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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for World Monitor Trust--Series B
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>
<CIK>               1051823
<NAME>              World Monitor Trust--Series B
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-Mos

<CASH>                          16,672,223

<SECURITIES>                    (62,886)

<RECEIVABLES>                   2,730

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  16,612,067

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           337,438

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      16,274,629

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    16,612,067

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                (3,250,467)

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                1,575,216

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (4,825,683)

<EPS-BASIC>                   (25.13)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

March 26, 1953

No. 57221.

protests 152219-K and 143541-K (New York).

#### Thurston, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of china figures similar in all material respects to the figures passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 60737.

#### Dixey Twine Company *v.*United States,

protest 286107-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL, : NO. 2:02-cv-02746-JRP

Plaintiff, :

:

VS. :

:

INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, et al., :

Defendants. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 22nd day of December, 2003, upon

consideration of the Motion of Independence Blue Cross, et al.

(“IBC”) to Compel Aetna, Inc. (“Aetna”) to produce documents, the

Response by Aetna thereto and the Reply of IBC, and upon conducting

oral argument on the issue, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:

1. Within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order,

Aetna shall produce to IBC the following documents:

a. Contracts with hospitals in the five-county

Southeastern Pennsylvania region reflecting

Aetna’s reimbursement rates to those hospitals;

b. Summary level documents sufficient to

demonstrate Aetna’s hospital reimbursement

rates in the Central Pennsylvania region

(Adams, Berks, Centre, Columbia, Cumberland,

Dauphin, Franklin, Fulton, Juniata, Lancaster,

Lebanon, Lehigh, Mifflin, Contour, Northampton,

Northumberland, Perry, Schuylkill, Snyder,

Union and York counties) broken down by

hospital type (community, teaching, or

regional) and hospital size (by licensed bed

counts), without prejudice to IBC’s right to

later seek the complete hospital contracts in

this region, for good cause shown;

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 183 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 1 of 2
c. Documents reflecting Aetna’s strategic planning

for the healthcare insurance markets in the

Southeastern Pennsylvania counties;

2. Aetna shall not have to produce any strategic

planning documents for the Central Pennsylvania

counties;

3. All documents produced pursuant to this Order shall

be deemed “Highly Confidential” pursuant to the

Protective Order as entered and modified by the

Court.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

 

CHARLES B. SMITH

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12/22/03 Copy via fax to:

See attached list

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 183 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 2 of 2
# C_2017277EN.01004201.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 – Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL WIFE and Others)

(Joined Cases T-427/16 to T-429/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word marks AN IDEAL WIFE, AN IDEAL LOVER and AN IDEAL HUSBAND - No genuine use of the marks - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No proper reason for non-use))

(2017/C 277/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Isabel Martín Osete (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Danielle Rey, (Toulouse, France) (represented by: P. Wallaert and J. Cockain-Barere, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Actions brought against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 (Cases R 1528/2015-2, R 1527/2015-2 and R 1526/2015-2), concerning revocation proceedings between Ms Rey and Ms Martín Osete.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Ms Isabel Martín Osete to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Isabel Martín Osete to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

1

---
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

83–924 PDF 2003

[ERRATA]

S. HRG. 107–817

MISCELLANEOUS WATER PROJECTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 1310 S. 2475

S. 1385 H.R. 706

S. 1824 H.R. 1870

S. 1883 H.R. 2115

S. 1919 H.R. 2828

JUNE 6, 2002

(

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

(II)

[ERRATA]

An error was made on the cover page of S. Hrg. 107-817. The bill

number should be S. 1999 not S. 1919.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

83–924 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 107–817

MISCELLANEOUS WATER PROJECTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 1310 S. 2475

S. 1385 H.R. 706

S. 1824 H.R. 1870

S. 1883 H.R. 2115

S. 1999 H.R. 2828

JUNE 6, 2002

(

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
No. 48409.

#### Protest 683773-G of A. D. Cohen Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the items consisted of 8-bu. paper hats similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). In accordance therewith the protest was sustained as to the claim made.
Before the Third Division,

October 3, 1947

No. 51934.

#### Kung Jung Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 968592-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of kumquats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Fung Chong Co.*(34 C. C. P. A. 40, C. A. D. 342). In accordance therewith the claim at 1 cent per pound under paragraph 743 was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1

|  | 1) | The Report fully complies with      the requirement 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 Company’s financial position and results of      operations. |
|--|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|        By:   |  /s/ Gilad Gat          |   |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------|--------|
|                        | Gilad      Gat               |   |
|                        | Chief      Executive Officer |   |
|                        | Chief      Financial Officer |   |
|                        | May      15, 2009            |   |

----
No. 50364.

#### Protests 117148-K, etc., of Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2016059EN.01003601.xml

| 15.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/36

---

Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Gallardo Blanco v OHIM — Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería, SA (Representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit))

(Case T-716/15)

(2016/C 059/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gallardo Blanco (Los Barrios, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit)) — Application for registration No 10 424 323

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015 in Case R 1502/2014-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 14 April 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 14 April 2014;

| — | amend the previous decisions granting full registration of Community mark No 10 424 323; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the previous decisions granting full registration of Community mark No 10 424 323;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings, of the opposition proceedings and of the appeal before OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings, of the opposition proceedings and of the appeal before OHIM.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 4, 8(1)(b) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 4, 8(1)(b) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2017112EN.01005002.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/50

---

Order of the General Court of 3 February 2017 — Bank Saderat Iran v Council

(Case T-349/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 112/69)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 20, 2019

No. 04-19-00637-CR

Ramiro Rangel CAMPOS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR5716

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court imposed sentence in the underlying cause on March 27, 2017. Because 

appellant did not file a motion for new trial within thirty days after sentence was imposed, the

notice of appeal was due to be filed on April 26, 2017. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). A motion for 

extension of time to file the notice of appeal could have been filed within fifteen days after the 

deadline, i.e., by May 26, 2017. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Appellant did not file a timely motion for 

extension of time. On September 13, 2019, appellant filed a “Motion for Out of Time Appeal” in 

the trial court, which we construe as a notice of appeal. See Harkcom v. State, 484 S.W.3d 432, 

434 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). A late notice of appeal invokes the appellate court’s jurisdiction in 

a criminal case only if (1) it is filed within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the 

notice of appeal, (2) a motion for extension of time is filed in the court of appeals within the 

fifteen-day grace period, and (3) the court of appeals grants the motion for extension of time. 

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 

Therefore, it is ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing why this appeal should 

not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of September, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001051719
<NAME> UDI
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          39,015
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    265,927
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               375,563
<PP&E>                                         109,790
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 932,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          436,082
<BONDS>                                        200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,964
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   932,398
<SALES>                                        264,530
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               264,530
<CGS>                                          221,151
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  259,637
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (364)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,776
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,202)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       625
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,827)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,827)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 60759.

#### The Mutual Paper Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 287020-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 67768.

#### Industrial Chemical & Dye Co. *v.*United States,

protest 59/19146 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

Tbe protest was dismissed. *Champion Coated Paper Co.*v. *United States*(24 CCPA 83, T.D. 48411), followed.
Exhibit 14.3





LOGO



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-120202) of América Móvil, S.A. de C.V. (América Móvil) and Radiomóvil Dipsa, S.A. de C.V. of our report dated January 31, 2005 with respect
to the financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2004 of TracFone Wireless, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) of América Móvil for the year ended December 31, 2004.



/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP



June 22, 2005
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1660V

UNPUBLISHED

ROBERT MELE,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: September 7, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)

David Matthew Moran, Moran & Moran, Wexford, PA, for Petitioner.

Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On October 25, 2019, Robert Mele filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a 

result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to him on October 31, 2017. Petition at 

3. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On September 3, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he states 

that he does not contest that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. 

Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that “petitioner has 

satisfied the criteria set forth in the recently revised Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the 

Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (QAI), which afford petitioner a presumption of 

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

causation if the onset of GBS occurs between three and forty-two days after a seasonal 

flu vaccination and there is no apparent alternative cause”. Id. at 8-9. 

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
(Reap. Dec. 10345)

Entry No. 4237.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

*407(Decided October 3, 1962)

*Stein & Shostalc*for the plaintiff.

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

JOHNSON, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement enumerated on the attached Schedule, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of wooden blinds, manufactured by Shimamura Shoten and exported from Japan.

> That all the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement was entered subsequent to February 27,1958.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise the subject of the appeal for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule is not included on the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, as provided for in Section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, required to be valued in accordance with Section 402 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the tíme of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoiced unit values, net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal for re-appraisement may be deemed submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1980, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the wooden blinds involved herein and that such values are the invoiced unit values, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 53470.

protest 136531-K (New York).

#### B. Altman & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protest was dismissed.