alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

DOROTHY S. TOWNE, ESQUIRE, d/b/a ) DOTTIE TOWNE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, ) and DAVID WEBSTER, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-3171 ) VAKA LAW GROUP, P.L., ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 22, 2017.

A ppeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Mark R. Wolfe, Judge. Dottie Towne, Tampa, for Appellants. John V. Trujillo, Jr., Tampa, for Appellee.

VILLANTI, Chief Judge.

Dorothy Towne and David Webste r appeal various orders underlyi ng a default judgment of liability entered in favor of Vaka Law Grou p, P.L., in an action for breach of contract arising from a retention agreement. We have jurisdiction over the order denying Appellants' motion for order compelling arbitrati on and motion to stay judicial proceedings pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Proc edure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv).- 2 - Because Towne waived her right to arbitration, we affirm the or der denying her motion to stay and compel arbitration. We also affirm the order denyi ng Webster's motion to stay and compel arbitration. 1 Appellants also seek review of various other orders entered pr ior to the order denying their motion to stay and compel arbitration. To the extent that Towne seeks review of the denial of her motion for judgment on the pl eadings, we must dismiss the appeal as we do not have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130; Zaremba v. Harbison, 462 So. 2d 80, 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). To the extent that Towne seeks review of the denial of her motion to vacate the default judgme nt of liability, we must also dismiss the appeal as we do not have jurisdiction. See Br yant v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 182 So. 3d 927, 929-30 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Finally , to the extent that Towne seeks review of the issuance of the clerk's default, we a ffirm because the propriety of that default has not been preserved for review. S ee Shelden v. Shelden, 63 So. 3d 78, 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

KELLY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

1 We are not convinced that Webster was a proper party to the act ion below, and as such, a proper par ty to this appeal. However, be cause we affirm, we do not reach this issue.
# C_2018427EN.01001201.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/12

---

Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 17 September 2018 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2018 in Case T-646/16 P, Simpson / Council

(Case C-542/18 RX)

(2018/C 427/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties to the proceedings before the General Court

Applicant: Erik Simpson (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Questions to be reviewed

Whether, having regard, in particular, to the general principle of legal certainty, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2018, Simpson v Council, affects the unity or consistency of EU law in that the General Court, as the court hearing the appeal, held that the composition of the panel of judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal which had delivered the order of 24 June 2016, Simpson v Council, had been irregular, on the basis of an irregularity affecting the procedure for the appointment of one of the members of that panel of judges, leading to infringement of the principle of the lawful judge, laid down in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Whether, like the acts covered by Article 277 TFEU, the appointment of a judge may form the subject matter of a review of indirect legality or whether such a review of indirect legality is — by principle or after the passage of a certain period of time — excluded or limited to certain types of irregularity in order to ensure legal certainty and the force of res judicata.

---
Learn more: www.aphis.usda.gov/animalwelfare/aids 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Animal Care

AC-21-001 • Issued April 2021

Feeding Two-Toed Sloths 

Sloths have a complex digestive system that can slowly process 

large amounts of plant material, but only handle limited amounts 

of protein or sugary foods.

A Balanced Diet 

A good estimate for how much to feed your sloth 

is 10 percent of their body weight. For example, 

a 15-pound sloth should have 1.5 pounds of 

food each day. 

The diagram to the right shows the types of foods 

and relative amounts in a balanced sloth diet. 

You can offer “browse” (small branches, leaves, 

and flowers) free choice, along with the balanced 

diet, to keep your sloth engaged in natural 

foraging behavior. 

Helpful Tips 

l Maintaining a sloth’s environment between 

75 and 85 °F is crucial for their digestion.

l Sloths only urinate and defecate once or twice 

a week and may lose up to 30 percent of 

their body weight afterward. Weigh them after 

elimination to accurately monitor weight trends. 

l Cut food items into long, thin pieces to help 

sloths grasp and eat them.

l Avoid feeding sloths seeds from fruit, pumpkin, 

or other items. Seeds are harder to digest and 

may contribute to a blockage.

l Count any “treats” for training or other activities 

as part of the daily balanced diet. Feeding 

these items in addition to the balanced diet can 

result in overfeeding or more sugar or starch 

than a sloth can digest. 

CONSULT YOUR VETERINARIAN

for more guidance on sloth nutrition 

and how to maintain optimal 

body weight. 

COMMERCIAL BISCUITS: 

low-starch, high-fiber 

primate biscuits such 

as leaf-eater 

or browse 

biscuits

BROWSE:

hibiscus, mulberry, fruit tree branches, 

zinnia, forsythia, locust, plumbago

NON-LEAFY 

VEGETABLES:

sweet potato, 

pumpkin, squash, 

zucchini, carrots, 

green beans FRUIT:

apple, pear, mango, 

papaya, melon

PROTEIN

(optional): 

dog food, 

hard-boiled eggs 

LEAFY GREENS:

romaine lettuce, kale, 

dandelion, other 

leafy greens
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- ;;Jo 1;2 -!;z?i Directorate Identifier: 

c2o;);2 -Je --L/3 4-.D 

-AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

P&W Gregory Mias Sept 12, 2012 Concur. 

EASA Lair Pascal July 13, 2012 Concur. 

Other/ Additional Information: 

9
# C_2018161EN.01004102.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/41

---

Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by Crédit mutuel Arkéa against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-712/15, Crédit mutuel Arkéa v European Central Bank

(Case C-152/18 P)

(2018/C 161/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Crédit mutuel Arkéa (represented by: H. Savoie, avocat)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of 13 December 2017 (T-712/15) by which the General Court dismissed Crédit mutuel Arkéa’s application seeking annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank of 5 October 2015 (ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/28) setting the prudential requirements applicable to Groupe Crédit mutuel. |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of 13 December 2017 (T-712/15) by which the General Court dismissed Crédit mutuel Arkéa’s application seeking annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank of 5 October 2015 (ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/28) setting the prudential requirements applicable to Groupe Crédit mutuel.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds, alleging that:

| — | the General Court erred in law when it held that Article 2(21)(c) of the SSM Framework Regulation allowed the ECB to exercise prudential supervision on a consolidated basis in respect of institutions affiliated to a central body despite the fact that that body does not have credit institution status; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court erred in law when it held that Article 2(21)(c) of the SSM Framework Regulation allowed the ECB to exercise prudential supervision on a consolidated basis in respect of institutions affiliated to a central body despite the fact that that body does not have credit institution status;

| — | the General Court erred in its legal characterisation of the facts when it held that Crédit mutuel is a supervised group since it meets the criteria set out in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 575/2013. (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court erred in its legal characterisation of the facts when it held that Crédit mutuel is a supervised group since it meets the criteria set out in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 575/2013. (1)

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2019044EN.01007901.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/79

---

Action brought on 5 December 2018 — The Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic Compass Greatest care in getting it there)

(Case T-716/18)

(2019/C 44/105)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: The Logistical Approach BV (Uden, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Milchior and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Idea Groupe (Montoir de Bretagne, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark ‘Idealogistic Compass Greatest care in getting it there’ in black, white and blue — Application for registration No 14 567 201

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September in Case R 2062/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs;

| — | order the company Idea Groupe to pay the costs occasioned by its intervention, should it decide to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the company Idea Groupe to pay the costs occasioned by its intervention, should it decide to intervene.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED 
  FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JANUARY 3, 1998 AND THE 
  CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 3, 1998 
  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
  PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ITEM TAGGED EPS-PRIMARY IS BASIC EPS AS REPORTED BY THE
  COMPANY.
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-START>                                   DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                                            47,014
<SECURITIES>                                       1,470
<RECEIVABLES>                                     49,323
<ALLOWANCES>                                       7,746
<INVENTORY>                                       44,551
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 175,858
<PP&E>                                           113,519
<DEPRECIATION>                                    78,367
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   221,346
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             47,576
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                              22
<OTHER-SE>                                       170,774 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     221,346
<SALES>                                          335,684
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 335,684 
<CGS>                                            288,053
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    288,053
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  35,552
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   637
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (53,123)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (22,312)        
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (30,811)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (30,811)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (1.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
        

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

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000880052
<NAME> TOWNE FINANCIAL CORP/OH
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,687
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             166
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     17,364
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          15,213
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            15,142
<LOANS>                                         72,210
<ALLOWANCE>                                        258
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,407
<DEPOSITS>                                      92,881
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,130
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,798
<LONG-TERM>                                     10,189
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           209
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,250
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 116,407
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,750
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,393
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   154
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,297
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,431
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,001
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,296
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       18
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  20
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,547
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,097
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,097
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       717
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.96
<LOANS-NON>                                         98
<LOANS-PAST>                                       486
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   244
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        4
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  258
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               258
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2019025EN.01005201.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/52

---

Action brought on 19 November 2018 — Trifolio-M and Others v EFSA

(Case T-675/18)

(2019/C 25/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Trifolio-M GmbH (Lahnau, Germany), Oxon Italia SpA (Milan, Italy) and Mitsui AgriScience International (Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mereu and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul EFSA’s decision of 11 September 2018 on the assessment of the applicants’ confidentiality claims made in relation to the conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Azadirachtin; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul EFSA’s decision of 11 September 2018 on the assessment of the applicants’ confidentiality claims made in relation to the conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Azadirachtin;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. (1)







  — | The applicants allege that the defendant misinterpreted what amounts to information involving industrial and commercial secrets that merit confidential treatment, and misapplied Article 63 of Regulation 1107/2009 based on a manifest error of assessment of the applicants 'confidentiality claims. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. (1)

—

The applicants allege that the defendant misinterpreted what amounts to information involving industrial and commercial secrets that merit confidential treatment, and misapplied Article 63 of Regulation 1107/2009 based on a manifest error of assessment of the applicants 'confidentiality claims.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the fundamental principles of EU law to the extent that the defendant failed to state reasons for its decision, to conform to the uniform application of EU law or to abide by the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the fundamental principles of EU law to the extent that the defendant failed to state reasons for its decision, to conform to the uniform application of EU law or to abide by the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).

---
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Certification of Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Eugene F. Hovanec, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation. 

 

| Date: August 11, 2003 |   |       |                                             |
|-----------------------|--------|------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                       |   |       | /s/ EUGENE F. HOVANEC                            |
|                  |   |       |                                                  |
|                  |   | **Name :** | **Eugene F. Hovanec****Chief Financial Officer** |
# C_2018161EN.01005701.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/57

---

Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Crédit Agricole and Others v ECB

(Case T-144/18)

(2018/C 161/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Crédit Agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and 69 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendants: European Central Bank

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 9 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/380 of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of its Annex A, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 9 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/380 of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of its Annex A, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;

| — | order the ECB to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-143/18, Societe Generale v ECB.

Societe Generale

ECB

---
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1112 Prepped by Ryan Dugan



## Document

Number: 

# 9 ) ll-B-2 f Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 2

Printed 4/16/20089:12:06

AM Sheet 9of 97P. 2 

# ARCONN E NATIONA L LABORATOR Yz-n^/ 970 0 Soinr k

CAS S AVENUE , ARQOWE , llfi\oi s 6045 9 TEIECJIHON E 512/972 - 843 0

Apri l 1 , 198 5

Dr . Clair e Ernhar t Metropolita n Genera l Hospita l Departmen t o f Psychiatry 339 5 Scranto n Rd . Cleveland , O H 4410 9 Dea r Claire : O n behal f o f th

e U.S . EPA , I woul d lik e t o than k yo u fo r you r willing
nes s t o participat e i n the lea d ris k assessmen t study . You r judgment s abou t possibl e effect s o f lea d on the I Q o f childre n ar e criticall yneeded . Tom Wallste n an

d I ar e ver

ymuc h looking forward t o discussing thes e issue s a t ou r meeting wit h yo u o n Friday , Apri l 19 . Than k yo u fo r offering t o mee t u s at the Sherato n i n the morning . Enclose d i s a cop

yo f the lates t versio n o f our I Q protoco l whic h wil l be th e basi s o f our intervie w sessio n wit h you . Shoul d yo u hav e an yquestion s befor e we meet , pleas e do no t hestiat e t o giv e m e a call . Respectfully ,
Ronal d G . Whitfiel d Decisio n an

d SystemScience s Sectio n Energ yan d Environmenta l System s Divisio n RGW:b f Enclosur e

U.S
. DEPARTMEN T of ENERQ V T k IhivERSiT

y o f CHJCAQ O