alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016191EN.01004503.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/45

---

Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — NICO v Council

(Case T-24/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 191/61)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 23819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8229]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices, Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. E7-7874) published on pages 
20549 and 20550 of the issue for Wedneday, April 25, 2007.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco heading, the entry 
for Frank W. Yuen, Nassau, Bahamas, is revised to read as follows:
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Tracy Basinger, Director, 
Regional and Community Bank Group) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, 
California 94105-1579:
    1. Frank W. Yuen, Esq., San Francisco, California; to acquire 
control of Concord Place, Inc., Nassau, The Bahamas, and thereby 
indirectly acquire control of Los Angeles National Bank, Buena Park, 
California.
    Comments on this application must be received by May 10, 2007.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 25, 
2007.
Margaret McCloskey Shanks,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-8229 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
No. 56675.

protests 177922-K and 177923-K (New York).

#### Mobo Toys, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

An examination of the papers failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protests were overruled.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-851]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec.  1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on September 20, 2006, Organix 
Inc., 240 Salem Street, Woburn, Massachusetts 01801, made application 
by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered 
as a bulk manufacturer of Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370), a basic class 
of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
    The company plans on manufacturing this controlled substance for 
sale to its customers. These customers will sell the drug in small 
quantities for research purposes or as drug standards for forensic 
laboratories.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered 
with DEA to manufacture such a substance may file comments or 
objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 
CFR 1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail 
should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register 
Representative/ODL; or any being sent via express mail should be sent 
to DEA Headquarters, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/
ODL, 2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Alexandria, Virginia 22301; and must 
be filed no later than March 26, 2007.

     Dated: January 16, 2007.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
 [FR Doc. E7-851 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JAN 28 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

SHERRY D. OAKS,

Debtor,

SHERRY D. OAKS,

Appellant,

v.

SALLY J. ZEMAN, Chapter 13

Trustee,

Appellee.

No. 97-1224

(D.C. No. 97-AP-692)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Debtor Sherry D. Oaks appeals pro se from the district court’s order

dismissing, for failure to comply with the court’s orders, her appeal from an order

of the bankruptcy court. 

On April 4, 1997, the magistrate judge ordered Ms. Oaks to appear at a

prebriefing conference on May 7, and stated in the order that failure to appear at

the conference would be considered noncompliance with the order and could

result in dismissal with prejudice. On April 18, the district court ordered her to

show cause within ten days why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to

prosecute because Ms. Oaks had not filed a designation of the record as required

by Bankr. R. 8006. On May 5, she filed her response to the show cause order in

which she indicated that she had been incapacitated by “dispolia” since April 26,

and that she had not received notice of the Rule 8006 violation until May 2. She

requested a ten-day extension in which to comply with Rule 8006. Ms. Oaks

failed to appear at the May 7 prebriefing conference as ordered; at least one of

her creditors did appear. The magistrate judge recommended that because of her

failure to appear as ordered, the appeal be dismissed with prejudice. On May 9,
-3-

Ms. Oaks filed a “motion for request for mercy, understanding, and justice” in

which she stated that she had not received any notice of the hearing scheduled for

May 7, and only learned about it, on May 9, from a creditor’s attorney. On May

13, the district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with the court’s orders. 

We review the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute for abuse of

discretion. See Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994). We have

fully considered Ms. Oaks arguments and conclude that Ms. Oaks has not

demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue

forthwith.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge
PUBLIC LAW 110–232—MAY 19, 2008 122 STAT. 879 

Public Law 110–232 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To suspend the acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and 

for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008’’. 

SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF PETROLEUM ACQUISITION FOR STRATEGIC 

PETROLEUM RESERVE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (b) and 

notwithstanding any other provision of law, during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on December 

31, 2008— 

(1) the Secretary of the Interior shall suspend acquisition 

of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the 

royalty-in-kind program; and 

(2) the Secretary of Energy shall suspend acquisition of 

petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through any 

acquisition method. 

(b) RESUMPTION IN CALENDAR YEAR 2008.—During the period 

specified in subsection (a) but not earlier than 30 days after the 

date on which the President notifies Congress that the President 

has determined that the weighted average price of petroleum in 

the United States for the most recent 90-day period is $75 or 

less per barrel— 

(1) the Secretary of the Interior may resume acquisition 

of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the 

royalty-in-kind program; and 

(2) the Secretary of Energy may resume acquisition of 

petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through any 

acquisition method. 

(c) EXISTING CONTRACTS.— 

(1) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR CONTRACTS.—In the case 

of any royalty-in-kind oil scheduled to be delivered to the 

Department of Energy for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

pursuant to a contract entered into by the Secretary of Interior 

prior to, and in effect on, the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary of Energy shall accept delivery of such oil. 

(2) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CONTRACTS.—In the case of 

any oil scheduled to be delivered to the Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve pursuant to a contract entered into by the Secretary 

of Energy prior to, and in effect on, the date of enactment 

Deadline. 

President. 

Notification. 

Time period. 

Strategic 

Petroleum 

Reserve Fill 

Suspension and 

Consumer 

Protection Act 

of 2008. 

May 19, 2008 

[H.R. 6022] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
122 STAT. 880 PUBLIC LAW 110–232—MAY 19, 2008 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6022: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

May 13, considered and passed House. 

May 14, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

of this Act, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, negotiate a deferral of the delivery of the oil in accordance with procedures of the Department of Energy in effect 

on the date of enactment of this Act for deferrals of oil. 

Approved May 19, 2008. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
### Floods in Georgia, frequency and magnitude

By: Rolland William Carter

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir100

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
ACCEPTED

04-15-00268-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

5/13/2015 6:15:26 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 5/13/2015 6:15:26 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                      5
<CIK>                          0000102588
<NAME>                         SONOMAWEST HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                     USD


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                               7,962
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          252
<ALLOWANCES>                                           153
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     9,542
<PP&E>                                               7,530
<DEPRECIATION>                                       4,845
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      12,423
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  685
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             2,901
<OTHER-SE>                                           5,944
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        12,423
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       954
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1,543
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     285
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (457)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         (183)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (274)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       2,598
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         2,324
<EPS-BASIC>                                           1.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.50



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         $11,688
<SECURITIES>                                    43,507
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                       825
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,571
<PP&E>                                          24,474
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,689
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 137,731
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,670
<BONDS>                                            283
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,418
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   137,731
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,740
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,208<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   188
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 731
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,931
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,050
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,881
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (8,580)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,699)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.78)
<FN>
<F1>Represents the total depreciation and amortization expense, but does not
include S,G&A expenses of $13,604.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Case No. 13,944a.

#### THOMPSON et al. v. CAMPBELL.

[Hempst 8.] 1

Superior Court, Territory of Arkansas.

June, 1821.

Practice at Law — Nonsuit—Consent op Plaintiff — When Allowed.

1. It is erroneous to order a plaintiff to be nonsuited against his consent. TElmore v. Grymes], 1 Pet. 126 U. S.] 471; [D’Wolf v. Ra-baud] Id. 497; [Crane y. Morris] 6 Pet. [31 U. S.] 609.

2. When nonsuit may be taken.

NOTE. A plaintiff cannot be nonsuited against his consent, because he has a right by law to have his case submitted to a jury and the court. He may agree to a nonsuit; but, if he does not choose so to do, the court cannot compel him to submit to it. Elmore v. Grymes, 1 Pet. r20 U. S.] 471; D’Wolf v. Rabaud, 1 Pet. [26 U. SJ 497; Crane v. Morris, 6 Pet. [31 U. S.] 609; Mitchell v. New England Mar. Ins. Co., 6 Pick. 118; Booe v. Davis, 5 Blackf. 115; Martin v. Webb, 5 Ark. 74; Wells v. Gaty, 8 Mo. 681; Hunt v. Stewart, 7 Ala. 525: Scruggs v. Brackin, 4 Yerg. 528. A plaintiff may take a nonsuit at any time before the court or jury have actually rendered a verdict Lawrin v. Hawks. 3 McCord, 559; M’Lughn v. Bovard, 4 Watts. 308: Wooster v. Burr, 2 Wend. 295; Haskell v. Whitney, 12 Mass. 49, note. In Arkansas it *is*provided by statute that “no plaintiff shall be permitted to suffer a nonsuit on trial after the jury have retired from the bar, or the cause has been submitted to the court.” Digest, p. 813, § 111. A nonsuit cannot be ordered by the court without the acquiescence of the plaintiff. The correct practice is to instruct the jury that, if the evidence has not proven a matter necessary to be proven, the jury must find for the defendant. Martin v. W’ebb, 5 Ark. 74; Ringo v. Field. 1 Eng. [Ark.] 49; Carr v. Crain, 2 Eng. [Ark.] 249.

Appeal from Lawrence circuit court [in an action by Thompson and Matthews against Campbell.]

Before JOHNSON and SCOTT, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT.

It is clear that the court erred in rejecting the evidence offered by the plaintiff as stated in the bill of exceptions, and also in ordering the plaintiff to be nonsuited against his consent. The evidence was clearly admissible to support the cause of action as laid in the declaration, and should have been received. Reversed.
# C_2016038EN.01005901.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/59

---

Order of the General Court of 20 November 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO)

(Case T-202/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark WORLD OF BINGO - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2016/C 038/79)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 (Case R 1899/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign WORLD OF BINGO as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Zitro IP Sàrl shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Zitro IP Sàrl shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.

1

---
No. 51161.

#### Protests 79802-K (B), etc., of S. S. Kresge Co. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Joseph Schmidt, Inc.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 188, C. D. 690), the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ANTHONY M. PIERAGOWSKI, Lance Corporal, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

19 USCMA 508, 42 CMR *110*

No. 22,941

June 26, 1970

*Captain Harry N. Lembeck,*USMCR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keever,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER Curiam:

Specification 2 of the charge alleges that the accused violated Title 21, § 176 (a) of the United States Code, by smuggling marihuana into the United States. In United States v Beeker, 18 USCMA 563, 565, 40 CMR 275 (1969), we held that in the absence of circumstances “to relate . . . [the offense] spe-dally to the military,” the act was not triable by court-martial.

The United States Navy Court of Military Review was of the opinion that this case was distinguishable from *Beeker*in that the accused arrived in the United States at a military installation by aircraft chartered by the military. However, the charter did not *509transform the aircraft into a military vehicle, and the landing at a military base was a convenience which did not eliminate the civilian character of customs inspection, as evidenced by the inspection of the accused’s effects by regular civilian customs inspectors. The civilian nature of the act, therefore, remained unaffected by any militarily significant circumstance. United States v LeBlanc, 19 USCMA 381, 41 CMR 381 (1970). Cf. United States v Allen, 19 USCMA 31, 41 CMR 31 (1969).

The decision of the Court of Military Review as to specification 2 of the charge is reversed. The findings of guilty of the specification are set aside and the specification is ordered dismissed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for submission to the Court of Military Review for reassessment of the sentence on the basis of the remaining findings of guilty.
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2016 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2016-A, does hereby certify that:

 

1.             NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.             The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture Trustee.

 

3.             This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.             A review of the Servicer’s activities during the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2019 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.             To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2019.

 

6.             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 23rd day of March, 2020.

 
| March 23, 2020 |   |                    |
|---------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                |   |                    |
|                | By:    | /s/ Carlo Alberto Sisto |
|                | Name:  | Carlo Alberto Sisto     |
|                | Title: | President               |

 

----