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

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JUAN TR I VIZO,

Appellant,

v.

EL PASO ANIMAL SERVICES,

DR. NINA CLOUD, IN HER CAPACITY

AS DIRECTOR OF EL PASO ANIMAL

SERVICES, ELLEN SMYTH, IN HER

CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF

EL PASO ENVIRONMENTAL

SERVICES, JOYCE WILSON, IN HER

CAPACITY AS EL PASO CITY

MANAGER, AND THE CITY OF

EL PASO

Appellees. '

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 12

- 00356

- CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2012DCV06427)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Juan Trivizo is attempting to appeal a dangerous dog designation. We dismiss the appeal

for want of jurisdiction.

Juan Trivizo is attempting to appeal a dangerous dog designation he received on or about

November 5, 2012. Under Section 822.0421 of the Health and Safety Code, the animal control

authority is required to n otify an owner if it has determined after an investigation that a dog is a

dangerous dog. TEX.HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 822.0421(a) (West 2010). An

owner may appeal the dangerous dog designation to a justice, county, or municipal court of

competent juri sdiction not later than the 15th day after the date the owner is notified as required

by Section 822.0421(a). TEX.HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 822.0421(b )

. An owner

may appeal the decision of the justice, county, or municipal court in the same manner as a n- 2

-

appeal for other cases from that court. Id.

Trivizo filed the notice of appeal in the County Court at Law No. 3 of El Paso County in

cause number 2012DCV06427. The District Clerk forwarded the notice of appeal to this Court

but the docketing certificat e reflects that an appealable order or judgment has not been entered

by the County Court at Law. On December 3, 2012, we notified Trivizo by letter of our intent to

dismiss for want of jurisdiction because there is no appealable order or judgment and advi sed

Trivizo that he had ten days to show grounds for continuing the appeal. Trivizo has not

responded to our inquiry. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

January 16, 2013

_______________________________________________ ANN CRA WFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.

Antcliff, J., not participating
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,093
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,852
<ALLOWANCES>                                       363
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,595
<PP&E>                                         163,131
<DEPRECIATION>                                (31,380)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 145,145
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,068
<BONDS>                                        131,615
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,656)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   145,145
<SALES>                                          7,783
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,970
<CGS>                                            3,123
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     8
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,641
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,489)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,300)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,189)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,189)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IQ Biometrix, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
Scigliano, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

                                                   /s/ William Scigliano
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   William Scigliano
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
April 12, 2005


                                       27
No. 49092.

#### Protest 46789-K of Artmart Linen Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441) the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty.
No. 66248.

#### Delarue & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/29996 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

An examination of the papers in the case showing that the protest was not filed within the 60-day period provided by section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, the protest was dismissed as untimely.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES

v.

TYRONE TRADER

CRIMINAL ACTION

NO. 04-680-06

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 17th day of February, 2021, upon consideration of pro se defendant 

Tyrone Trader’s Motion for Compassionate Release (Document No. 802, filed September 14, 

2020), the Government’s Response to the Motion to Reduce Sentence (Document No. 804, filed 

October 2, 2020), pro se defendant’s Motion for Discovery (Document No. 807, filed October 

16, 2020), pro se defendant’s Motion to Continue (Document No. 808, filed October 16, 2020), 

pro se defendant’s Motion for Order (Document No. 809, filed October 16, 2020), the 

Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motions for Discovery (Document No. 814, filed 

November 5, 2020), and the related submissions of the parties, for the reasons stated in the 

accompanying Memorandum dated February 17, 2021, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Pro se defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release is GRANTED, and pro se 

defendant’s sentence is reduced to TIME SERVED of approximately 222 months after 

adjustment for good time credit; and 

2. Pro se defendant’s Motion for Discovery, Motion to Continue, and Motion for 

Order are DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, excepting only as noted above, the Judgment dated 

September 29, 2008 (Document No. 652), providing, inter alia, ten years of supervised release,

continues in effect.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois

 DuBOIS, JAN E., J.

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 820 Filed 02/18/21 Page 1 of 1
# C_2017046EN.01001301.xml

| 13.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 7 November 2016 — Peter Roßnagel, Alexandre Schröter v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-562/16)

(2017/C 046/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Peter Roßnagel, Alexandre Schröter

Applicants:

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a change in reservation to another flight constitute a situation covered by Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a change in reservation to another flight constitute a situation covered by Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

1

| 2. | If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:
  Must that provision also be applied to a change in reservation which was not instigated by the air carrier, but by the tour operator alone? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:

Must that provision also be applied to a change in reservation which was not instigated by the air carrier, but by the tour operator alone?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

1

---
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 133 Filed 01/26/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 133 Filed 01/26/10 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 133 Filed 01/26/10 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit
12

Agere Systems Inc. and
SubsidiariesRatio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

|                                                                   |  | Year Ended September 30,
|------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------
|                                                                   |  | 2006                    
|                                                                   |  | (dollars in millions)   
|Earnings
      available for fixed charges:                        |  |                         
|Income (loss) from continuing operations before income
      taxes |  | $                       
|Less undistributed equity earnings (loss) from
      investments   |  |                         
|Less interest capitalized during the period                        |  |                         
|Add distributed income of equity investees                         |  |                         
|Add fixed charges                                                  |  |                         
|Total earnings available for fixed charges                         |  | $                       
|                                                                  
|Fixed
      charges:                                               |  |                         
|Interest expense including capitalized
      interest              |  | $                       
|Interest portion of rental expense                                 |  |                         
|Total fixed charges                                                |  | $                       
|                                                                  
|Ratio of
      earnings to fixed charges                           |  |                         
|Deficiency                                                         |  | $                       

---
No. 57941.

protest 203436-K (New York).

#### Continental Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the cited case, the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       289,473,103
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             289,473,103
<CASH>                                      22,600,413
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                     204,307,669
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,030,639,080
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             28,432,276
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                    1,607,049,869
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    25,499,999
<OTHER-SE>                                 355,849,281
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,030,639,080
<PREMIUMS>                                  36,619,297
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                         38,836,385
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             105,703
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 388,963
<BENEFITS>                                  39,098,865
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                 16,397,110
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             17,228,523
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                17,228,523
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.63
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
# C_2017213EN.01002901.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — Metronia v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE O NADA)

(Case T-159/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark TRIPLE O NADA - Earlier EU figurative mark TRIPLE BINGO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 213/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Metronia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Vela Ballesteros, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 (Case R 2605/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Zitro IP and Metronia.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Metronia, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Metronia, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

1

---
Name Address Date of Birth Course Certificate # Course Test Score Photo Included* US Environmental Protection Agency Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation
Important: The training program ma nager may complete this samp le form or similar form when noti fying the EPA. Consult the Instructions for Notifying the EPA of Lead-Based Paint Abatement Activities and Renovation Courseswhen preparing posttraining notification. Please type or print responses in black or blue ink only.



### A. Type of Notification (Please indicate the type of notification) 

### B. Training Program Name:________________________________________ Accreditation Number:________________________________ Address:______________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone Number:_______________________________ 

### C. Course Information Discipline: Worker Supervisor Inspector Risk Assessor Project Designer Renovator Dust Sampling Technician Type: Initial Refresher Training Dates: from________________ to _________________ Training Location Address:________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### D. Student Information (Attach additional paper if necessary) Original Updated



### D. Training Managers Information (Please note that this form is incomplete without a signature) I hereby attest and affirm that the information included on this no tification form is true and accu rate to the best of my belie f and knowledge. I acknowledge that any approval authorized pursuant to this notification will be subject to revocation if issuance was based on incorrect or inadequate information that materially affected the decision to issue the approval. Name_____________________________ Signature__________________________ Date Signed_________________ *A photo of each student is required for Renovator and Dust Sampling Technician courses. Please see www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/trai nerinstructions.htm for photo specifications. The photos should be sent on a CD along wit h this form. For information on EPA and other lead programs, see the web site: http://www.epa.gov/lead Street Address City State Zip Code

Month/Day/Year Month/Day/Year
Street Address City State Zip Code
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT S. CHEATLE, JR., et al. :

: CIVIL ACTION

v. :

:

DAVID A. KATZ, et al. : NO. 02-4405

ORDER OF TRANSFER OUT OF CIVIL SUSPENSE FILE

AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2004, it appearing to the court that the

above entitled case should be transferred from the Civil Suspense File, it is

ORDERED 

that the Clerk of Court transfer said case from the Civil Suspense File to the current docket for

final disposition.

_____________________________

THOMAS J. RUETER

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: All Counsel

(Via U.S. Mail)

Case 2:02-cv-04405-HH Document 22 Filed 02/27/2004 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PAUL SVINDLAND, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

THE NEMOURS FOUNDATION, :

et al. : NO. 05-417

________________________________________________

ROBERT DADDIO, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

THE A.I. DUPONT HOSPITAL FOR :

CHILDREN OF THE NEMOURS :

FOUNDATION, et al. : NO. 05-441

 ORDER

AND NOW, this 18th day of May, 2009, upon consideration

of the various evidentiary motions filed by the parties in the

above-captioned cases, the oppositions and reply briefs filed by

the parties and by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

(“CHOP”), an interested third party, as well as the arguments

presented by the parties and by CHOP at a hearing on said motions

on March 11, 2009, and for the reasons stated in a memorandum of

law bearing today’s date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Svindland defendants’ Motion in Limine to

Preclude Mortality Data (C.A. No. 05-417, Docket No. 148) is

GRANTED. The testimony and report of the plaintiffs’ expert, Dr.

Robert L. Hannan, do not meet the standard for admissibility

under Daubert, and therefore may not be introduced at trial. The

Case 2:05-cv-00417-MAM Document 186 Filed 05/19/09 Page 1 of 2
plaintiffs may also not introduce any evidence or testimony at

trial related to or referring to the morbidity and mortality

rates of Dr. Norwood’s patients, any patients treated at the A.I.

duPont Hospital for Children, or any patients other than Ian

Svindland, as explained in the Court’s memorandum of law.

2. The defendants’ Motions for a Protective Order in

the Svindland and Daddio cases (C.A. No. 05-417, Docket No. 147;

C.A. No. 05-441, Docket No. 130) are GRANTED. The plaintiffs’

Motion to Compel in the Svindland case (C.A. No. 05-417, Docket

No. 150) is DENIED. The plaintiffs may not enforce the subpoenas

directed to CHOP and to Dr. James Goin to obtain raw data related

to publications of studies done at CHOP.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Mary A. McLaughlin

MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, J.

Case 2:05-cv-00417-MAM Document 186 Filed 05/19/09 Page 2 of 2