alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE YORK GROUP, INC. 1999 FOURTH QUARTER REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE T0 SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              17
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,441
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,431
<INVENTORY>                                     33,980
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,239
<PP&E>                                          96,845
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,471
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 213,651
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,717
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   213,651
<SALES>                                        198,042
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               198,042
<CGS>                                          135,918
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  135,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,789
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,476
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,313
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,313
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .81


</TABLE>
#### § 169.734 Fire extinguishing system controls.

Each control cabinet or space containing valves or manifolds for the various fire extinguishing systems must be distinctly marked in conspicuous red letters at least 2 inches high: “CARBON DIOXIDE FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM,” “HALON EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM,” or “CLEAN AGENT EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM,” as appropriate.

[USCG-2006-24797, 77 FR 33890, June 7, 2012]
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, John T. Sawyer, certify that this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of Penhall International Corp. fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this quarterlyreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the registrant.

 
| Date: May 13, 2005 |   | /s/ John T. Sawyer |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                    |   | John T. Sawyer          |
|                    |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
#### George Whittaker, *Respondent, v.*Joseph M. Valentine and another, *Appellants.*

Judgment modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed, without costs to either party. Appeal from order allowing amendment to complaint dismissed, and that from order denying application for resettlement affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Order to be settled by Daniels, J. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
| | CERTIFICATION | EXHIBIT 31.1
| | ------------- | ------------

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

|I, Robert D. Parks, certify that:
|---------------------------------
|                                 
|1.                               
|                                 
|2.                               
|                                 
|3.                               
|                                 
|4.                               
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|5.                               
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 



|Date:	November 7, 2003 
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ ROBERT D. PARKS    
|                       
|By:		Robert D. Parks   
|Chief Executive Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 23

- 00546

- CV

IN RE J. Douglas SUTTER and Karen S. Sutter

Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 2, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On May 24, 2023 , relator s filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the

petition , r eal party in interest’s response, relators’ rep ly, and this record, this court concludes

relator s are not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is

denied without prejudice

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a)

.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 21

- 1492

- CV

- E , styled J. Douglas Sutter and Karen S. Sutter v. Guadalupe Appraisal District , pending in the 25th Judicial District Court

, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable Margaret

Garner Mirabal presiding.
# C_2012184EN.01002003.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/20

---

Order of the General Court of 30 April 2012 — Igcar Chemicals v ECHA

(Case T-526/11) (1)

1

2012/C 184/41

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.

1

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 40705 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. FERNANDO ALFREDO MORA , also known as Fernando Alfredo Mora Robledo,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:13

- CR

- 17

- 1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and PRADO and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Fernando Alfredo Mora appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry

. The district court imposed the lowest within

- guidelines sentence, 33 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 9, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-40705 Document: 00512762136 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2014No. 13

- 40705
Mora argues that the district court reversibly erred by failing to award him an additional one

- level reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). As we held recently in United States v. Villegas Palacios , __ F.3d __, No. 13

- 40153, 2014 WL 2119096, at *1 (5th Cir. May 21, 2014), the amended version of § 3E1.1 is applicable in a case such as this one , where the amendment was proposed at the time of sentencing and went into effect while the appeal was pendin g. Pursuant to the amended § 3E1.1, the Government may not withhold a § 3E1.1(b) motion because the defendant refuses to waive his right to appeal, as it did in this case. The Government has not shown that this error was harmless. See United States v. D elgado

Martinez , 564 F.3d 750, 752

- 53 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Mora’s sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the district court for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

2 Case: 13-40705 Document: 00512762136 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2014
Case 2:14-cv-14825-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 12/19/14 PageID.1 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-14825-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 12/19/14 PageID.2 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-14825-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 12/19/14 PageID.3 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-14825-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 12/19/14 PageID.4 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-14825-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 12/19/14 PageID.5 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-14825-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 12/19/14 PageID.6 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-14825-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 12/19/14 PageID.7 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-14825-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 12/19/14 PageID.8 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-14825-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 12/19/14 PageID.9 Page 9 of 9
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10
- 11
- 00411
- CV EX PARTE ROBIN DENIS E HARRIS

From the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No. CCC
- 11
- 40473

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Texas Department of Public Safety appealed the trial court’s “Order to Clear Record” rendered on May 18, 2011. By the Order, the trial court granted Robin Denise Harris’s “Petition to Clear Record.” The parties have now presented this Court with a Joint Motion to Reverse and Render Judgment which was filed on Dece mber 12, 2011. In the motion the parties explain that they agree Harris is not entitled to an expunction of records related to her arrest, see T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 55.01(a)(2) (West Supp. 2011), and agree that an order to reverse and render jud gment would resolve all issues in the appeal. The parties also agreed to pay their own costs in this appeal. The motion is signed by the attorney for the Texas Department of Public Safety and by Harris.Ex parte Harris Page 2

The parties’ motion is granted. The trial court ’s “Order to Clear Record” is reversed and an order denying Robin Denise Harris’s “Petition to Clear Record” is
rendered.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Reversed and rendered Opinion de livered and filed December 21, 2011 [CV06]
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JOHN P. GREINER, JR., 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-13979 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CHARTER COUNTY OF 

MACOMB, MICHIGAN aka 

MACOMB COUNTY, et al., 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINITFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF #158) 

 By an Opinion and Order dated September 11, 2017 (ECF #117) and a second 

Opinion and Order dated November 13, 2017 (ECF #138), this Court granted summary 

judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff John Greiner on all of Greiner’s 

claims. Greiner filed eight motions for reconsiderations (ECF ## 118, 119, 121, 122, 125, 

126, 128, 129), and the Court entered orders denying them all (ECF ## 124, 127, 131). The 

Court subsequently entered a final judgment against Greiner (ECF #139), and Greiner 

thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal. (ECF #140.) 

 With his appeal still pending, Greiner returned to this Court and filed a motion for 

relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF 

#155.) Because Greiner had filed a Notice of Appeal from the Court’s final judgment, this 

Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief under Rule 60(b). See Pickens v. Howes, 549 F.3d 

377, 383 (6th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, this Court denied Grenier’s motion. (ECF #157). 
2 

Furthermore, this Court indicated that, in the event of a remand, this Court would not grant 

Grenier’s motion for relief from judgment because the motion presented no new basis on 

which to disturb the judgment entered against Greiner. (Id. at Pg. ID 9990.) 

 On November 30, 2018, Grenier filed another motion for reconsideration from 

judgment “based on fraud on the court.” (ECF #158.) Motions for reconsideration are 

governed by Local Rule 7.1(h). That rule provides:

Generally, and without restricting the Court's discretion, the 

Court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration 

that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the Court, 

either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant 

must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the 

Court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on 

the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the 

defect will result in a different disposition of the case. 

E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). 

The Court has reviewed Greiner’s motion and concludes that he has not met this 

standard. Greiner has once again failed to persuade the Court that its earlier Opinions and 

Orders (ECF ##117, 138) contain palpable defects, or that correction of any of the alleged 

defects would result in a different disposition. Accordingly, Greiner’s motion (ECF #158) 

is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: December 10, 2018 

 
3 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on December 10, 2018, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00420-CR

MICHAEL RASHAD CRAIG, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 337th District Court of Harris County (Tr. Ct. No. 1333045).

The cause heard today by the Court is an appeal from the judgment signed by the 

court below on May 14, 2014. After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the 

opinion of this Court that there is no reversible error in the judgment. It is therefore 

CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and ORDERED that the judgment of the court below be 

affirmed.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered January 13, 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Brown.
GEN. PURPOSESINGLE PHASEGEN. PURPOSETHREE PHASESEVEREDUTYEXPLOSIONPROOFC-FACE SINGLE &THREE PHASEMULTI-SPEEDTHREE PHASEINVERTERDUTYVECTORDUTYBRAKEMOTORSU FRAMEMOTORSDIRECT CURRENT(DC)HVACMOTORS 

# 14 www.emersonmotors.com

® 

### APPLICATIONS: Designed for air compressors, pumps, conveyors, blowers and general industrial equipment. 203



### FEATURES:

Double Shielded Ball Bearings * Class A or B Insulation, Continuous Duty, 40C Ambient * F1 Assembly * Reversible Rotation *

Voltage List Catalog Number Frame "C" Dim. (inches) Multiplier Symbol Ship Wt (lbs) Notes HP RPM 

# C Face Footless

Full Load Amps SF D14C2PCR 4.8/2.4 25 22 9.9 $186 115/230 56C 1/4 1800 DS-3F 1.35 D13C2JCR 6.4/3.2 25 20 10.4 $218 115/208-230 56C 1/3 1800 DS-3F 1.35 D13CA2PCR 7.6/3.8 24 19 10.1 $249 115/230 56C 1800 DS-3FMP 1.35 D12C2JCR 8.2/4.1 25 20 10.4 $256 115/208-230 56C 1/2 1800 DS-3F 1.25 6184 8.4/4.2 24 20 11.0 $293 115/230 56C 1800 DS-3FMP 1.25 6187 10.4/5.2 25 35 12.3 $502 115/230 56C 1200 DS-3FMP 1.25 6186 12.4/6.2 24 26 10.8 $355 115/230 56C 3/4 1800 DS-3FMP 1.25 D34C2PCR 12.2/6.1 25 22 10.9 $314 115/230 56C 1800 DS-3F 1.25 6189 11.0/5.5 25 39 12.6 $560 115/230 56C 1200 DS-3FMP 1.15 D1C2PCR 16.4/8.2 25 22 11.6 $341 115/230 56C 1 1800 DS-3F 1.25 D32C2JCR 21.4/10.7 25 25 12.6 $388 115/208-230 56C 1-1/2 1800 DS-3F 1.15 D2C2PC18R 25.6/12.8 25 75 15.8 $612 115/230 182TC 2 1800 DS-3SP 1.15 D2C2PCR 21.4/10.7 25 40 13.1 $509 115/230 56C 1800 DS-3FMP 1.15 D3C2PC18R 33.0/16.5 25 72 17.8 $828 115/230 184TC 3 1800 DS-3SP 1.15

Note 24 Note 25 Non-protected Automatic Reset Thermal Overload Protector 

# General Purpose Single Phase Open Dripproof (ODP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

United States of America,

Criminal No. 15-mj-30085

Plaintiff,

v.

AL-HAMZAH MOHAMMAD JAWAD,

Defendant

MOTION AND BRIEF FOR DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the 

United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan hereby moves to 

dismiss without prejudice the Complaint against the defendant. The parties entered 

into a pretrial diversion agreement pursuant to which the defendant agreed to be 

removed from the United States, and the government agreed to dismiss the 

complaint subsequent to his removal. The defendant has now been removed from 

2:15-mj-30085-DUTY Doc # 16 Filed 04/02/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 32
the United States, and, accordingly, the government hereby moves to dismiss the 

Complaint without prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

BARBARA L. MCQUADE

United States Attorney

s/Cathleen M. Corken

CATHLEEN M. CORKEN

Assistant United States Attorney

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, MI 48226

Cathleen.corken@usdoj.gov

(313) 226-0206

Dated: April 2, 2016

2:15-mj-30085-DUTY Doc # 16 Filed 04/02/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 33
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on Saturday, April 02, 2016, I electronically filed the 

foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which 

will send notification of such filing to the following:

Andrew N. Wise

Todd Shanker

s/Cathleen M. Corken

CATHLEEN M. CORKEN

Assistant United States Attorney

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, MI 48226

Cathleen.corken@usdoj.gov

(313) 226-0206

2:15-mj-30085-DUTY Doc # 16 Filed 04/02/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 34
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2131 

AN ACT 

To amend the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring 

Act of 1998 to reauthorize the United States Advisory 

Commission on Public Diplomacy. 

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

•HR 2131 EH

1 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF UNITED STATES ADVI2 SORY COMMISSION ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY. 

3 Section 1334 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Re4 structuring Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6553) is amended by 

5 striking ‘‘October 1, 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 

6 2010’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 23, 

2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2131 

AN ACT 

To amend the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restrucmacy. States Advisory Commission on Public Diplo- turing Act of 1998 to reauthorize the United
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,842
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          17,321
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         127,175
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           127,013
<LOANS>                                        443,257
<ALLOWANCE>                                        771
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 615,055
<DEPOSITS>                                     481,093
<SHORT-TERM>                                    19,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,996
<LONG-TERM>                                     29,985
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,345
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,678
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 615,055
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 35,762
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,802
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   250
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                43,814
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              24,004
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,774
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           18,040
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       55
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,482
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,339
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       6,030
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,030
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.78
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,464
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,373
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,196
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      489
<RECOVERIES>                                         9
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  771
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               388
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            383
        

</TABLE>
# C_2013313EN.01002103.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — ClientEarth and PAN Europe v EFSA

(Case T-214/11) (1)

1

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Names of experts who submitted comments on a guidance document relating to the scientific documents to be included in applications for authorisation to place plant protection products and the active substances contained in those products on the market - Refusal of access - Exception concerning protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 313/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, Agent)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek and C. ten Dam, and subsequently by P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, initially, for annulment of the EFSA decision of 10 February 2011 refusing an application for access, under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), to certain working documents relating to a guidance document, prepared by EFSA, for the benefit of applicants for authorisation to place plant protection products on the market and, subsequently, for annulment of EFSA’s decision of 12 December 2011 withdrawing the earlier decision and granting the applicants access to all the information requested, except for the names of the external experts who made certain comments on the draft guidance document.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders ClientEarth and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Commission each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders ClientEarth and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Commission each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.

1

---