alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,003,524
<SECURITIES>                                 9,863,093
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,927,325
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,157,076
<PP&E>                                       7,998,385
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,394,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,310,959
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          674,407
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       133,650
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,482,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,310,959
<SALES>                                        184,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,856,776
<CGS>                                          449,261
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,305,420
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,448,644)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,448,644)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,448,644)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.48)


</TABLE>
#### State v. McWhite

23950

08/13/2002

Affirmed
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3763

___________________________ Christopher L. Buie lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner

v. Administrative Review Board of the United States Department of Labor

lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent

____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Labor (except OSHA)

____________ Submitted: September 28, 2020 Filed: October 1, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Christopher Buie petitions for review of a final order from the United States Department of Labor Administrative Review Board (ARB), affirming the denial of his administrative complaint alleging that his employer fired him for engaging in activities protected under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. After careful review, we conclude that the ARB’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuseof discretion, contrary to the law, or unsupported by substantial evidence in the

record. See 49 U.S.C. § 31105(d) (appellate court reviews ARB’s decision pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act); 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (reviewing court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency decision found to be arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, or if unsupported by substantial evidence in record). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. 47B. We also deny Buie’s pending motion to supplement the record.

______________________________

-2-
# C_2008092EN.01001402.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria lodged on 28 January 2008 — AGRANA Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

(Case C-33/08)

(2008/C 92/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AGRANA Zucker GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 be interpreted as meaning that even a sugar quota which cannot be utilised as a consequence of a preventive withdrawal in accordance with Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 of 27 March 2006 must be included in the assessment of the temporary restructuring amount? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 be interpreted as meaning that even a sugar quota which cannot be utilised as a consequence of a preventive withdrawal in accordance with Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 of 27 March 2006 must be included in the assessment of the temporary restructuring amount?

| 2. | In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative:
  Is Article 11 of Regulation No 320/2006 compatible with primary law, in particular with the principle of non-discrimination and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations derived from Article 34 EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative:

Is Article 11 of Regulation No 320/2006 compatible with primary law, in particular with the principle of non-discrimination and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations derived from Article 34 EC?

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5708]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. FARR:
       H.R. 6286.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Art. 1, Sec. 8
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Manugistics Group, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-67994, 33-67996, 33-89490,
33-89492, 33-98820, 333-09481, 333-36983, 333-60439, and 333-62993) and Form S-3
(File Nos. 333-47133 and 333-58353) of our reports dated April 7, 1999 (except
Note 16 as to which the date is April 25, 1999), appearing in the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Manugistics Group, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended
February 28, 1999.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Washington, DC
June 14, 1999
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 237 (Friday, December 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 76953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31709]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, December 14, 2011; 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered: 

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters. For a recorded message containing the latest agenda 
information, call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: December 6, 2011.
Todd A Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-31709 Filed 12-7-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      30,601,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               48,895,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,620,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            88,689,000
<PP&E>                                      73,012,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,192,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             859,327,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       40,326,000
<BONDS>                                    481,079,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      152,053,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        93,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  94,424,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               859,327,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           143,061,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              145,434,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          34,897,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (35,153,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   480,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (35,633,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           (15,219,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (50,852,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (7.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.52)






</TABLE>
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas EmissionsMeeting DocumentationDateStaff ContactInformation (Name,email, phone #)Name ofOrganization(Attach list of allattendees namesand emails ifpossible)Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reportingrequirements, etc.)WrittenCommentsProvided?Did they alsosubmit to Docket?Date sent toEPA- CCD6/9/10telephonecorrespondenceMollie Averyt, ICFInternational,maveryt@icfi.com202-862-1569on behalf of EPAunder Contract EPW-07-068, TaskOrder 68Phil Bolin,Mitsubishi ElectricPower Products,Inc.(MEPPI)724-778-5235Topic: Under Subpart SS, there is a concern regarding thedisbursement input of the mass balance approach. Typicallymanufacturers would enter the quantity of gas that wasdisbursed from the cylinder and into the breaker. However, ifthere was an emission during the transfer of the gas, it would becounted as a disbursement rather than an emission – therebyunderestimating emissions. EPA is examining a variety of waysto accurately determine the amount of SF6(or PFC) filled intonew equipment before that equipment is shipped out tocustomers including either engineering methods on the transferof the gas or very precise measurement of the equipment’snameplate capacity.Response: MEPPI is moving toward having their productiondepartment putting the weight of SF6on the shipping papers.For project work at substations, they still need to develop adetailed procedureThey do not have measurements on accurate shipping charge.They weigh the bottle before and weigh it after filling. Theyhave not looked into the hose situation entirely yet but said thatbecause they are self sealing hoses, the gas should stay in thehoses. Acknowledged that there is a little “puff” duringconnect/disconnect, something their company has not measuredyet. How much of a puff is dependent on pressure. When askedhow to measure it, he said they could put a bag around it and seehow much comes out. If the loss is large, they could improve thefitting – in the long run. Explained that attaching isn’t so mucha problem as disconnecting it.NoN/A1
**EXHIBIT 8**

 

**Subsidiaries of the Registrant**

 

**Brazauro Resources Corporation**

(a British Columbia corporation)

 

Owns 100% of the following corporations:

 

Star U.S. Inc.

(a Delaware corporation)

 

and

 

Brazauro Holdings (Brazauro) Ltd.

(a British Columbia corporation)

 

and

 

Resource Holdings 2004

(a BVI corporation)

 

and

 

Brazauro Holdings (BVI) Ltd., 

(a BVI corporation)

 

Brazauro Resources Corporation owns 98% of:

 

Brazauro Recursos Minerais Ltda. (formerly Jaguar Resources do Brasil Ltda.)

 (a Brazilian corporation)

 

Brazauro Holdings (Brazauro) Ltd. owns 2% and 1%, respectively of:

 

Brazauro Recursos Minerais Ltda. (formerly Jaguar Resources do Brasil Ltda.)

(a Brazilian corporation)

 

Empresa Internacional de Mineração do Brasil Ltda

(a Brazilian corporation)

 

Resource Holdings 2004 owns 99% of:

 

Empresa Internacional de Mineração do Brasil Ltda

 

Brazauro Recursos Minerais Ltda. (formerly Jaguar Resources do Brasil Ltda.) owns 100% of:

 

Mineração Cachambix Ltda. 

(a Brazilian corporation)

 

Star U.S. Inc. Owns 100% of the 

following three corporations:

 

Diamond Operations, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

Diamond Exploration, Inc. (an Arkansas corporation)

Continental Diamonds, Inc. (an Arkansas corporation)

 

 

----
# C_2008037EN.01003002.xml

| 9.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/30

---

Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Royal Appliance International v OHIM — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (Centrixx)

(Case T-446/07)

(2008/C 37/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Royal Appliance International GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: K.-J. Michaeli and M. Schork, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | To annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 in Case R 572/2006-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

To annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 in Case R 572/2006-4;

| — | To order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs and those of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

To order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs and those of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Centrixx’ for goods in Class 7 (application No 3 016 227).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘sensixx’ for goods in Class 7 (No 30 244 090).

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and refusal of the application for registration of the mark.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the Board of Appeal incorrectly applied the principles of Community case-law concerning the likelihood of confusion.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Report of Amaru, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sahra Partida,
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Sahra Partida
-------------------------------------
Sahra Partida
President and CFO
December 11, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Willie Randall, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.), rendered July 18, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession *143of a controlled substance in the third degree, assault in the second degree (two counts) and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review of denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that he was illegally approached on the street by the police. "The minimal intrusion of approaching to request information is permissible when there is some objective credible reason for that interference not necessarily indicative of criminality” *(People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 223; *see, People v Hall,*152 AD2d 905, *affd*75 NY2d 826). The defendant matched the description of a burglary suspect the police sought and was in the area where the suspect was said to have been. Under the circumstances, the police, believing the defendant to be the suspect, were entitled to call out the suspect’s name and approach the defendant *(see, People v Leung,*68 NY2d 734; *People v Carrasquilla,*54 NY2d 248). When the defendant responded by dropping plastic bags appearing to contain cocaine, there was probable cause to effect his arrest *(see, People v Leung, supra; People v Elliot,*162 AD2d 609; *People v Hall, supra).*

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., Hooper, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
# C_2009297EN.01003503.xml

| 5.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/35

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 October 2009 — V v Commission

(Case F-33/08) (1)

1

(Staff case - Members of the contract staff - Recruitment - Refusal to employ the applicant for physical unfitness to perform her duties - Validity of the procedure - Validity of the medical examination prior to appointment - Preparatory acts)

2009/C 297/54

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: V (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Ronzi, A. Grauling and É. Boigelot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Staff case — Annulment of the Commission decision of 15 May 2007 informing the applicant that she did not fulfil the physically fitness requirements necessary for her to perform her duties and a claim for damages for material and non-material loss.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay half of V’s costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay half of V’s costs;

| 3. | Orders V to bear half of her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders V to bear half of her own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008, p. 26.

1

---
#### Mack M. BRALY, Plaintiff, v. J. C. WINGARD, E. T. Sumner and W. W. Gibson, as members of and constituting the Pontotoc County Election Board of the State of Oklahoma, Defendants.

No. 38310.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June 3, 1958.

Mack M. Braly, Pro se.

Long & Long, Pauls Valley, for defendants and for Ray Loyd Benton as an inter-venor.

PER CURIAM.

The question for determination here is whether Ray Loyd Benton of Ada, Okla-. *776homa, has .been finally adjudged guilty of a felony. If he has not then he is fully eligible to file his notification and declaration for political party nomination as a candidate for election to the office of sheriff of Pontotoc County.

If Mr. Benton has been finally adjudged guilty of a felony then he is not eligible to so file as a candidate for nomination at the July 19S8 Primary Election.

The facts are that Mr. Benton was charged with the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors as a second and subsequent offense, having theretofore been finally adjudged guilty of the former crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. Mr. Benton upon arraignment in open court upon this subsequent charge plead guilty thereto and such plea was accepted by the court for the pronouncement of sentence. Thereby Mr. Benton became and was finally adjudged guilty of a felony.

When the trial court came to pronounce sentence upon Mr. Benton on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000 and costs and to serve thirty days in the county jail. In his behalf it is now contended that while his guilt was finally adjudged, he was not convicted of a felony but rather of a misdemeanor, because he was not actually punished by imprisonment in the state prison.

 Our Statute 21 O.S.1951 § S, includes in the definition of a felony, any crime which is, or may be, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison. It is not the actual punishment imposed but the extent to which punishment may be imposed which controls the point whether the crime is a felony and we therefore conclude that since upon such a plea of guilty the crime is one which may be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, that it is a felony under the specific statutory definition.

Therefore having been finally adjudged guilty of a felony Mr. Benton was not entitled to register and vote at the general or primary elections of this State and was therefore not a qualified elector of the State, and he was not eligible to file as a candidate for political party nomination for election to the office of sheriff of Pontotoc County.

It follows that prohibition should be granted and accordingly the County Election Board is prohibited from placing the name of Mr. Benton on the primary election ballot and the writ is granted and the Board is directed to remove such name from the county primary election ballot.
Exhibit 4.48


 





Authorization License for Usage of Trademark


 


	Trademark:  	


Licensor: China Electric Equipment Group
Co., Ltd.


Address: 88 Shengtai Road, Jiangning Economic
& Technical Development District, Nanjing


Postcode: 211100


Tel.: 025-52095909


Country: People’s Republic of China


Sub-license (yes or no): No


 


Licensee: China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co.,
Ltd.


Address: 88, Shengtai Road, Jiangning Economic
& Technical Development District, Nanjing


Postcode: 211100


Tel.: +86-25-52766623


Country: People’s Republic of China


 


Effective Date of the License Contract:
June 7, 2006


Expiration Date for the License Contract:
June 7, 2026


Trademark Registration Number: 3880915


Class: First, ninth and other protective
classes that are being applied for


License Purpose: for ordinary business
of : China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co., Ltd.


 


	Licenser’s seal (Seal) (signature):	 Licensee’s seal (Seal) (signature):
	 	 
	/s/ China Electric Equipment Group Co., Ltd.	 /s/ China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co., Ltd.





 


Notes:


 


		1.	License of joint owned trademark shall be applied by a representative delegated by the co-owners,
and this action shall be deemed as authorized by other co-owners.



 


		2.	The sub-licensor who applies for registration shall fill in the corresponding information of licensor,
and shall remark in the volume of the sub-license.