value of the merchandise received as opposed to that which had been promised.” See *Carter Hawley Hale Stores v. Conley,*372 So.2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

The cause is remanded for re-trial on the issue of damages only.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
SANWA BUSINESS CREDIT CORPORATION
                     One South Wacker Drive
                    Chicago, Illinois  60606




September 1, 1997


VIA FACSIMILE AND CERTIFIED MAIL

Mr. Michael Sonaco
President & CEO
C&L Communications, Inc.
12000 Network Blvd.
Suite 300
San Antonio, Texas 78249

Re:  Waiver of Events of Default/Sanwa Business Credit Corporation
     Loan Facility to C&L Communications, Inc.

Dear Mr. Sonaco:

Reference is made to that certain Loan and Security Agreement dated
as of January 2, 1996, as amended, by and between C&L
Communications, Inc. ("Borrower") and Sanwa Business Credit
Corporation ("SBCC").  You have advised us that there now exists
certain Events of Default under the Loan Agreement due to (i)
Borrower's failure to timely deliver to SBCC its year-end (March
31, 1997) audited financial statements in accordance with Section
10.1(E)(i) of the Loan Agreement and (ii) Borrower's failure to
deliver to SBCC the monthly Covenant Compliance Certificate in
accordance with Section 10.1(M) of the Loan Agreement for the
periods ending on April 30, 1997, May 31, 1997, June 30, 1997 and
July 31, 1997 (collectively, the "Events of Default").

SBCC hereby waives the Events of Default.  SBCC's waiver of the
Events of Default shall in no way be deemed a waiver or forbearance
of any other default, whether now existing or hereafter arising or
any other Event of Default under the Loan Agreement or any
Ancillary Agreement.

Yours very truly,

/s/  Andrew Heinz
     Vice President/Credit Manager
     Collateral Lending Department
     Sanwa Business Credit Corp.

cc:  Mr. James Fiedler
     The Diana Corporation
     8200 West Brown Deer Road
     Suite 200
     Milwaukee, WI  53223

     Mr. Kenneth Hunt, Esq.
     Godfrey & Kahn, S.C.
     780 North Water Street
     Milwaukee, WI  53202

     Mr. Bradley Schmarak, Esq.
     Sachnoff & Weaver, Ltd.
     30 South Wacker Drive
     29th Floor
     Chicago, Illinois  60606-7484
#### MILLER INDUSTRIES CO v ROMAN, et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10159.

Decided March 10, 1930

A. R. Edgerton and Price Janson, both of Cleveland, for Industries Co.

Melville W. Vickery, Cleveland, for Roman, et.

WILLIAMS, J and RICHARDS, J (6th Dist) sitting.

*250Richards, J., concurs.
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.852 Chutes. ( a ) No material shall be dropped to any point lying outside the exterior walls of the structure unless the area is effectively protected.
( b ) All materials chutes, or sections thereof, at an angle of more than 45° from the horizontal, shall be entirely enclosed, except for openings equipped with closures at or about floor level for the insertion of materials. The openings shall not exceed 48 inches in height measured along the wall of the chute. At all stories below the top floor, such openings shall be kept closed when not in use.
( c ) A substantial gate shall be installed in each chute at or near the discharge end. A competent employee shall be assigned to control the operation of the gate, and the backing and loading of trucks.
( d ) When operations are not in progress, the area surrounding the discharge end of a chute shall be securely closed off.
( e ) Any chute opening, into which workmen dump debris, shall be protected by a substantial guardrail approximately 42 inches above the floor or other surface on which the men stand to dump the material. Any space between the chute and the edge of openings in the floors through which it passes shall be solidly covered over.
( f ) Where the material is dumped from mechanical equipment or wheelbarrows, a securely attached toeboard or bumper, not less than 4 inches thick and 6 inches high, shall be provided at each chute opening.
( g ) Chutes shall be designed and constructed of such strength as to eliminate failure due to impact of materials or debris loaded therein.
#### LAWRENCE v KMETZ, et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10657.

Decided Sept 29, 1930

Carl L. Erb, Cleveland, for Lawrence.

Hyre & Hyre and Wm. J. Davis, all of Cleveland, for Kmetz, et.

LEVINE, J.

We have no doubt but that if the origiT nal contractor, Michael Hamamey, were permitted by the owner to proceed with the erection of the building, in accordance with the plans furnished by the architect, that under the liberal construction of our mechanic’s lien law a lien would attach in favor of the architect.

The rights of the original contractor, Hamamey, if he has any against the owner, would have to be asserted in a suit for breach of contract. He would have no lien for the reason that no material was furnished by him which went into the construction of the building, nor was any work done by him in furtherance thereof, and he was not permitted by the owner to proceed with the performance of his contract. His remedy therefore is limited entirely to a suit for breach of contract. It therefore follows that the architect who claims under a contract with Michael Hamamey can exert no greater rights than could Michael Hamamey.

The plaintiff, the architect, who prepared plans for the erection of the building under a contract between himself and Michael Hamamey, principal contractor, which called for the preparation of such plans by the architect, has undoubtedly a cause of action against Michael Hamamey for the value of his services. He can claim, however, no lien attaching to the building erected by another contractor when the plans prepared by the architect were not used in the erection of said building. He can claim no greater rights than could Michael Hamamey.

In order' that the lien attach, the owner must consent to have the work done or the material furnished. Likewise it is clear that the work done and materials furnished by both must be actually applied to the erection of the building.

The claim of the plaintiff lacks both elements, namely, the consent of the owner to the use of the plans prepared by the architect, and also that it is quite clear that the plans so submitted by the architect were not in fact used in the erection of the building so constructed by another contractor with whom the architect had no relation whatsoever.

The case comes into this court on appeal and we are content to decide this case upon statements of counsel and the briefs sub*722mitted by them as to the law applicable -to it.

A decree will be rendered in favor of defendant and a journal entry will be prepared accordingly.

Vickery, PJ, and Cline, J, concur.