alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Peter VOS, Jr., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. IML FREIGHT, INC., and IML Freight International, Inc., corporations, Defendants and Respondents.

No. 13752.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Feb. 6, 1975.

Joseph C. Fratto, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Nathan J. Fullmer, Salt Lake City, for defendants and respondents.

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from a summary judgment denying relief where plaintiff was discharged for two failures to respond to his employer’s instructions to drive truck which he had been employed to do. Affirmed.

Plaintiff voluntarily sought and received two hearings designed to obtain reinstatement after being discharged which he urges was without just cause, — all under a provision of a negotiated contract where a grievance was to be decided by arbiters, whose findings were agreed to be conclusive. Plaintiff lost out in this contractual arbitration atmosphere, and now seeks judicial review of his case, — a third thrust at it, — based on what he claims was incompetence of counsel that represented him, but did not protect his constitutional rights, — a frayed but persistent urgence, — and also on the general complaint that he could not bargain away his rights of review.

The implication was that the contract in which arbitration was the provided instrumentality for redress of grievances was void as preventing a judicial review. We do nol buy such contention, since the plaintiff 1) sought to have his grievance determined under the very terms of a contract he now attempts to denounce, — a hot and cold approach frowned upon by courts, besides, 2) he obtained a judicial review, even though in cases like this, the U.S. Supreme Court has opined that legitimate arbitration is not the subject of review by the courts.1

There is nothing in this case pointing up any illegitimacy, bloodletting, fraud or departure from honorable settlement of disputes, but we say that under the discovery process pursued here, plaintiff’s own statements under oath proved the fact and presented to the trial court no alternative but to grant the motion for summary judgment which reflected that there was no genuine issue of fact for pursuance here.

*866ELLETT, TUCKETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.

1

. United Steel Workers v. Warren, 303 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960).

CROCKETT, Justice

(concurring specially) :

I concur in affirming the judgment. But as to the arbitration and the necessity and desirability of some ultimate resort to the courts I adhere to the views set forth in Barnhart v. Civil Serv. Emp. Ins. Co., 16 Utah 2d 223, 398 P.2d 873.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, and Neuroinflammation.                    

*Date:*                         December 22, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Salma Asmat Quraishi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-0592,                         *salma.quraishi@nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 7, 2023.

Melanie J. Pantoja, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-27296 Filed 12-12-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
th
 /s/ Joseph T. DunsmoreJoseph T. Dunsmore




---



##### 



th
 /s/ Subramanian KrishnanSubramanian Krishnan




---



##### 



th
 /s/ Guy C. JacksonGuy C. Jackson




---



##### 



nd
 /s/ Kenneth E. MillardKenneth E. Millard




---



##### 



nd
 /s/ Ahmed NawazAhmed Nawaz




---



##### 



th
 /s/ William N. PriesmeyerWilliam N. Priesmeyer




---



##### 



th
 /s/ Bradley J. WilliamsBradley J. Williams
# C_2020399EN.01002501.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Crédit agricole and Others v ECB

(Case T-144/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments - Tasks entrusted to the ECB - Specific supervision powers of the ECB - Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital - Absence of individual examination)

(2020/C 399/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and the 69 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou, R. Bax and F. Bonnard, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment, first, of ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2017-969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/380 of 19 December 2017, and, second, of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCAG-17 of 14 February 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls paragraph 9 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/380 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of Annex A thereto as well as paragraph 9 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCAG-17 of the ECB of 14 February 2019 and Article 3 of the annex thereto; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls paragraph 9 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/380 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of Annex A thereto as well as paragraph 9 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCAG-17 of the ECB of 14 February 2019 and Article 3 of the annex thereto;

| 2. | Orders the ECB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the ECB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---
# C_2019423EN.01004401.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO – Dalian Wanda Group Co. (wanda films)

(Case T-542/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark wanda films - Earlier EU word mark WANDA - Relative ground for refusal - Restriction of the application for registration - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 423/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Wanda Films, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) and Wanda Visión, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón) (represented by: C. Planas Silva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd (Dalian, China) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, and by T. Dolde and K. Lüder, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2018 (Case R 829/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Dalian Wanda Group and Wanda Films.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wanda Films, SL and Wanda Visión, SA to pay the costs, including those incurred by Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wanda Films, SL and Wanda Visión, SA to pay the costs, including those incurred by Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DANIEL RAYMOND NEVARRE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 213 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20th day of October, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
3


EXHIBIT 23.1

August 27, 1997

General Nutrition Companies, Inc.
300 Sixth Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15222

Dear Sirs:

We  have  made a review, in accordance with standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the
unaudited  interim  financial information  of  General  Nutrition
Companies,  Inc. and subsidiaries for the twelve and  twenty-four
weeks ended July 19, 1997 and July 20, 1996, as indicated in  our
report dated August 4, 1997; because we did not perform an audit,
we expressed no opinion on that information.

We  are  aware  that  our report referred  to  above,  which  was
included  in  your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the  quarter
ended July 19, 1997, is incorporated by reference in Registration
Statement Nos. 33-58096, 33-68590, 33-93370, 333-00128  and  333-
21397 on Form S-8.

We  also  are  aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant  to
Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a
part  of the Registration Statement prepared or certified  by  an
accountant  or  a report prepared or certified by  an  accountant
within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

Yours truly,



Deloitte & Touche LLP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
#### William R. ROWE, owner of the fishing vessel SEA QUEEN, Libelant-Appellee, v. Fishing Vessel BIG JIM II, her engines, etc., in rem, and Albert Dulinski, owner, operator and/or charterer of the Fishing Vessel Big Jim II, Respondents-Appellant.

No. 14448.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Nov. *7,*1963.

Decided Nov. 27, 1963.

*736Edward I. Baker, Atlantic City, N. J., for appellant.

Roy L. Sykes, Norfolk, Va. (Jett, Sykes & Berkley, Norfolk, Va., "Walter C. Wright, Jr., Cape May, N. J., on the brief), for libelant-appellee.

Before STALEY, HASTIE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a final decree in favor of the libelant in a suit in admiralty brought to recover for damages to. a vessel. The trial court found; first, that the respondent Albert Dulinski was negligent in the operation of his vessel “BIG JIM II”; second, that this negligence was solely the proximate cause of extensive damage to the vessel “SEA QUEEN”, owned by the libelant; and third, that the libelant had suffered damages and losses in the total amount of $37,925.45.

The respondent here challenges these factual findings as unsupported by the evidence and clearly erroneous. We do not agree. We have examined the record in its entirety and, applying the rule announced by the Supreme Court in McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20 (1954), we find no error. The factual findings are amply supported by evidence which the trial court apparently found credible.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0255 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CARL SANGREY,

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 August 31, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 26 2022

07/26/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0255
#### State v. Sorino

26009

08/03/2005

Granted

108 Hawai'i 115, 117 P.3d 847
Establishment Name, Est. Number Page 1 of 2

Site of Submission 

Facility Documents Filed – Revisions Requested OR

Facility Documents Returned – Resubmit with Corrections by [date]

DIRECTIONS

1. Use following paragraph when returning with Revisions Requested

Review VS Memorandum 800.78, Preparation and Submission of Facilities Documents, for 

established practices related to preparing facility documents. Address all revisions requested and 

ensure the submission has been reviewed by personnel familiar with the regulations and 

guidance documents prior to resubmission. 

2. Use the following paragraph when documents are returned and must be resubmitted with 

Corrections:

This submission was not adequate or complete and did not meet the regulations cited in 9 CFR 

Part 108. Review VS Memorandum 800.78, Preparation and Submission of Facilities 

Documents, for established practices related to preparing facility documents. All corrections 

required may not be listed, therefore prior to the next submission, personnel familiar with the 

regulations and guidance documents must review the documents for sufficiency.

TYPE OF DOCUMENT – Document identity

1. List issue that is not in compliance

[Reference: 9 CFR 108.XX]

2. List issue that is not in compliance

[Reference: 9 CFR 108.XX]

3. List issue that is not in compliance

[Reference: 9 CFR 108.XX]

4. List issue that is not in compliance

[Reference: 9 CFR 108.XX]

5. List issue that is not in compliance

[Reference: 9 CFR 108.XX]

6. List issue that is not in compliance

[Reference: 9 CFR 108.XX]

TYPE OF DOCUMENT – Document identity

7. List issue that is not in compliance

[Reference: 9 CFR 108.XX]

8. List issue that is not in compliance
Establishment Name, Est. Number Page 2 of 2

Site of Submission 

Facility Documents Filed – Revisions Requested OR

Facility Documents Returned – Resubmit with Corrections by [date]

[Reference: 9 CFR 108.XX]

9. List issue that is not in compliance

[Reference: 9 CFR 108.XX]

TYPE OF DOCUMENT – Document identity

10. List issue that is not in compliance

[Reference: 9 CFR 108.XX]

11. List issue that is not in compliance

[Reference: 9 CFR 108.XX]

12. List issue that is not in compliance

[Reference: 9 CFR 108.XX]

APHIS:VS:CVB-IC:Author:bca's initials:f:\Licensed Firms\EST\facdoc\Date

Mail Log #:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27198]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Topics in Structural Biophysics.
    Date: December 20, 2023.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Dennis Pantazatos, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-2381, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80e4e5eeeee9f3aef0e1eef4e1fae1f4eff3c0eee9e8aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ef8b8a8181869cc19f8e819b8e958e9b809caf818687c1888099">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 7, 2023.
Victoria E. Townsend,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-27198 Filed 12-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jimmy S.M. Lee, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. as of and for the periods presented in such Annual Report on Form 10-K.



By:

/s/    Jimmy S.M.
LeeJimmy S.M. LeeChairman of the Board, Chief ExecutiveOfficer And PresidentMay 29, 2007


I, Scott D. Howarth, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. as of and
for the periods presented in such Annual Report on Form 10-K.



By:

/s/    Scott D.
HowarthScott D. HowarthVice President and Chief Financial OfficerMay 29, 2007
#### Leoni v. Hamlin

17547

4/10/96

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM EIF HOLDINGS,
INC.  FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

Page 50
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Sep-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               Sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                         304,678
<SECURITIES>                                 5,562,697
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,664,867
<ALLOWANCES>                                   225,000
<INVENTORY>                                    165,079
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,085,929
<PP&E>                                       1,622,827
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,018,887
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,675,986
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,016,583
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,019,246
<OTHER-SE>                                 (13,359,843)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,675,986
<SALES>                                     13,434,423
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,434,423
<CGS>                                        8,399,561
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,399,561
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,738,610
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,434,992
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,128,551)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,128,551)
<DISCONTINUED>                              (3,638,700)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (6,767,251)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.27)
        


</TABLE>