alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ATTACHMENT III - EXPLANATORY APPENDIX On June 16, 2009, the Agency issued the Phase 5 Reregistration Eligibility D ecision (RED) Product Data Call - In Notice pursuant to sections 4(g)(2)(B) of FIFRA which required the registrants of products containing MGK264 used as an active ingredient to develop and submit certain data. The data/information were determined to be necessary to satisfy the reregistration requirements of section 4(g). Failure to comply with the requirements of a Phase 5 Reregistration Eligibility D ecision Product Data Call - In Notice (PDCI) is a basis for suspension under section 3(c ) (2 ) ( B) of FIFRA. Adams Technology Systems received the MGK-264 RED/PDCI , as evidenced by the US Postal Service domestic return receipt card which was sig ned by Rob Adams. The 90 -day response was due to the Agency on November 6, 2009

. On March 17 , 2 010 , the Risk Management and Implementation Branch V (RMIBV), Branch Chief, Patricia L. Moe, sent a certified letter to Mr. Rob B. Adams Jr. and informed him th at Adams Technology Systems did not submit their 90 - day PDCI response and it remains outstanding

. The 8 - month response for this product (which was required to be submitted by March 16, 201 0 ) has not been received by the Agency. N either the 90 - day response (due 90 days after the registrant received the PDCI) nor the 8 - month response s (due 8 months after the registrant received the PDCI) have been received by the Agency. On April 25, 2012, the Risk Management and Implementation Branch V, Chemical Review Man ager, Veronica Dutch, sent a certified letter to Mr. Rob Adams, Jr., and informed him that Adams Technology Systems ’ required 8 - month PDCI response for the MGK-264 product (EPA Reg. No. 7754 -41) was overdue

. In the April 25, 2012, letter, it was stated tha t the Application for Reregistration (EPA Form 8570 - 1), two copies of the Confidential Statement of Formula (CSF), five copies of the draft labels, Certification with Respect to Citation of Data (EPA Form 8570 - 34), and Data Matrix (EPA Form 8570 - 35) needed to be submitted for the product within 10 days from Adams Technology Systems ’ receipt of the letter or a Notice of Intent to Suspend would be issued. Adams Technology Systems received the letter as evidenced by the US Postal Service domestic return recei pt card, which was dated and signed by Rob Adams on April 30, 2012. To date, the 90 - day response, the 8 - month response, and the product specific data required for this product have not yet been received by the Agency

. Therefore, this Notice of Inten t to Suspend is being issued.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

ELKINS : 02-1527

GRANT : 02-1943

MURPHY : 02-3866

RENER : 02-3870

JACKSON : 02-3900

MARUSHI, et al. : 02-3914

MORRIS : 02-3953

FORTNER : 02-3961

MACHALA : 02-3984

RAMIREZ, et al. : 02-4114

THEODORAN : 02-4123

STOPHER : 02-4147

COPENHAVER, et al. : 02-4187

PERERA : 02-4205

BERUMEN, et al. : 02-4238

RISLEY, et al. : 02-4246

MONTGOMERY, et al. : 02-4280

MILLER, et al. : 02-4281

DUBOIS : 02-4317

EDUVALA, et al. : 02-4327

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

Case 2:02-cv-04147-AB Document 2 Filed 07/17/2002 Page 1 of 2
[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota.

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Anita B. Brody, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04147-AB Document 2 Filed 07/17/2002 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10309)

Entry No. J-1032.

#### Ford Motor Company *v.*United States

(Amended decision [Reap. Dec. 10244] dated August 7, 1962)

*James M. O’Boyle*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain automobiles, identified herein as 250 Anglia DeLuxe and 50 Prefect DeLuxe, exported from Ireland and entered at the port of Jacksonville, Fla.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the automobiles in question is cost of production, as defined in section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory value therefor is as follows:

> Anglia DeLuxe automobile Prefect DeLuxe automobile

> Material and labor 281. 86 292. 81

> Usual general expenses 28.19 29.28

> Profit 24. 80 37.72

> Total 334. 85 359. 81

> (All figures are in English currency — pounds sterling)

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

The conclusion herein follows *United States*v. *Ford Motor Com*pany, 46 Cust. Ct. 135, A.R.D. 124, the record in which case was incorporated by consent.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-24-2000
<CASH>                                          18,550
<SECURITIES>                                     4,169
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,594
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (991)
<INVENTORY>                                     24,376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,829
<PP&E>                                          82,182
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (43,720)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,456
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,141
<BONDS>                                         35,605
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,235
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,456
<SALES>                                        506,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               515,466
<CGS>                                          456,941
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  456,941
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (272)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,318
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,843
<INCOME-TAX>                                       553
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,290
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,290)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34



</TABLE>
No. 60412.

protests 291201-K and 291202-K (Philadelphia).

#### Chas. Kurz Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Pord, J.

An examination of the official record failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the presumptively correct classification made by the collector, the protests were dismissed.
# Official Journal C 369A/2011

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2011.369.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 369A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5417 December 2011 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2011.369.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 369A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5417 December 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2011/C 369A/01 | Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AD/200/10 — Lawyers qualified in English, Scottish or Northern Irish law (AD 5) specialising in legal research | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2011/C 369A/01

Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AD/200/10 — Lawyers qualified in English, Scottish or Northern Irish law (AD 5) specialising in legal research

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 19 | (PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 24 | |
| 35 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 37 | (PL/RO) |
| 60 | |
| 68 | |
| 76 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 82 | |
| 91 | |
| 98 | |
| 114 | (DA) |
| 121 | (DA) |
| 122 | |
| 135 | |
| 140 | (BG/ET/HU/MT/PL/SL/SV) |
| 142 | |
| 146 | |
| 147 | (EN/IT/MT/SV) |
| 155 | (EN/ES/ET/FR/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |
| 156 | |
| 157 | |
| 162 | |
| 169 | (EN) |
| 177 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 180 | (BG/RO) |
| 181 | (DA) |
| 183 | (SL) |
| 185 | |
| 193 | (BG/RO) |
| 198 | (CS/HU/LT/MT/PL/SK) |
| 206 | (CS/ES/LV/MT/SV) |
| 208 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 221 | |
| 222 | (BG/RO) |
| 223 | |
| 229 | |
| 257 | |
| 258 | |
| 270 | |
| 271 | |
| 278 | (EN) |
| 279 | (FR) |
| 281 | (DA) |
| 284 | (DE) |
| 285 | (LT) |
| 286 | (NL) |
| 292 | (RO) |
| 294 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 303 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 304 | (DA/EN) |
| 307 | |
| 309 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 312 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 315 | |
| 321 | (EN/FR) |
| 324 | |
| 330 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 334 | |
| 336 | (EL/EN/ET/FI/FR/GA/HU/IT) |
| 339 | |
| 344 | |
| 350 | |
| 351 | (EN/FR) |
| 359 | |
| 361 | |
| 364 | |
| 365 | |
| 367 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 369 | (EN) |

19

(PL)

24

35

(DE/EN/FR)

37

(PL/RO)

60

68

76

(DE/EN/FR)

82

91

98

114

(DA)

121

(DA)

122

135

140

(BG/ET/HU/MT/PL/SL/SV)

142

146

147

(EN/IT/MT/SV)

155

(EN/ES/ET/FR/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

156

157

162

169

(EN)

177

(DE/EN/FR)

180

(BG/RO)

181

(DA)

183

(SL)

185

193

(BG/RO)

198

(CS/HU/LT/MT/PL/SK)

206

(CS/ES/LV/MT/SV)

208

(DE/EN/FR)

221

222

(BG/RO)

223

229

257

258

270

271

278

(EN)

279

(FR)

281

(DA)

284

(DE)

285

(LT)

286

(NL)

292

(RO)

294

(DE/EN/FR)

303

(DE/EN/FR)

304

(DA/EN)

307

309

(DE/EN/FR)

312

(DE/EN/FR)

315

321

(EN/FR)

324

330

(DE/EN/FR)

334

336

(EL/EN/ET/FI/FR/GA/HU/IT)

339

344

350

351

(EN/FR)

359

361

364

365

367

(DE/EN/FR)

369

(EN)

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EVELYN and JOSE CAGAPE :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4227

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04227-JCJ Document 6 Filed 09/16/2002 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SAMUEL STOPHER, :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4147

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04147-AB Document 9 Filed 10/04/2002 Page 1 of 1
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Patriot Contracting, LLC and Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America

v. Shelter Products, Inc. and Kancor Companies, LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00971

- CV

Trial court case number: 2 014

- 58350

Trial court: 133rd District Court of Harris County

The parties’ Joint Motion t o Allow Additional Time for Oral Argument is GRANTED

.

Each party will have 20 minutes for oral argument.

Judge’s signature: __ /s/ Julie Countiss

______

a cting individually

Date: March 29, 2021
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DOMINGO ANTONIO ALAS-RECINOS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71026

Agency No. A200-004-693

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 5, 2014** 

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Domingo Antonio Alas-Recinos, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

FILED

DEC 12 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d

916, 920 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Alas-Recinos testified he was the victim of two robberies, which he did not

report to police. The record does not compel the conclusion that the government of

El Salvador was or would be unable or unwilling to protect Alas-Recinos. See id.

at 920-23 (discussing various means by which a petitioner may fill the “gap in

proof” left by the absence of a report to the police). Thus, his asylum claim fails. 

Because Alas-Recinos failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his

withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See id. at 923.

Finally, Alas-Recinos does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. 

See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not

supported by argument are deemed waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 10-71026
April 21, 1998

Dear Colleague:

Over the past five years, the Administration has progressively weakened the complex set of rules

that limit the export of “dual-use” technologies (i.e., technologies with both military and civilian applications such as communications satellites and high-precision manufacturing tools), making it easier for

potential adversaries to acquire them. Of great concern was the Administration’s 1995 decision to

loosen export regulations on supercomputers (high performance computers which, among other things,

can be used to develop and improve nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles). As a result of these loosened regulations, a number of U.S.-built supercomputers were sent to nuclear weapons laboratories in

Russia, as well as to China and other countries of proliferation concern.

As a consequence, Congress last year closed many of the loopholes in the President’s export

control policy. However, recent news reports indicate that the Administration may use the findings of

an impending Stanford University report to justify a further weakening of supercomputer export controls. I fully expect this report to be as flawed as an earlier Stanford University report that the Administration cited to justify its loosening of export controls in 1995.

Strong export control policies have minimal negative effects on foreign supercomputer sales and

significant positive effects on U.S. national security. Export controls protect Americans by preventing

potentially unfriendly nations from obtaining U.S.-built advanced technology. It is illegal for U.S.

companies to sell modern tanks to nations that may someday use them against us; why should the policy

governing the sales of supercomputers that can develop and enhance nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles be any different?

Considering the high stakes, I hope you will take a moment to read the attached National Security Report on this important issue. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Floyd D. Spence

Chairman
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with this annual filing of DNAPrint genomics, Inc., a Utah
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard
Gabriel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 result of operations of the Company.


                                        /S/ Richard Gabriel
                                        ---------------------------
                                        Richard Gabriel
                                        Chief Executive Officer/President

                                        Date: March 31, 2005
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-126809, No. 333-52384 and No. 333-50276 on Form S-8 of Central Valley Community Bancorp of our report dated March 16, 2011 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Central Valley Community Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 2010.

 
|                     | /s/ Perry-Smith LLP |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                     |                          |
| Sacramento,   California |                          |
| March 16,   2011    |                          |

 

----
# C_2019187EN.01000201.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament

(Case C-377/16) (1)

(Actions for annulment - Rules on languages - Selection procedure for contract staff - Call for expressions of interest - Drivers - Function group I - Knowledge of languages - Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the selection procedure to English, French and German - Language of communication - Regulation No 1 - Staff Regulations - Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - Discrimination based on language - Justification - Interests of the service)

(2019/C 187/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego and M.A. Sampol Pucurull, Agents)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Nessaf, C. Burgos and M. Rantala, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Call for Expressions of Interest Contract Staff — Function Group I — Drivers (F/M) — EP/CAST/S/16/2016; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Call for Expressions of Interest Contract Staff — Function Group I — Drivers (F/M) — EP/CAST/S/16/2016;

| 2. | Declares the database established pursuant to Call for Expressions of Interest Contract Staff — Function Group I — Drivers (F/M) — EP/CAST/S/16/2016 void; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares the database established pursuant to Call for Expressions of Interest Contract Staff — Function Group I — Drivers (F/M) — EP/CAST/S/16/2016 void;

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs

---

(1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.

---
# C_2017402EN.01000601.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate v Federal Express Europe Inc.

(Case C-273/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemption from VAT - Article 86(1)(b) and Article 144 - Relief from import duties for goods of negligible value or of a non-commercial character - Exemption of the supply of services relating to the importation of goods - National legislation levying VAT on the transport costs of documents and goods of negligible value despite their being ancillary to non-taxable goods))

(2017/C 402/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Express Europe Inc.

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 144 in conjunction with Article 86(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which requires, for the application of an exemption from value added tax for ancillary services, including transport services, not only that their value is included in the taxable amount, but also that value added tax has in fact been charged on those services at the customs stage at the time of importation.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

1

---