alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Derrick Barnes, Petitioner, v Joseph Grosso, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

[737 NYS2d 299]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition and *554mandamus, inter alia, to prohibit the trial of the criminal action entitled *People v Barnes*pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Indictment No. 2234/2001.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court — in cases where judicial authority is challenged — acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” *(Matter of Holtzman v Goldman,*71 NY2d 564, 569; *see, Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 352). Similarly, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought (see, *Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16).

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Goldstein, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.
# C_2022198EN.01004501.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Ye (APE TEES)

(Case T-281/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark APE TEES - Earlier national non-registered figurative trade marks representing an ape - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rules governing common-law actions for passing-off - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and Euratom)

(2022/C 198/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nowhere Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Junguo Ye (Elche, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2021 (Case R 2474/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Nowhere Co. and Mr Ye.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 February 2021 (Case R 2474/2017-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 February 2021 (Case R 2474/2017-2);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

---
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1246

To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on 2,5-dimethoxyacetanilide.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 15 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

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

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on 2,5-

dimethoxyacetanilide.

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

3 SECTION 1. 2,5-DIMETHOXYACETANILIDE.

4 Heading 9902.29.52 of subchapter II of chapter 99

5 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

6 is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/92’’ and inserting ‘‘12/

7 31/94’’.

8 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by this Act

10 applies with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from
2

•S 1246 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

2 the date of the enactment of this Act.

3 (b) RELIQUIDATION.—Notwithstanding section 514

4 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law,

5 upon proper request filed with the appropriate customs of6 ficer on or before the 90th day after the date of the enact7 ment of this Act, any entry of an article described in sub8 heading 9902.29.52 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

9 the United States that was made—

10 (1) after December 31, 1992, and

11 (2) before the date which is 15 days after the

12 date of the enactment of this Act,

13 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry

14 occurred on or after the date that is 15 days after the

15 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
astra_ex101.htm

  EXHIBIT 10.1
  
  
  
 	 
	1
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	2
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	3
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	4
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	5
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	6
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	7
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	8
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	9
	

	 

   
  
  
   
 	 
	10
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	11
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	12
Exhibit 11.  Statement re computation of per share earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                     Years Ended
                                    December 31, 2001              December 31, 2000          December 31, 1999
                               --------------------------    ---------------------------  --------------------------
                                       Weighted     Per               Weighted     Per             Weighted   Per
                                       Average     Share              Average     Share            Average   Share
                               Income   Shares     Amount    Income   Share       Amount  Income   Shares    Amount
                               ------- --------  --------    ------   --------   -------  -------  --------  -------

<S>                            <C>      <C>      <C>         <C>       <C>       <C>      <C>      <C>       <C>
Basic Earnings per Common Share
Income available to common
   shareholders                $10,540    6,519     $1.62    $9,256      6,540     $1.42   $9,635     7,030    $1.37
                                                 ========                        =======                     =======

Effect of Dilutive Shares
Options issued to management                 30                             18                                    32
                                       --------                       --------                               -------
Diluted Earnings per Common Share
Income available to common
   shareholders                $10,540    6,549     $1.61    $9,256      6,558     $1.41   $9,635     7,062    $1.36
                               ======= ========  ========   =======   ========   =======  =======  ========  =======


</TABLE>
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1009

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of a certain entry of warp

knitting machines as free of certain duties.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 24 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

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

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of a certain

entry of warp knitting machines as free of certain duties.

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

3 SECTION 1. RELIQUIDATING ENTRY OF WARP KNITTING

4 MACHINES.

5 Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of

6 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, upon

7 proper request filed with the appropriate customs officer

8 before the 180th day after the date of the enactment of

9 this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall—
2

•S 1009 IS

1 (1) liquidate or reliquidate as duty free Entry

2 No. 100–3022436–3, made on July 12, 1989 at the

3 port of Charleston, South Carolina; and

4 (2) refund any duties paid with respect to such

5 entry.

Æ
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

SAAB SITE CONTRACTORS, L.P.,

Appellant,

V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

ASSIGNEE OF U

- BROTHERS RENT,

LTD., §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00062

- CV

Appeal from the

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2011

- 999)

Appellee. §

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss the

appeal, and concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed, in

accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal. Costs of the appeal

are taxed against Appellant. This decision sh all be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

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

Rivera, J. (Not Participating)
H. Res. 494

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

July 29, 1994.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 4801) to amend the Small Business Act, and

for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the

bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill

and the amendments made in order by this resolution and

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee

on Small Business. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of

the amendments recommended by the Committee on Small

Business now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under

the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the bill modified by the
2

HRES 494 EH

amendments recommended by the Committee on Small Business now printed in the bill and by the additional amendments printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on

Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the

nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No other

amendment shall be in order except those printed in part 2

of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment

may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may

be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall

be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment

except as specified in the report, and shall not be subject to

a demand for division of the question in the House or in the

Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the

amendments printed in the report are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such

amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may

demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment

adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the

amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as

original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
3

HRES 494 EH

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO. v. SELLERS.

No. 38083.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 214 So.2d 879.
#### MARYLAND NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Georgia corporation, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, for the Use and Benefit of DADE COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-405.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 4, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Page 1 of 3 

Disposition Comments 

Docket No: FAA-2011-0760 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NE-10-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: SP3178EN-E

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM 

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

 

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

 Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

 Make the following changes to the AD: 
Page 2 of 3 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here 
Page 3 of 3 

Signature Section 

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

 

ASE Printed Name: Date 

 

Branch Manager Date
#### Sonia Feldmann RISOLIA, Petitioner, v. The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, as Executor of the Estate of Carlyle Feldmann, deceased, Respondent.

No. 42168.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 16, 1972.

Rehearing Denied June 27, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-27-2000             DEC-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-25-2000             JUN-25-2000
<CASH>                                             208                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,305                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       400                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     73,033                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               160,573                       0
<PP&E>                                         859,575                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 523,930                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 586,679                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          622,808                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       139,170                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (305,800)                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   586,679                       0
<SALES>                                        153,134                 312,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               153,134                 312,835
<CGS>                                          155,934                 314,588
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  165,820                 334,878
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,194                   6,648
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,089                  21,667
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,969)                (50,358)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       250                     396
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (25,219)                (50,754)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,219)                (50,754)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
Order entered April 1, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 01224
- CR
TRAYVON DONTARIO HAT TER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199
- 80148
- 2014



### O RDER Appellant’s March 30, 2015 third motion to extend the time to file appellant’s brief is GRANTED . The time to file appellant’s brief is EXTENDED to May 1, 2015

. If appellant’s brief is not filed by May 1, 2015, this appeal will be abated so that the trial court can make findings in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 38.8.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
NeoRx Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-60029, 33-64992, 33-63169, 333-05661, 333-00785 and 333-25161) on Form S-3
and in the registration statements (Nos. 33-43860, 33-46317, 33-87108 and
333-32583) on Form S-8 of NeoRx Corporation, of our report dated February 4,
2000, relating to the balance sheets of NeoRx Corporation as of December 31,
1999 and 1998, and the related statements of operations, shareholders' equity
and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December
31, 1999, which report appears in the December 31, 1999 annual report on Form
10-K of NeoRx Corporation.

KPMG LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 27, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS OF NEORX CORPORATION AS OF 12/31/97 AND 12/31/96, AND THE RELATED STATE-
MENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR EACH OF THE YEARS ENDED 12/31/97, 12/31/96 AND 12/31/95
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-K REPORT FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED 12/31/97.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>              0000755806                                   
<NAME>             NEORX CORPORATION                
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          1,949
<SECURITIES>                                   31,760
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               35,529
<PP&E>                                          7,323
<DEPRECIATION>                                  6,642
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 36,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,754
<BONDS>                                         1,199
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         4
<COMMON>                                          414
<OTHER-SE>                                     32,950
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   36,321
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,352
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2,550)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (2,550) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2,550)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.31)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2022119EN.01005903.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/59

---

Order of the General Court of 20 January 2022 — Tralux and Others v Parliament

(Case T-488/21) (1)

(2022/C 119/86)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---
[No. 1026-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

December 6, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Donald F. Munger, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 4632, Edward M. Nollmeyer, J., entered March 22, 1971. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
No. 00-1050.

#### Drones *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2022418EN.01002602.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Rauff-Nisthar v Commission

(Case T-341/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Open Competition EPSO/AD/371/19 - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Irregularities in the conduct of the tests liable to distort the result - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - New plea)

(2022/C 418/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nadya Rauff-Nisthar (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio and T Lilamand, agents)

Re:

By her action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, annulment of the decision of the selection board of Open Competition EPSO/AD/371/19 for recruitment of adminstrators (AD 7) specialised in scientific research not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list of that competition, in particular in area No 6, entitled ‘Nuclear research and decommissioning of nuclear installations’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Nadya Rauff-Nisthar to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Nadya Rauff-Nisthar to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---