alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ NO . 09

- 24

- 00194

- CV

__________________

IN RE 1097 WATER SPORTS, INC.

__________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23

- 05

- 07371

- CV

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In a petition for a writ of mandamus, 1097 Water Sports, Inc. argues that the
trial court abused its discretion by failing to state the reasons it granted the plaintiff’s motion for new trial after previously signing a final , take

- nothing judgment based

on 1097 Water Sports’ motion for summary judgment.
The references to cases that 1097 Water Sports relies on in its petition are inapt. In those cases, the Texas Supreme Court concluded that extraordinary relief

was necessary to protect the right s o f the respective relators in those cases because in each case , the trial court set aside the jury ’s verdict by granting a motion for new2 trial without an explanation despite Article 1, section 15 of the Constitution’s guarantee of the right to a trial by j ury on all issues of fact

. 1
T he judgment that the trial court set aside when awarding the new trial at issue
here is based on a ruling granting a motion for summary judgment

— a proceeding that, under our rules of procedure, is a motion present ed to the court and not to a jury

. 2 For that reason, the trial court’s decision to set aside the judgment it rendered
on the defendant’s motion doesn’t implicate the defendant’s right to a trial by jury. Additionally, it’s clear that when the trial court gr anted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, it relied on the fact the plaintiff had failed to file a timely response. The trial court then chose to set aside its take

- nothing judgment , after the plaintiff filed a motion for new trial assert ing that his failure to file a timely response
to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment result ed from either his
inadvertence or mistake. Under the circumstances, the relator has not shown that an
abuse of discretion occurred.

1 See In re Davenport , 522 S.W.2d 452 , 456 (Tex. 2017) (original proceeding) ; In re Bent , 487 S.W.3d 170 , 175 (Tex. 2016) (original proceeding); In re Whataburger Rests. LP , 429 S.W.3d 597, 598 (Tex. 2014) (original proceeding); In re Toyota Motor Sales , U.S.A., Inc. , 407 S.W.3d 746, 756

- 57 (Tex. 2013) (original proceeding) ; In re United Scaffolding, Inc ., 377 S.W.3d 685, 68 7

- 88 (Tex. 2012) (original proceeding) ; In re Cook , 356 S.W.3d 493, 495 (Tex. 2011) ( original proceeding); In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas , 290 S.W.3d 204, 2 09 (Tex. 2009) (original proceeding)

. 2 Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (c).3 For all these reasons, t he relat or’s petition for relief is denied

. 3
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on June 12, 2024 Opinion Delivered June 13, 2024
Before Golemon , C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

3 See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
Green Dragon Wood Products, Inc.


Unit 312, 3rd Floor, New East
Ocean Center


9 Museum Road


Kowloon K3 NONE


 


December 28, 2016


 


 


Zeecol Limited


57 A Nayland Street


Christchurch 8081


Sumner, New Zealand


Attention: William Mook


 


Re: Extension of
time for Acquisition/ Reverse Takeover transaction


 


Dear William,


 


This letter shall serve
as an amendment to our Letter of Intent dated November 16, 2016.


 


Paragraph 3. shall
now read:


 


3.Closing.
The closing of the RTO shall occur on or before January 31, 2017 (the “Closing Date”).


 


 


Thank you very much
for your kind understanding and warm support. I will be greatly appreciate if you can accept our request by signing below.


 


 


Sincere yours,


 


	GREEN DRAGON WOOD PRODUCTS, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Stephen Lee 	 
	 	Stephen Lee, Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	ZEECOL LIMITED
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ William Mook 
	 	 	William Mook
# C_2008158EN.01001802.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/18

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 April 2008 — CPEM v Commission

(Case T-106/08 R)

(Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Further application - New fact - None - Inadmissibility - Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance)

(2008/C 158/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): CPEM (Marseille, France) (represented by: C. Bonnefoi, lawyer)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and A Steiblytė)

Defendant(s):

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of debit note No 3240912189 of 17 December 2007 relating to Commission Decision C(2007) 4645 of 4 October 2007 cancelling the assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF) granted to CPEM by Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
II 

Calendar No. 486 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4528 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 26, 2018 

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

To make technical amendments to certain marine fish 

conservation statutes, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BILLFISH CONSERVATION ACT OF 2012. 

4 Section 4(c)(1) of the Billfish Conservation Act of 

5 2012 (16 U.S.C. 1827a(c)(1)) is amended by inserting 

6 ‘‘and retained’’ after ‘‘landed’’. 

7 SEC. 2. SHARK CONSERVATION ACT OF 2010. 

8 The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the High Seas 

9 Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and the Mag10 nuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

11 to improve the conservation of sharks’’, approved January 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4528 PCS

1 4, 2011 (Public Law 111–348; 124 Stat. 3668), is amend2 ed— 

3 (1) by striking section 104 and inserting the 

4 following: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 104. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

6 ‘‘Nothing in this title or the amendments made by 

7 this title shall be construed as affecting, altering, or di8 minishing in any way the authority of the Secretary of 

9 Commerce to establish such conservation and management 

10 measures as the Secretary considers necessary and appro11 priate under sections 302(a)(3) and 304(g) of the Magnu12 son-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

13 (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(3), 1854(g)).’’; and 

14 (2) in section 1, by striking the item relating to 

15 section 104 and inserting the following: 

‘‘Sec. 104. Rule of construction.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 486 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4528 

AN ACT 

fish conservation statutes, and for other purposes. 

To make technical amendments to certain marine 

JUNE 26, 2018 

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         495,622
<SECURITIES>                                   163,010
<RECEIVABLES>                                   88,887
<ALLOWANCES>                                    42,902
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               915,191
<PP&E>                                         151,016
<DEPRECIATION>                                  86,163
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,495,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          209,387
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     30,000
<COMMON>                                        10,421
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,245,236
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,495,044
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,091,157
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,070
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (585,777)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (585,777)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (585,777)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.10

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT

To the Partners of
Ellinwood Heights Apartments L.P.

I have audited the accompanying  balance sheets of Ellinwood Heights  Apartments
L.P. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related statements of operations,
partners'  equity  (deficit)  and cash  flows for the years  then  ended.  These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Partnership's  management. My
responsibility  is to express an opinion on these financial  statements based on
my audits.

I  conducted  my audits in  accordance  with  auditing  standards  of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that
I plan and perform the audit to obtain  reasonable  assurance  about whether the
financial  statements are free of material  misstatement.  The  partnership  has
determined  that it is not  required to have,  nor I was engaged to perform,  an
audit of its  internal  control  over  financial  reporting.  My audit  included
consideration  of  internal  control  over  financial  reporting  as a basis for
designing audit  procedures that are appropriate in the  circumstances,  but not
for  the  purpose  of  expressing  an  opinion  on  the   effectiveness  of  the
partnership's internal control over financial reporting.  Accordingly, I express
no  such  opinion.  An  audit  includes  examining,  on a test  basis,  evidence
supporting  the amounts and  disclosures in the financial  statements.  An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates
made by  management,  as well as  evaluating  the  overall  financial  statement
presentation.  I  believe  that my  audits  provide  a  reasonable  basis for my
opinion.

In my opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all
material  respects,  the financial position of Ellinwood Heights Apartments L.P.
as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the results of its operations,  changes in
partners'  equity  (deficit)  and its cash  flows for the years then  ended,  in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.

/s/ Earl A. Steinert
---------------------

Springfield, Missouri
February 12, 2005
as of July 13, 2005 to opinion

                                       54
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Air Quality Modeling Outputs for the Proposed Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and 

Fuel Standards

FROM: Margaret Zawacki

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-DRAFT-####

DATE: March 22, 2013

The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit data files which were used in the air quality

modeling analyses for the proposed Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards. The air 

quality modeling analyses are discussed in Section III.C of the preamble, Section 7.2.2 – Section 

7.2.4 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and in the Air Quality Modeling Technical 

Support Document. Information on the air quality modeling inventories is discussed in Section

7.2.1 of the RIA. 

Following is a list of the information contained on the enclosed disc:

- deposition DBF files folder: gridded annual nitrogen and sulfur deposition difference data for 

2017 and 2030 reference cases and Tier 3 control scenarios

- toxics DBF files folder: gridded annual and seasonal (winter/summer) toxics difference data 

for 2017 and 2030 reference cases and Tier 3 control scenarios

- TIER3_Proposal_Ozone_DVs.xlsx: county-level 8-hour max ozone Design Value projections 

for 2017 and 2030 reference cases and Tier 3 control scenarios

- TIER3_Propsoal_annualPM_DVs.xlsx: county-level annual PM2.5 Design Value projections 

for 2017 and 2030 reference cases and Tier 3 control scenarios

- TIER3_Proposal_dailyPM_dvs.xlsx: county-level 24-hour PM2.5 Design Value projections for

2017 and 2030 reference cases and Tier 3 control scenarios

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION
- TIER3_Proposal_Visibility.xlsx: Class 1 Area visibility projections for the 20% worst days for 

2005 reference case, 2030 reference case and Tier 3 control scenarios

- CMAQv4.7.1_Release Notes.doc: RELEASE_NOTES for CMAQv4.7.1 from ORD, Shawn 

Roselle

- met.2005.12EUS1.pdf: Baker K. and P. Dolwick. Meteorological Modeling Performance 

Evaluation for the Annual 2005 Eastern U.S. 12-km Domain Simulation, USEPA/OAQPS, 

February 2, 2009.

- met.2005.12WUS1.pdf: Baker K. and P. Dolwick. Meteorological Modeling Performance 

Evaluation for the Annual 2005 Western U.S. 12-km Domain Simulation, USEPA/OAQPS, 

February 2, 2009.

- met.2005.36US1.pdf: Baker K. and P. Dolwick. Meteorological Modeling Performance 

Evaluation for the Annual 2005 Continental U.S. 36-km Domain Simulation, USEPA/OAQPS, 

February 2, 2009.

-2009 aqchem_update.pdf: Roselle, S. and Carlton, A. Updates to the CMAQ aqueous chemistry

routine (aqchem). August 5, 2009.

Attachments
Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Treasure Mountain Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Lane Clissold, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certifies
to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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/   Lane Clissold
-----------------------------------
      Lane Clissold
      Principal Accounting Officer
      November 14, 2002

                                        1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE HANOVER COMPRESSOR COMPANY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,756
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,730
<INVENTORY>                                     66,562
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               192,532
<PP&E>                                         577,048
<DEPRECIATION>                                  79,583
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 756,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,566
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       273,002
<OTHER-SE>                                      96,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   756,510
<SALES>                                         80,568
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               317,028
<CGS>                                           64,496
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  244,656
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,786
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 63,586
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,145
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             40,441
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,441
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32


</TABLE>
# C_2019072EN.01003602.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/36

---

Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Refan Bulgaria v EUIPO (Shape of a flower)

(Case T-747/18)

(2019/C 72/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Refan Bulgaria OOD (Trud, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of a flower) — Application for registration No 16 544 025

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2018 in Case R 2518/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
---





Exhibit 13.2

---



CERTIFICATION OF 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, Ricardo Ramos,
Chief Financial Officer of Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A. (SQM),
a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Chile, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

| | 1. | The Annual Report of SQM on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SQM.                                                                                  

/s/ Ricardo Ramos R.Name: Ricardo Ramos R.
Title: Chief Financial Officer and Business Development Senior Vice President 
Date: June 30, 2005

---
# C_2008107EN.01001002.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2008 — Josif Koupatantze v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900

(Case C-23/08)

(2008/C 107/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sozialgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Josif Koupatantze

Applicant:

Defendant: Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 (1) compatible with Article 12 EC in conjunction with Article 39 EC? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 (1) compatible with Article 12 EC in conjunction with Article 39 EC?

1

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, does Article 12 EC in conjunction with Article 39 EC preclude national rules which exclude Union citizens from receipt of social assistance if the maximum period of residence permitted under Article 6 of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 has been exceeded and there is no right of residence under other provisions? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, does Article 12 EC in conjunction with Article 39 EC preclude national rules which exclude Union citizens from receipt of social assistance if the maximum period of residence permitted under Article 6 of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 has been exceeded and there is no right of residence under other provisions?

| 3. | If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does Article 12 EC preclude national rules which exclude nationals of Member States of the European Union even from receipt of the social assistance benefits which are granted to illegal immigrants? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does Article 12 EC preclude national rules which exclude nationals of Member States of the European Union even from receipt of the social assistance benefits which are granted to illegal immigrants?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.

1

---