alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-20112 Summary Calendar

RICHARD R. RONDENO, Plaintiff–Appellant
v. M/V ISLAND OASIS; NYK GLOBAL BULK CORPORATION; TOSHIN KISEN COMPANY, LIMITED; KEISHIN KAIUN COMPANY LIMITED; EVER BRIGHT SHIPPING SA; P & O PORTS LOUISIANA INCORPORATED, (Ports America), Defendants–Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CV-4028

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### Plaintiff–Appellant Richard Rondeno, proceeding pro se , filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas based on injuries he suffered unlo a d i n g cargo from the M/V ISLAND OASIS while employed as
a longshoreman by Defendant–Appellee P&O Ports Louisiana, Inc. The injuries U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

## F I L E D August 22, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. 

### Case: 12-20112 Document: 00511966154 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2012

### No. 12-20112

he complains of occurred in May 2005. In the instant suit filed in November 1 

### 2011, he seeks to raise claims under the Longshor e a n d Harbor Workers’ Compensation Ac t (“LHWCA”), 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq ., and the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104. The district court dismissed Rondeno’s cl a ims because the LHCWA’s statute of limitations is one year, 33 U. S

. C § 913(a), and the Jones Act’s statute of limitations is three years, 46 U.S.C. § 30106. A s R o n d e no’s claims are untimely under either statute, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Rondeno’s suit. Additionally, P&O Ports’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED and its motion to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT.

In August 2005, Ronde no fil ed a clai m unde r the LHW CA w i th the Unit ed Sta tes 1 De par tm ent of Labor

. That clai m wa s event ually ref err ed to an adm inis tra tive law judge, wh o in Novem ber 2011 allow ed Ronde no to wi thd rawhi s clai m wi thou t pr ejudi ce. Ronde no als o brou ght sui t in the Unit ed Sta tes Di st ric t Court for the East ern Di st ric t of Louis iana in May 2008. On Ronde no’s mo t i o n , the dis tri ct cour t in that cas e dis mi ss ed thos e clai ms wi thou t pr ejudi ce. 

### 2 Case: 12-20112 Document: 00511966154 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2012
#### Ginsberg, Appellant, vs. Faehling and another, Respondents.

For the appellant: *H. F. Morson*of Antigo.

For the respondents: *H. J. Severson*of Iola.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed; respondents to tax no costs for brief because of failure to supply outline.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
          GROUP LONG DISTRANCE, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ENDED JULY 31, 1996 
          AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS EXTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
          STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                        35,804
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 3,472,402
<ALLOWANCES>                  (512,000)
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              3,742,076
<PP&E>                        398,693
<DEPRECIATION>                (49,279)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                10,850,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         9,007,510
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      0
<OTHER-SE>                    1,654,206
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  10,850,869
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              5,712,188
<CGS>                         4,033,142
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 4,033,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              1,285,332
<LOSS-PROVISION>              184,930
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            81,226
<INCOME-PRETAX>               127,558
<INCOME-TAX>                  61,993
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           65,565
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  65,565
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0.03


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 8347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03104]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-513 and 731-TA-1249 (Final)]


Sugar From Mexico; Cancellation of Hearing

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

DATES: Effective Date: February 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Sherman (202-205-3289), Office of 
Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information 
on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-
1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special 
assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the 
Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning 
the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server 
(http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may 
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 3, 2014, the Commission 
established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the 
subject investigations (79 FR 75591, December 18, 2014). The hearing 
scheduled for Tuesday, March 17, 2015 in the referenced investigations 
is cancelled. Should there be a need to reschedule the hearing, the 
Commission will provide notice of the new date and time for the 
hearing.
    For further information concerning these investigations see the 
Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and 
part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

    Authority: These investigations are being conducted under 
authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is 
published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Dated: February 10, 2015.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-03104 Filed 2-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
# C_2005082EN.01000903.xml

| 2.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/9

---

Action brought on 25 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-23/05)

(2005/C 82/20)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Rozet and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 amending Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that directive (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 amending Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that directive (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the Directive into national law expired on 1 August 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 195, 01.08.2000, p. 41.

1

---
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

EXHIBIT 10.1    
  


 
 

PROMISSORY NOTE    
  



	$225,000	 	 	 	Sunnyvale, California

March 13, 2001





    For
value received, the undersigned promises to pay Preview Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), at its
principal office the principal sum of $225,000 with interest from the date hereof at a rate of 6.25% per annum, compounded annually, on the unpaid balance of such principal sum. Such principal and
interest shall be due and payable on August 15, 2002. 


    Principal
and interest are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. AMOUNTS DUE UNDER THIS NOTE MAY BE PREPAID AT ANY TIME WITHOUT PREMIUM OR PENALTY. Any such prepaid
amounts shall be applied to accrued interest before application to any principal amount due. 


    Should
suit be commenced to collect any sums due under this Note, such sum as the Court may deem reasonable shall be added hereto as attorneys' fees. The makers and endorsers have
severally waived presentment for payment, protest, notice of protest, and notice of nonpayment of this Note. 


    This
Note is full recourse. 



	 	 	
 Vincent Pluvinage











QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.1


PROMISSORY NOTE
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


          To the Board of Directors of
          Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.:

          We have examined management's assertion, included in the
          accompanying Management's Report on the Effectiveness
          of the Internal Control Structure Relative to the Servicing of
          Home Loan Receivables, that Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.(the
          "Bank") maintained an effective internal control structure over
          financial reporting relative to the servicing of home loan
          receivables owned by Chevy Chase Home Loan Trust
          Series 1996-1 (the "Trust") as of September 30, 1997.

          Our examination was made in accordance with standards
          established by the American Institute of Certified Public
          Accountants and, accordingly, included obtaining an
          understanding of the internal control structure over financial
          reporting, testing, and evaluating the design and operating
          effectiveness of the internal control structure, and
          such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
          circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a
          reasonable basis for our opinion.

          Because of inherent limitations in any internal control
          structure, errors or irregularities may occur and not be
          detected.  Also, projections of any evaluation of the internal
          control structure over financial reporting to future periods
          are subject to the risk that the internal control structure
          may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or
          that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures
          may deteriorate.

          In our opinion, management's assertion that the Bank
          maintained an effective internal control structure over
          financial reporting relative to the servicing of home loan
          receivables owned by the Bank's home loan Trust as of
          September 30, 1997, is fairly stated, in all material respects,
          based upon criteria established in Internal Control -
          Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of
          Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).

          This report is intended solely for the information and use of
          the board of directors and management of the Bank,
          Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A., and Capital Markets
          Assurance Corporation, and should not be used for any other
          purpose.





          Washington, D.C.
          November 18, 1997
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0366

_________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

M.D.,

 A Youth in Need of Care.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Peter B. Ohman, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 2 2022

02/02/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0366
Conservation Stewardship Program - Grassland Conservation Initiative Fiscal Year 2024 United States Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Code Practice Component Units Unit Cost

E300GCI Grassland Conservation Initiative Grassland Conservation Initiative Activity AC $18.00

CSP-Grassland Conservation Itiative Page 1 of 1 American Samoa - Fiscal Year 2024
*April 1, 1930.*

#### National Biscuit Company, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Shaw, Muskat & Sullivan*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent Industrial Commission: *John W. Reynolds,*attorney general, and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general.

For the respondent Marrón: *Walter F. Mayer*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent Fitzpatrick: *Albert M. Kelly*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed. Attorney for respondent Fitzpatrick to tax no costs for brief because of failure to supply outline.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          38,570
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  138,662
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               204,285
<PP&E>                                       1,834,956
<DEPRECIATION>                                  97,116
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,198,373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,968,040
<BONDS>                                        158,429
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,968,715
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,896,814)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,198,373
<SALES>                                      1,759,052
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,759,052
<CGS>                                        1,060,590
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,720,788
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,597
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,667
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,667
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,667
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1











Certification
of Chief Executive Officer





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned
officer of Tanger Properties Limited Partnership (the “Operating
Partnership”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:





(i)the accompanying Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Operating Partnership for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the
“Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(ii)the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Operating Partnership.








Date: August
      1, 2008
            /s/ Stanley K. TangerStanley
      K. Tanger
              Chief
      Executive Officer of Tanger GP Trust, Sole General Partner of the
      Registrant
EXHIBIT
32(b)


MICROS
SYSTEMS, INC.





Certification
of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant
to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.
1350





In
connection with the quarterly report of MICROS Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q (Form 10-Q”) for the three months ended March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gary C. Kaufman,
Executive Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)      
The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)      
The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





Date:
      May 7, 2009
              /s/
              Gary C. KaufmanGary
      C. Kaufman
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1170 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1170

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 24, 2015

 Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in 
addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Armed Services, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 
                        the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 39, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 
 United States Postal Service to issue a semipostal to raise funds for 
            breast cancer research, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Breast Cancer Research Stamp 
Reauthorization Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF POSTAGE STAMP FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH.

    Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``2015'' and inserting ``2019''.

SEC. 3. ENSURING THAT FUNDS GENERATED BY SPECIAL POSTAGE STAMP SALES 
              ARE USED FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH.

    Section 414(c)(1) of title 39, United States Code, is amended in 
the matter following subparagraph (B) by adding at the end the 
following: ``An agency that receives amounts from the Postal Service 
under this paragraph shall use the amounts for breast cancer 
research.''.

            Passed the Senate September 22, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                           7,448
<SECURITIES>                                    28,571
<RECEIVABLES>                                  117,475
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,375)
<INVENTORY>                                    148,653
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               273,619
<PP&E>                                         161,093
<DEPRECIATION>                                (84,634)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 408,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          174,020
<BONDS>                                        117,309
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        61,717
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,720
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   408,865
<SALES>                                        500,828
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               500,828
<CGS>                                          458,860
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  493,147
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,885
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    866
<INCOME-TAX>                                       313
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                553
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       553
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2005082EN.01002301.xml

| 2.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/23

---

Action brought on 14 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-70/05)

(2005/C 82/46)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Denis Martin, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Declare that by not having adopted the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declare that by not having adopted the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 2 December 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 303 of 2 December 2000, p. 16.

1

---