alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2007 – Fels-Werke and Others v Commission**

**(Case T-28/07)**

Application for annulment – Directive 2003/87/EC – Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading – National plan for Germany’s allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances for the period from 2008 to 2012 – Commission rejection decision – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive
No 2003/87, Arts 9 and 11) (see paras 59-61)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment in part of the Commission’s Decision of 29 November 2006 on the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Federal Republic of Germany for the period from 2008 to 2012 pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32). |

**Operative part**

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Fels-Werke GmbH, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH and Spenner Zement GmbH & Co are ordered to pay the costs. |
PPQ Permit Services Mollusk Decision Matrix

A guide for USDA Pest Permits for select mollusk species intended for Education

 Last revised: April 2017

Helix

aspersa

Cepaea

nemoralis

Cepaea

hortensis

Otala

lactea

Mesodon

thyroidus 

Neohelix

albolabris

Ariolimax

columbianus

Monadenia

fidelis

Deroceras

reticulatum, 

D. laeve

Yes = USDA will 

consider

x = USDA will 

not permit

Brown

Garden

Snail

Brown

Lipped

Snail

White

Lipped

Snail

Milk Snail

Whitelip

Globe

Snail

Whitelip

Snail

Pacific Banana

Slug

Pacific 

Sideband 

Snail

Grey Garden 

Slug,

Marsh Slug

Alabama x x x x Yes Yes x x Yes/x

Alaska x x x x x x Yes Yes Yes

Arizona Yes x x Yes x x Yes x Yes

Arkansas x x x x Yes Yes x x Yes

California Yes x x Yes x x Yes Yes Yes

Colorado x Yes x x x x x x Yes

Connecticut x x x x Yes x x x Yes

Delaware x x x x Yes Yes x x x

Florida x x x x Yes x x x Yes

Georgia x x x x x x x x x

Hawaii x x x x x x x x x

Idaho x x x x x x x x Yes

Illinois x x x x Yes Yes x x Yes

Indiana x x x x Yes Yes x x Yes

Iowa x x x x Yes Yes x x Yes

Kansas x x x x x x x x Yes

Kentucky x Yes x x Yes Yes x x Yes

Louisiana x x x x Yes Yes x x Yes

Maine x x Yes x x Yes x x Yes

Maryland x x x x Yes Yes x x Yes

Massachusetts x Yes Yes x Yes Yes x x Yes

Michigan x x x x Yes Yes x x Yes

Minnesota x x x x Yes Yes x x Yes

Mississippi x x x Yes Yes Yes x x Yes

Missouri x x x x Yes Yes x x Yes

Montana x x x x x x x x Yes

Nebraska x x x x x x x x Yes

Nevada x x x x x x x x Yes

New Hampshire x x Yes x x Yes x x Yes

New Jersey x Yes Yes x Yes Yes x x Yes

New Mexico Yes x x x x x x x Yes

New York x Yes Yes x Yes Yes x x Yes

North Carolina x x x x Yes Yes x x Yes

North Dakota x x x x x Yes x x Yes

Ohio x Yes x x Yes Yes x x Yes

Oklahoma x x x x Yes Yes x x Yes

Oregon x x x x x x Yes Yes Yes

Pennsylvania x Yes x x Yes Yes x x Yes

Rhode Island x Yes Yes x Yes x x x Yes

South Carolina x x x x Yes Yes x x Yes

South Dakota x x x x x x x x Yes

Tennessee x Yes x x Yes Yes x x Yes

Texas Yes x x Yes Yes Yes x x Yes

Utah x x x x x x x x x

Vermont x x x x x Yes x x x

Virginia x Yes x x Yes Yes x x Yes

Washington Yes Yes x x x x Yes Yes Yes

West Virginia x x x x Yes Yes x x Yes

Wisconsin x x x x Yes Yes x x Yes

Wyoming x x x x x x x x Yes

Wash. DC x Yes x x Yes Yes x x Yes
#### Fred STONEMAN and Mildred Stoneman, d/b/a M & F Appliances, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Ivan RYMER, d/b/a Wholesale Radio Supply, Defendant in Error.

No. 37873.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Jan. 27, 1959.

McCoy & Craig and Robert P. Kelly, Pawhuska, for plaintiffs in error.

Shidler & Threadgill, T.ulsa, for defendant in error. . .

DAVISON, Chief Justice.,

The parties will be referred to. as they appeared in the trial court.

Plaintiff brought this action with verified petition to recover $752.08 on an unpaid account for goods and merchandise furnished by plaintiff to defendants at their request. The defendants’ answer was a Verified denial of the correctness of the account and of the alleged indebtedness.

Jury was waived and the cause tried to the court, resulting in judgment for the plaintiff for $502.08, from which judgment the defendants appeal.

Defendants assign as error the proposition that-the judgment is not supported by and is contrary to the weight of the evidence; that the court erred in assessing the amount of recovery; and that the court erred in overruling defendants’ motion for new trial.

From the testimony and documentary evidence it appears that the plaintiff was in Tulsa and the defendants were in Fair-fax, Oklahoma, and that the purchase and sale transactions covered a period of approximately sixteen months with payments and credits during that period and for approximately twelve months thereafter. Sales were made on open account and on COD and for cash. More than a majority of the personal checks of defendants .were returned by the bank because of insufficient funds. Numerous pencil notations appear on the ledger sheets of plaintiff concerning returned checks, partial payments, credits and promises to pay. The Court, as well as counsel, asked questions concerning the transactions of the parties and the credits given by plaintiff in determining the indebtedness of defendants. The court upon consideration of all the evidence gave the defendants an additional credit for $250 and rendered judgment for $502.08.

The defendants particularly urge they should have been given a further credit for $300, concerning which testimony was given *90by witnesses and appearing among the memos and notations above described and as a pencil notation upon a charge-back slip issued by a bank when a prior check of the defendants was returned unpaid. Defendants attached to their motion for new trial a check in this amount payable to plaintiff which had been paid by the drawee bank. This check was not described as newly discovered evidence. The trial court was fully informed when the motion for new trial was overruled.

The rule of law applicable to this situation has been stated many times. In Davidor v. Smith, Okl., 309 P.2d 272, 274, it was stated:

> “In an action of legal cognizance where jury is waived, we are only required to examine the record and determine whether there is any competent evidence, or inferences to be drawn therefrom, reasonably tending to support the findings and judgment. If there is, the judgment will not be reversed on appeal.”

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                 SUBSIDIARIES OF
                             GIANT INDUSTRIES, INC.
                            (A DELAWARE CORPORATION)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Jurisdiction of            Names Under Which
       Subsidiary                                   Incorporation           Company Does Business
       ----------                                  ---------------          ---------------------
<S>                                                <C>                      <C>
Giant Industries Arizona, Inc.                        Arizona               Giant Refining Company
                                                                            Ciniza Pipe Line Company
                                                                            Giant Transportation
                                                                            Giant Service Stations
                                                                            Giant Travel Center
                                                                            TransWest Tank Lines

-  Giant Four Corners, Inc.*                          Arizona
-  Navajo Convenient Stores Co., LLC**                New Mexico
-  Giant Mid-Continent, Inc.*                         Arizona
-  Phoenix Fuel Co., Inc.*                            Arizona               Phoenix Fuel Company
                                                                            Mesa Fuel Company
                                                                            Tucson Fuel Company
                                                                            Firebird Fuel Company
                                                                            PFC Lubricants Company
-  DeGuelle Oil Company*                              Colorado
-  Ciniza Production Company*                         New Mexico
-  Giant Stop-N-Go of New Mexico, Inc.*               New Mexico
-  San Juan Refining Company*                         New Mexico
-  Giant Pipeline Company*                            New Mexico
-  Giant Yorktown, Inc.*                              Delaware
-  Giant Yorktown Holding Company*                    Delaware
</TABLE>

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

 *A wholly-owned subsidiary of Giant Industries Arizona, Inc.

**Giant Four Corners, Inc. has a 66 2/3% interest in this entity.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1361-E1362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        A TRIBUTE TO DIANA ZHANG

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LATHAM

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2012

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate 
Diana Zhang for being named a state winner of the Library of Congress's 
Letters about Literature program.
  Letters about Literature is a national reading and writing program 
that is sponsored by the Library of Congress. The program asks students 
to write to the past or present author of a book that has affected 
their life. Approximately 59,000 young readers from across the country 
submitted letters last year to compete for the state-level awards for 
2012.
  A panel of judges that can include published authors, editors, 
publishers, librarians, teachers, and even state officials chose 
Diana's letter as a state winner. Diana wrote a letter to author 
Catherynne M. Valente to explain how Valente's two novel series, The 
Orphan's Tales, affected her life. Valente's acclaimed novels spoke to 
Diana, and now Diana's letter to Valente has earned her recognition in 
her community as well as here in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, the example set by this young woman demonstrates the 
rewards of harnessing one's talents and sharing them with the world. 
Diana's efforts embody the Iowa sprit and I am honored to represent her 
and her family in the United States Congress. I know that all of my 
colleagues in the United States House of Representatives will join me 
in congratulating her on her achievement and will wish her continued 
success in her future education and career.

[[Page E1362]]

                          ____________________
```
Ja,sEO srq,,,. 

a ~ d 

~,o 

r ` 

'9L '.S~ 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 7 

901 NORTH 5TH STREET 

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 

11 JUL 2009 

Mr. Mike Linder 

Director 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 98922 

Lincoln, NE 68509-8922 

Dear Mr. Linder : 

On May 27, 2009, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7 received your 

request to amend the Nebraska State Implementation Plan to include revisions to Title 129 -

Nebraska Air Quality Regulations, which revised the definition of volatile organic compounds; 

clarified language related to construction permits and incorporated rules on application fees ; and 

clarified language related to open fires to explicitly include an exemption for fires used for 

religious activities . 

We have determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete. This 

determination does not mean that we have made any judgment as to the approvability of the 

submittal. We are reviewing it against applicable Environmental Protection Agency criteria so 

that we can take fonnal action on this submittal . Final action will be taken after publication of 

notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for public comment. 

The principal contact for this rulemaking is Chrissy Wolfersberger. If you have any 

questions, please contact her at (913) 551-7864. 

Sincerely, 

ecky Weber 

Director 

Air and Waste Management Division 

RECYCLED aso %FIBER
COURT OF APPEAL NO. 04-15-00499-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

ROBERT GOMEZ,
APPELLANT

V.

PHILIP BERNAL,
APPELLEE

APPEAL FROM

NO. 2015-PC-0983

IN THE ESTATE OF § IN THE PROBATE COURT § LOUIS S. BERNAL, § NO. 1 §
DECEASED § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF AND DOCKETING

STATMENT

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT:

NOW COMES the Appellee in this Restricted Appeal, referenced above, who

requests that the Court, under TRAP 35.1(C), extend the time in which to file Appellee’s Brief

and Docketing Statement, and would respectfully show the Court as follows:

1 ACCEPTED 04-15-00499-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 9/14/2015 2:05:42 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK1. Appellee filed his Notice of Restricted Appeal in the Bexar County Probate Clerk’s

Office on July 6, 2015. His Brief and Docketing Statement are due on or about September 14,

2015. Appellee’s Counsel has not been able to complete same.

2. Appellee requests an extension of 30 days to file his Brief and Docketing

Statement.

3. No extension has been granted by this Court.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellee requests that their deadline be extended

until Thursday, October 14, 2015, at 5:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

REED GREENE, MPA, JD

By: _____/S/
Reed Greene
Texas Bar No. 08390970
26254 IH 10 West, Suite 135 Boerne, Texas 78006 Tel. (210) 826-1233
Fax. (210) 463-9241 Attorney for Robert Gomez

Jerry H. Kagan
Texas Bar No. 24008963
1600 Culebra Ave.
San Antonio, Texas 78201 Tel. (210) 737-0333
Fax. (210) 738-0088

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on September 14, 2015 a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Appearance of
Counsel was served by fax on Cecil "Tres" Bain III.

/S/
Reed Greene

Cecil "Tres" Bain III
THE NUNLEY FIRM

21580 S. Main St., Suite 200

Boerne, Texas 78006
Fax. (830) 816-3388

3
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATE**

 

Asrequired by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as amended by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I certify that:

 

•                                the Company’s Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for thefiscal year ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

•                                the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company forthe periods presented therein.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
|   | /s/  Mitchell Sepaniak   |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Mitchell  Sepaniak       |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   | Date:  October 27, 2004  |

 

----
# C_2020068EN.01002402.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/24

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 — Vans, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Deichmann SE

(Joined Cases C-123/19 P and C-125/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - Appeals which have become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate - Costs)

(2020/C 68/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Vans, Inc. (represented by: M. Hirsch and M. Metzner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, acting as Agent) and Deichmann SE (represented by: C. Onken, Rechtsanwältin)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the present appeals. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the present appeals.

| 2. | Vans Inc., Deichmann SE and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Vans Inc., Deichmann SE and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.

---
**Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 14 May 2008 – Lactalis Gestion Lait and Lactalis Investissements v
Council**

**(Case T-29/07)**

Action for annulment – Directive 2006/112/EC – Repeal of the First VAT Directive – Partial annulment – No individual concern – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directives Nos 67/227, Art. 1, first
and third paras, and 2006/112, Art. 411(1)) (see paras 24-28, 34-40)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for annulment of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) to the extent that it repeals the fourth and eighth recitals in the preamble to and the first and third paragraphs of Article 1 of Council Directive 67/227/EEC on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes of 11 April 1967 (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14). |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Action dismissed as inadmissible. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene made by the Commission and the Kingdom of Spain. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Lactalis Gestion Lait SNC and Lactalis Investissements SNC are ordered to pay the costs. |
EXHIBIT 23





                       Consent of Independent Accountants



We  hereby  consent  to  the   incorporation  by  reference  in  the  prospectus
constituting part of the Registration  Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-69101) and
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-72337) of our report dated March 19,
1999, relating to the consolidated  financial  statements of QueryObject Systems
Corporation,  appearing on page F-2 of this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB,  dated
March 31, 1999.




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Melville, New York
March 31, 1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CFS-4 II, LLC, A DELAWARE LLC AND 

ASSIGNEE OF FIRST NATIONAL BANK 

OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PHOENIX ESTATES, A PENNSYLVANIA 

GENERAL PARTNERSHIP,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 873 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of April, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is

not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40943 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GUADALUPE MEZA, Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-00-CR-66-1

__________________________________________

May 28, 2001 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Guadalupe Meza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Meza has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but he has not filed a response. Our review of the brief filed by counsel and of the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.
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. 
      ( print page 88103)    
*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Topics in Kidney Diseases.                    

*Date:*                         January 5, 2024.                    

*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:*                         Santanu Banerjee, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2106, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-5947,                         *banerjees5@mail.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 14, 2023.

Melanie J. Pantoja, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-27894 Filed 12-19-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P