alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Keith KYZAR v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 47035.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 18, 1972.

McRae & Baker, Pascagoula, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by J. B. Gar-retty, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for ap-pellee.

SUGG, Justice.

Appellant was convicted of the sale of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and sentenced to serve five years in the State Penitentiary. After carefully considering the errors assigned by appellant, we find them to be without merit, except that the sentence imposed is in excess of that permitted by law.

The offense for which appellant was convicted was committed before the effective date of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act which is Chapter 521, Laws of Mississippi, 1971.

Section 33(a) of the Act provides:

> Prosecution for any violation of law occurring prior to the effective date of this act shall not be affected or abated by this act and the penalty for such violation shall be prescribed in accordance with Section 24(g) of this act.

Section 24(g) of the act provides that any person previously indicted under a prior act for violation of any law regarding controlled substances but not sentenced shall be sentenced under the provisions of the act.

In the cases of Moore v. State, 264 So.2d 414 (Miss.1972) and Fisher v. State, 264 So.2d 832 (Miss.1972), we held that one convicted for the sale of LSD should be sentenced under Section 20(a)(2) where such sale was made before the effective date of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act and sentence imposed after the effective date of the act.

Section 20(a)(2) is as follows:

> Any other controlled substance classified in Schedule I, II, or III, as set out in Sections 7, 8, and 9 of this act, is guilty of a felony and upon conviction may be imprisoned for not more than four (4) years, or fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00), or both;

This case is affirmed as to conviction, but remanded for the imposition of such sentence the trial court may deem appropriate not to exceed thé maximum allowed by law.

Affirmed and remanded.

GILLESPIE, C. J., and JONES, SMITH and BROOM, JJ., concur.
#### Mary F. WELSH, Appellant, v. Thomas B. WELSH, Appellee.

No. 67-410.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 11, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Lydia F. KNEPPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Louisiana, Through DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION, et al. Defendants, Dr. Frank H. Marek and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 6473.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

June 8, 1978.

*1128Russell T. Tritico, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jones, Patin, Harper, Tete & Nolen, William M. Nolen, Lake Charles, Frank P. Trosclair, Jr., Baton Rouge, Cox, Cox & Knapp by James J. Cox, Lake Charles, Camp, Carmouche, Palmer, Carwile & Barsh, J. A. Delafield, Lake Charles, for defendants-appellees.

Before CULPEPPER, DOMENGEAUX, and WATSON, JJ.

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

This is a medical malpractice case, filed in the captioned District Court, in which plaintiff seeks monetary relief. Her petition alleges that, while she was a patient at Lake Charles Charity Hospital, she suffered damages because of negligent performance of certain diagnostic procedures and surgery. She sued the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Health and Human Resources Administration, as the operator of the hospital; Dr. Frank H. Marek, as the head of the radiology department of the hospital; Dr. Maurice D. Levy, as the physician who performed the subsequent surgery; and the insurer of these physicians, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company.

Under the provisions of Louisiana’s Medical Malpractice Act, La.R.S. 40:1299.41, et seq., specifically Section 1299.47(B), defendants, Dr. Frank H. Marek and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, filed a dilatory exception of prematurity, premised on the fact that plaintiff did not first present her claim to a medical review panel before filing her suit in the District Court. Based on stipulations and admissions, the trial court sustained the exception and dismissed plaintiff’s suit as to Doctor Marek and Hartford, as his insurer only.

Plaintiff has appealed, contending that Section 1299.47 of the Act is unconstitutional.

For the reasons set out in the case of *Everett v. Goldman, et al.,*359 So.2d 1256 (La.1978), we affirm the action of the District Court.

The Supreme Court in the *Everett*case upheld as constitutional, two sections of the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act, one of which was La.R.S. 40:1299.47.1

The *Everett*decision discusses at length the history and purposes of the aforementioned Medical Malpractice Act, and the constitutional challenges concerning Sections 1299.47 and 1299.41(E).

*1129Inasmuch as plaintiff did not follow the procedure set out in La.R.S. 40:1299.47, and according to the pronouncement by our Supreme Court in the *Everett*case, *supra,*we therefore affirm the decision of the trial court, sustaining the exception of prematurity and dismissing plaintiff’s suit as to Dr. Frank H. Marek and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, as his insurer only.

Costs are assessed against plaintiff-appellant.

*AFFIRMED.*

1

. We note that the Court in *Everett*aiso declared constitutional Section 1299.41(E), relative to the prohibition of including a specific dollar amount in the demand for malpractice claims. We are not concerned with this section in the instant case.
Formation of the disaccharide maltose from 2 

glucose molecules 

A disaccharide is produced by joining 2 monosaccharide (single sugar) units. 

In this animation, 2 glucose molecules are combined using a condensation reaction, with the removal of 

water. 

In maltose, an alpha 1-4 glycosidic bond is formed between opposite sides of the 2 glucose units. 

 

Contents page Front (index) page

Website Guidance: BioTopics front page > Topics Contents Page > This Topic 

 < Feedback 

 Digestive system Biochemistry basics: Elements in Biochemistry 

 Carbohydrate structure Condensation & hydrolysis Monosaccharides condensation 

 Disaccharide hydrolysis Amino acid structure Amino acids condensation Dipeptide 

hydrolysis 

Formation of a disaccharide Page 1 of 1

http://www.biotopics.co.uk/as/disaccharideformation.html 7/19/2010
VI

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 116

For the relief of Fanie Phily Mateo Angeles.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Fanie Phily Mateo Angeles.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, notwithstanding any provision of the Immigration

4 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Fanie Phily

5 Mateo Angeles shall be held and considered to have been

6 lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent resi7 dence as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon

8 payment of the required visa fee. Upon the granting of

9 permanent residence to such alien as provided for in this

10 Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer

11 to reduce by the proper number, during the current fiscal

12 year or the fiscal year next following, the total number
2

•S 116 IS

1 of immigrant visas which are made available to natives

2 of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a)

3 of such Act, or if applicable, the total number of immi4 grant visas which are made available to natives of the

5 country of the alien’s birth under section 202(e) of such

6 Act.

Æ
# C_2022463EN.01004601.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/46

---

Order of the General Court of 22 September 2022 — Primagran v EUIPO — Primagaz (prımagran)

(Case T-624/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark prımagran - Earlier EU figurative mark PRIMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 27(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Prohibition of reformatio in pejus - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 463/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Primagran sp. z o.o. (Stegna, Poland) (represented by: E. Jaroszyńska-Kozłowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Herrburger, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 July 2021 (Case R 2486/2020-4).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Primagran sp. z o.o. shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Primagran sp. z o.o. shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz.

---

(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.

---
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-12313,333-62959, 333-88803, 333-40644, 333-50138, 333-76074 and 333-111066 onForm S-8 of our report dated April 29, 2005, relating to management’s report on the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting, appearing in this AmendmentNo. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Brooktrout, Inc. for theyear ended December 31, 2004.

 
| /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP |   |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                               |   |
| Boston, Massachusetts              |   |
| April 29, 2005                     |   |

 

----
# C_2022284EN.01003801.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/38

---

Order of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Zásilkovna v Commission

(Case T-585/21) (1)

(State aid - Compensation granted for the provision of the universal service obligation in the postal sector - Complaint - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 284/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zásilkovna s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: R. Kubáč, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Carpi Badía and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of the Commission’s letter of 9 July 2021 concerning the compensation granted to Česká pošta for the provision of a universal service obligation for the period from 2018 to 2022 and the decision of 23 June 2020 initiating the formal investigation procedure (SA.55208 (2020/C), SA.55497 (2019/FC) and SA.55686 (2019/FC)) and, second, of the Commission’s letter of 31 August 2021 concerning the compensation granted to Česká pošta for the provision of a universal service obligation for the period from 2018 to 2022 (SA.55208 (2020/C)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene of the Czech Republic and Česká pošta. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene of the Czech Republic and Česká pošta.

| 3. | Zásilkovna s. r. o. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Zásilkovna s. r. o. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene.

| 4. | Zásilkovna, the Czech Republic and Česká pošta shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Zásilkovna, the Czech Republic and Česká pošta shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.

---
# C_2022148EN.01002602.xml

| 4.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/26

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 7 February 2022 — Eurecna v Commission

(Case T-739/21 R)

(Interim relief - Public supply contracts - Application for interim measures - Lack of any urgency)

(2022/C 148/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Eurecna SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: R Sciaudone, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Romoli, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, the suspension of the operation of the decisions of the Commission of 10, 16 and 30 September 2021 to impose a set-off of claims on the applicant and, secondly, to order the Commission to pay the relevant amounts to the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for temporary interim relief is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for temporary interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0230

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

BYRON CORNELL KELSEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 22, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 15 2024

03/15/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0230
# C_2022318EN.01001801.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons — Belgium) — Ville de Mons, Zone de secours Hainaut-Centre v RM

(Case C-377/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Principle of pro rata temporis - Taking into account, for the purpose of calculating the remuneration of a full-time professional firefighter, the length of service for remuneration purposes which he has acquired as a volunteer firefighter, in accordance with the principle of pro rata temporis)

(2022/C 318/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ville de Mons. Zone de secours Hainaut-Centre

Defendant: RM

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement implemented by Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC is to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, for the purposes of calculating the remuneration of professional firefighters employed on a full-time basis, accredits, in respect of the length of service for remuneration purposes, work performed previously on a part-time basis as a volunteer firefighter in line with the principle of pro rata temporis, that is to say, on the basis of the work actually performed.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

---
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1153

To suspend temporarily the duty on Tacrolimus in bulk or measured dose

form subject to approval by the Food and Drug Administration.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 24 (legislative day, JUNE 22), 1993

Mr. SIMON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on Tacrolimus in bulk

or measured dose form subject to approval by the Food

and Drug Administration.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TACROLIMUS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.31.12 Tacrolimus in measured

dose and bulk form (CAS

No. 104987–11–3) (provided for in subheadings

2934.90.47 and

3004.90.60) ........................ Free No change No change On or before

12/31/94 ’’.
2

•S 1153 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to articles entered, or

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

4 the 15th day after the date of approval of tacrolimus by

5 the Food and Drug Administration.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              471
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            6,734
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                      0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                      0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      32,671
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           11,793
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             11,669
<LOANS>                                          60,221
<ALLOWANCE>                                         233
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  115,434
<DEPOSITS>                                       76,642
<SHORT-TERM>                                     24,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1,201
<LONG-TERM>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                             11
<OTHER-SE>                                       13,080
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  115,434
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   3,544
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 2,225
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    330
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  6,099
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                2,866
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3,840
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             2,259
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        79
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   65
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1,507
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     993
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          993
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                        628
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .78
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     7.69
<LOANS-NON>                                         218
<LOANS-PAST>                                          0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                      0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     336
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                    158
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                         4
<RECOVERIES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                   233
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                126
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             107
        


</TABLE>
# C_2022084EN.01002102.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/21

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Arad — Romania) — Asociaţia Naţională de Terapii Complementare din România (ANATECOR)

(Case C-400/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Interpretation of national law - National insolvency proceedings - Possibility for the insolvency judge to determine his or her substantive jurisdiction and the claim - Purely internal dispute - Lack of connection with EU law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2022/C 84/26)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Arad

Parties to the main proceedings

Insolvency debtor: Asociaţia Naţională de Terapii Complementare din România (ANATECOR)

Intervening parties: Primăria Municipiului Arad — Direcția Venituri, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Timișoara — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Arad

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunalul Arad (Regional Court, Arad, Romania) by decision of 31 May 2021.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 28.6.2021.

---
256 La. 614

#### PRINGLE-ASSOCIATED MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. Ross E. COX.

No. 50702.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 29, 1970.

In re: Pringle-Associated Mortgage Corporation applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 234 So.2d 854.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of.the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.

Granted but limited to the question of interest on the judgment as amended by the court of appeal. In all other respects the application is denied.