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

Action brought on 8 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-370/06)

(2006/C 261/28)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani and P. Andrade, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period allowed for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 5 May 2004.

----

(1)OJ 2001 L 125, p. 15

----
Case No. 13,123a.

#### SMITH v. WALKER et al.

[Hempst. 289.] 1

Superior Court, Territory of Arkansas.

July, 1835.

Appeal — Bond—Form—Certainty.

1. Appeal bond which does not set out the nature of the action, nor the court to which the appeal is prayed, is informal, but not void, and should not be adjudged invalid.

2. It is sufficiently certain to prevent a second recovery against either principal or security.

Appeal from Hempstead circuit court.

[This was an action on a bond, by Hiram Smith against Alexander S. Walker and James Gibson.]

Before JOHNSON and YELL, JJ.

OPINION OP

THE COURT.

This was an appeal from the Hempstead circuit court, and was submitted to the court upon a re-argued case, as to whether the bond upon which this suit is instituted was void or not. The first part of the bond is in the usual form, binding themselves to the plaintiff Smith in the penal sum of one hundred and twenty dollars, and then follows the conditions, namely: “That whereas the said A. S. Walker has this day prayed an appeal, wherein Hiram Smith is plaintiff, and the said Walker is defendant, now if the said A. S. Walker,” etc. This bond neither sets out the nature of the action, nor the court to which the appeal is prayed, and is certainly informal. There is enough, however, in the bond to authorize a court to enter a judgment It is sufficiently certain to prevent a second recovery, against either the principal, or Gibson the security, and the object of the bond being clearly legal, and nothing appearing on the face of it to show it to be void, it is to be taken as valid. Chit. Cont. p. 73. This court is of opinion there was error in the court below, in sustaining the demurrer on account of the supposed invalidity of the bond. Judgment reversed.
# Main

Bulletin No. 2020-21	DRAFT &P	IRC Handout July 16, 2020

# Footnotes and Additional Inform

Bulletin No. 2020-XX	DRAFT &P	IRC Handout July 16, 2020
Exhibit 4
                                    ---------

                           EMMET, MARVIN & MARTIN, LLP
                               COUNSELLORS AT LAW

                           120 BROADWAY               177 MADISON AVENUE
                     NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10271    MORRISTOWN, NEW JERSEY 07960
                               _____                    (973) 538-5600
                                                      FAX: (973) 538-6448
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL      (212) 238-3000                     _____

                               _____                1351 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD
                                                           2ND FLOOR
                        FAX: (212) 238-3100     STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT 06902-4543
                    http://www.emmetmarvin.com          (203) 425-1400
                                                      FAX: (203) 425-1410

                                                                   July 17, 2008

The Bank of New York Mellon
  as Depositary
101 Barclay Street
New York, New York, 10286

Re:   American Depositary Receipts for  Ordinary Shares, Par  Value,  of Climate
      Exchange PLC
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      We refer to the  registration  statement to be filed on Form F-6 under the
Securities  Act of 1933  (the  "Registration  Statement")  by the  legal  entity
created by the  agreement  (the  "Deposit  Agreement")  for issuance of American
Depositary  Shares  ("ADSs")  which  may be  evidenced  by  American  Depositary
Receipts  ("ADRs") for [ordinary shares] [without par value] of Climate Exchange
for which you propose to act as Depositary.

      We are of the opinion that the ADSs covered by the Registration Statement,
when issued in accordance  with the terms of the Deposit  Agreement,  will, when
sold,  be legally  issued and will  entitle  the  holders  thereof to the rights
specified in the Deposit Agreement and the ADRs.

      This  opinion  may  be  used  by  you as an  exhibit  to the  Registration
Statement.

                                                               Very truly yours,
                                                  /s/ Emmet, Marvin & Martin LLP
                                                     EMMET, MARVIN & MARTIN, LLP
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER V. LUCAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0586 GEB CMK P

vs.

B. ARNOLD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On November 4, 2004, the Magistrate Judge issued an

order denying requests for appointment of counsel. On June 29,

2005, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of that

order. Local Rule 72-303(b), states “rulings by Magistrate

Judges shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought

from the Court within ten court days . . . from the date of

service of the ruling on the parties.” E.D. Local Rule 72-

303(b). Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the

magistrate judge’s order of November 4, 2004 is therefore

untimely.

Case 2:04-cv-00586-CMK Document 42 Filed 07/19/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s

June 29, 2005 request for reconsideration is denied.

Dated: July 18, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00586-CMK Document 42 Filed 07/19/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 65471.

#### Schmidt, Pritchard & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/27706 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *J. H. Brown et al.*(46 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 686), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Victor Chavez, * From the 161st District Court

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. A-19-1372-CR.

Vs. No. 11-21-00197-CR * May 12, 2022

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
No. 50028.

#### Protest 110277-K of Barnet Tanning Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that ’the hides are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Rice*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 118, C. D. 807). In accordance therewith the claim at 5 percent was sustained.
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 98 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 1 of 15
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 98 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 2 of 15
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 98 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 3 of 15
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 98 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 4 of 15
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 98 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 5 of 15
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 98 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 6 of 15
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 98 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 7 of 15
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 98 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 8 of 15
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 98 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 9 of 15
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 98 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 10 of 15
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 98 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 11 of 15
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 98 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 12 of 15
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 98 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 13 of 15
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 98 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 14 of 15
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 98 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 15 of 15
----

Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-106/06) (1)

(2006/C 249/24)

Language of the case: French

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

----

(1)OJ C 86, 08.04.2006.

----
No. 59982.

#### Air Clearance Ass’n, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 229438-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Approve or Deny User Access Requests in SailPoint IIQ

To approve or deny user access requests, complete the following steps:

1. Notice a red number notification next to the Bell icon in the upper right-hand corner of the 

main SailPoint IIQ dashboard as shown in Figure 1. 

You may also receive an e-mail notification about the approval request.

2. Select the Approvals (or Notifications) box, or the Approvals option under the Bell icon 

on the home page.

Figure 1: Approval Awaiting the Approver's Action Screen 

3. You will be redirected to a screen containing the details about the request as shown in 

Figure 2. 

4. Add any comments using the voice bubble on the right side of the screen. Then select the 

Approve or Deny buttons. A confirmation pop up window will appear.

Figure 2: Approve or Deny Screen 

Application Tip
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

You may select Approve All or Deny All buttons on the left if you want to approve or 

deny multiple requests.

If the first level approver denies the request, any additional levels of approval will not 

occur.

Application Tip

Application Tip
Before the Third Division,

December 15, 1959

No. 63610.

protests 58/21800 and 58/21801 (New York).

#### The Danwill Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of automobile tires similar in all material respects to those the subject of *A. N. Deringer, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 327, C.D. 1882), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 12
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
Jostens, Inc. and subsidiaries
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   YEARS ENDED             SIX MONTHS ENDED         YEARS ENDED
                                          ------------------------------  ------------------   --------------------
(UNAUDITED)                               JANUARY 1  JANUARY 2 JANUARY 3      DECEMBER 28       JUNE 30    JUNE 30
DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS                        2000       1999       1998           1996             1996      1995
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                      <C>        <C>        <C>           <C>               <C>       <C>
EARNINGS

Income from continuing operations
before income taxes ....................   $ 74,659   $ 83,520   $ 93,383      $     26          $ 87,479   $ 93,893

Interest expense
(excluding capitalized interest) .......      7,312      7,014      6,854         4,324             9,296      5,350

Portion of rent expense under
long-term operating leases
representative of an interest factor ...      1,483      1,233      2,133         1,070             2,103      2,100

Amortization of debt expense ...........        174         12         12             6               107        102
-------------------------------------------------------------------------      --------          -------------------
Total earnings .........................   $ 83,628   $ 91,779   $102,382      $  5,426          $ 98,985   $101,445
=========================================================================      ========          ===================

FIXED CHARGES

Interest expense
(including capitalized interest) .......     7,713      7,717      6,854         4,324             9,296      5,350

Portion of rent expense under
long-term operating leases
representative of an interest factor ...     1,483      1,233      2,133         1,070             2,103      2,100

Amortization of debt expense ...........       174         12         12             6               107        102
------------------------------------------------------------------------      --------          -------------------
Total fixed charges ....................  $  9,370   $  8,962   $  8,999      $  5,400          $ 11,506   $  7,552
========================================================================      ========          ===================
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges .....       8.9       10.2       11.4           1.0               8.6       13.4
</TABLE>
No. 51378.

#### Protests 702931-G, etc., of Alex Weil, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ECEM EUROPEAN CHEMICAL :

MARKETING B.V., : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, : NO. 05-3078

 :

v. :

:

THE PUROLITE COMPANY, :

:

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14 day of October, 2010, upon consideration of Defendant The Purolite th

Company’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. No. 117), Plaintiff ECEM

European Chemical Marketing B.V.’s Response in Opposition to the Motion (Doc. No. 124), and

arguments of counsel for the parties at the hearing held on September 7, 2010, and for the reasons

set forth in the Court’s Opinion dated October 14, 2010, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Renewed

Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law with respect to its claim on the inadmissibility at trial of

the GTCS is DENIED. 

BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Joel H. Slomsky, J. 

 JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J
1 TheHonorable Lawerence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-3651

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Arkansas. * Darla Elmore, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 10, 2001 Filed: April 13, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL, 1 District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. After Darla Elmore's motion to suppress was denied, she entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to thirty-seven months of imprisonment. She appeals, seeking reversal of the denial of her motion.2 TheHonorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of Honorable Beverly S. Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -2- Having reviewed the matter, we conclude that the District Court 2 did not err in denying Elmore's suppression motion. We agree with the District Court that (1) the search of Elmore's vehicle was valid based on probable cause and as a proper search incident to arrest, and (2) the inventory search of Elmore's vehicle the morning after her arrest was lawful because the vehicle had been properly seized for forfeiture. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 56399.

protests 135783-K, etc. (New York).

#### Emil Buschhoff & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# attribtable--OUTPUT

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2021-07	&"Arial,Bold"&9IV AT - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BDecember 2020
From: Nathan Bracken [mailto:nbracken@wswc.utah.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 5:31 PM

To: Leutner, Fred

Cc: Baker, Walter; Card, Joan

Subject: Thanks and Some Questions From Utah

Hi Fred,

I wanted to thank you again for speaking with the WSWC earlier this week about EPA's possible 

reinterpretations of Section 518. I thought your comments were very helpful in providing us with a 

better understanding of EPA's intentions and reasoning for the possible reinterpretation.

Shaun indicated that our members should contact you directly with any questions that we may 

have. Walt Baker (copied here), the Director of Utah's Division of Water Quality, was unable to 

participate in the call and has raised a few questions. Walt is particularly interested in knowing whether 

a successful TAS application from a tribe would obviate the need for states to issue 402 permits, 401 

certifications, monitor and assess waters within tribal jurisdiction (305(b)), list waters (303(d)) and 

perform TMDLs. I've copied his specific questions below and I'm sure he would appreciate any answers 

that you can provide. 

Thanks again for speaking with us.

Nathan

QUESTIONS FROM UTAH

1. How would the 402 program be affected. Would the tribe or EPA presume to administer NPDES 

permits (e.g., storm water, biosolids, CAFO, pesticides, pretreatment)?

2. Would the tribes and EPA administer the 305(b) report and the 303(d) list within the tribal 

jurisdiction? 

3. Would the tribes and EPA implement TMDLs?

4. Would the 319 program be affected?

5. Will tribes assert jurisdiction over on-site wastewater disposal systems if they have state-like programs 

in place?

6. Would the UIC program be affected?

Nathan Bracken

Assistant Director/General Counsel 

Western States Water Council

5296 Commerce Dr., Suite 202
Murray, Utah 84107

(801) 685-2555
Before the First Division,

April 16, 1958

No. 61820.

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

protests 294500-K and 328276-K (New York).

*518Opinion by

Olives, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of photo enlargers; that said enlargers were held dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 1551, as modified, as photographic cameras in *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 1874); and that, in accordance with said decision, parts for enlargers are properly dutiable as parts of photographic cameras under paragraph 1551, the claim of the plaintiff at 20 percent was sustained.
Order filed January 16, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00925-CR

____________

KEITH HEAD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 399th Judicial District Court

Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011CR6417B

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which he 

concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant filed a 

motion requesting to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1969). The motion was granted and an order to that effect issued.
In response, we have received documentation that the record was sent to 

appellant but have not received the certification from the clerk of the court as to the 

date on which delivery of the record to appellant was made.

Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 56th District Court to afford 

appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local 

procedure; that the clerk of that court furnish the record to appellant within fifteen 

(15) days of the date of this order; that the clerk of that court certify to this court 

the date on which delivery of the record to appellant is made; and that 

appellant file his pro se brief with this court within thirty days of that date.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain and Hassan.
# Bulletin No. 2022-16

&"Arial,Bold"&12U.S. Standard General LedgerSummary of Changes	

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2022-16	&"Arial,Bold" &P	&"Arial,Bold"August 2022

# Additional Information

&"Arial,Bold"&12U.S. Standard General LedgerSummary of Changes	

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2022-16	&"Arial,Bold" &P	&"Arial,Bold"August 2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS AND THE STATEMENT
OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL CONDITION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1995<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1995
<CASH>                                           2,900
<SECURITIES>                                   131,800
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,381,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,400)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           9,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,700)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,874,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,279,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       171,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,874,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               228,200
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,600
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              75,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 58,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (22,500)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             36,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>THE CORPORATION'S STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION IS UNCLASSIFIED;
THEREFORE, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CURRENT AND LONG-TERM ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES IS NOT AVAILABLE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Part 1 Fiscal Y

SUPPLEMENT 

USSGL ACCOUNT ATTRIBUTE DEFINITION REPORT 

Bulletin No. 2016-02 IV ADR - 1 

Attribute 

Name 

Attribute 

Short 

Name 

Attribute 

Definition Domain 

System 

Characters Refere

Credit Cohort Year Cohort Yr Fiscal year when direct loans are obligated or guarantees 

committed by a program, even if disbursements occur in subsequent fiscal years. 

1001 OPIC Working Capital 1992-2016 

4/N OMB C

No. A-1