alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005019EN.01002402.xml

| 22.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/24

---

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 7 July 2004

in Case T-37/04 R Região autónoma dos Açores v Council of the European Union

(Proceedings for interim relief - Fisheries - Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 - Application for partial suspension and other interim measures - Admissibility - Urgency - Intervention)

(2005/C 19/53)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-37/04 R, Região autónoma dos Açores, represented by M. Renouf, S. Crosby and C. Bryant, solicitors, and H. Mercer, barrister, against Council of the European Union (Agents: J. Monteiro and F. Florindo Gijón), supported by Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and B. Doherty, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and by Kingdom of Spain (Agents: N. Díaz Abad and E. Braquehais Conesa, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application for partial suspension of Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95 (OJ 2003 L 289, p. 1), in so far as it adversely affects Azorean waters and, in particular, Articles 3, 5(1), 11, 13(b) and 15 thereof and the Annex thereto, and/or any other interim measures deemed to be appropriate – the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 7 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| (1) | Porto de Abrigo, Organização de Produtores da Pesca CRL and GÊ-Questa, Associação de Defesa do Ambiente are granted leave to intervene in support of the forms of order sought by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Porto de Abrigo, Organização de Produtores da Pesca CRL and GÊ-Questa, Associação de Defesa do Ambiente are granted leave to intervene in support of the forms of order sought by the applicant;

| (2) | The application of WWF–World Wide Fund for Nature and Seas at Risk for leave to intervene is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The application of WWF–World Wide Fund for Nature and Seas at Risk for leave to intervene is dismissed;

| (3) | The application for interim measures is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The application for interim measures is dismissed;

| (4) | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Costs are reserved.

---
#### Ferge, by guardian *ad litem,*Respondent, vs. Schuetz, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Marathon county dated June 10, 1927: A. H. Reid, Judge.

Personal injury. Automobile accident. Judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals.

For the appellant: *Richmond, Jackman, Wilkie & Toe-baas*of Madison.

For the respondent: *Regner & Federer*of Wausau, attorneys, and *Sanborn, Blake & Aberg*and *Glen H. Bell,*all of Madison, of counsel.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on April 3, 1928.
# CA2005110EN.01001001.xml

| 5.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 110/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 110/10

---

RESERVE LISTS
   (1)

RESERVE LISTS

1

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/A/23/04

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/A/23/04

HEADS OF UNIT (A3 - A*12)

HEADS OF UNIT (A3 - A*12)

of Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Slovenian and Slovakian citizenship in the field of information, press and public relations

(2005/C 110 A/04)

Cypriot GEORGIOU TASOS

Czech 2 SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES (ex aequo)

Estonian HERKUEL KADI

Hungarian MATYASSY MIKLOS (ex aequo)

SZUCS GYORGYI (ex aequo)

Lithuanian NO SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES

Latvian GRAUDINS MARIS

Maltese 1 SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE

Polish 1 SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE

Slovenian NO SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES

Slovak BENUSKA PETER

The lists will be valid until 31 December 2005 and may be extended.

31 December 2005

---

(1)  At a candidate's request, his/her name will not be published.

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-18-00340-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE GARCIA MARITAL TRUST

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-CVK-002555-D3

Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 19, 2018

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION 

The clerk’s record was filed on May 23, 2018 and the reporter’s record was filed on July 

5, 2018. Appellant’s brief was therefore due on August 6, 2018. On August 17, 2018, we ordered 

appellant to file, on or before August 27, 2018, a written response explaining why this appeal 

should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); see also TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal if appellant has failed to comply with a court 

order). Appellant failed to respond to our order. We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of 

prosecution.

PER CURIAM
**MEMORANDUM**

Date: September 14, 2011 Subject: Summary

of S takeholder Contact P rior to MOVES Grace Period Extension R ulemaking From: Meg Patulski, State Measures and Conformity Group, OTAQ To: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2011 - 0393 Starting i n September 2010, EPA was contacted by several state and local transportation and air agencies that were concerned that there was in sufficient transition time before MOVES2010a would be required in regional conformity anal ys es. At the time, the conformity grace perio d for MOVES2010a would expire on March 2, 2012. EPA Regional Offices confirmed the status of the transition in their nonattainment and maintenance areas. These general communications occurred until March of 2011 and informed EPA’s decision to proceed with its rulemaking.
Exhibit 10.8

         The Engine Warranty Assignment is incorporated by reference from the
Company's Form 10K filed with the Commission for the period ending December 31,
2000. The four additional Engine Warranty Assignments are substantially
identical in all material respects to the filed Engine Warranty Assignment
except as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft (Tail No.)   Closing Date         Owner Participant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N362ML*               October 19, 2000     Silvermine River Finance One, Inc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N363ML                November 29, 2000    Aircraft Services Corporation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N364ML                January 30, 2001     Aircraft Services Corporation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N365ML                March 19, 2001       Aircraft Services Corporation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N366ML                April 19, 2001       Castle Harbour-I Limited-Liability
                                           Company

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

-------------
*   Filed document
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                         902,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,005,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 19,893,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,226,000
<PP&E>                                      32,758,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,512,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,581,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,336,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        91,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,394,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,581,000
<SALES>                                     30,306,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            30,306,000
<CGS>                                       20,044,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,044,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,380,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              70,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (188,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (77,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (111,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (111,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
•

Jointly

el..A.szaro o , FPOI•

GLALPIM. G WM DUI E GI

f XLCUI IV . Mll II It 1 1444 mtt.3 G4Te

.9 cow Lel DLO, RIGWY r:P Dr f

Jointly

-(St NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON.. D.0

THE NRO STAFF 23 March 1978

MEMORANDUM POR THE INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT BOARD

(MR. BURTON WIDES)

SUBJECT: Transmittal of Documents

Per your request, attached is a copy of the slide

"NRP Organizational Environment" that we use in our

orientation briefing. Also included is an excerpt from

the Program A input to the last quarterly report (1 October-

.

Please let me know if we can be of any further

assistance.

Colonel, USAF

Deputy Director for DOD

and Interagency Policy

2 Attachments

Otg Chart

Program A Input

27S1 -7

El !!!!!!!
THE NRP ORGANIZATIONAL, ENVIRONMENT

I AITORUY I

SE M I

L

INTELIIIME

annul INSPECT92

!OM MEM

COUPTIME3

?NW

IC STAFF

Mr

ICI Polo

REYIET

CagiNTit

tiers ti:kis

STAFF

,21.1131riT CONCUSS 

BAC

SAC

SASC

SASC

SSCI

li:SCI

EP EMT riANDL

CONTROL
k

t

40.
PYSTIMA JOINTLIC

•

•

•

•

•

•

$
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 14-99V

Filed: May 20, 2015 

(Not to be published) 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

SUZANNE HACKETT, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * 

 v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; Stipulation 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Diana Stadelnikas Sedar, Esq., Maglio, Christopher and Toale, Pa (FL) for petitioner. 

Alexis Babcock, Esq., U.S. Dep’t. of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS1

Gowen, Special Master: 

 In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2 I issued 

a Decision on April 6, 2015, awarding compensation pursuant to the parties’ stipulation 

filed that same day. On May 20, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Fact concerning 

attorneys’ fees and costs. Pursuant to General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel also 

represented that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses in this matter. 

 

 The parties’ stipulation indicates that respondent does not object to the amended 

amount of $15,750.00 that petitioner is requesting for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a 

                                                            

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend 

to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 

U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to delete medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted 

invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will 

delete such material from public access. 

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. 

(2006). 
reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems 

reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award: 

 a lump sum of $15,750.00 in the form of a check payable jointly to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Diana L. Stadelnikas Sedar, Esq., 

for petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 

 The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.3

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/ Thomas L. Gowen 

 Thomas L. Gowen 

 Special Master 

 

 

                                                            

3 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 

See Vaccine Rule 11(a).
Exhibit
      32.2








**Certification
      of Chief Financial 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 Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (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.





Pursuant
      to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this
      certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.





Date:
                August 3, 2007
            /s/
              Frank C. Marchisello, Jr.Frank
                C. Marchisello, Jr.
              Vice
                President, Treasurer & Assistant Secretary of Tanger GP Trust, Sole
                General Partner of the Registrant
Conservation Practice Overview 

CPS Mulching (Code 484) 

Helping People Help the Land

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 

October 2017 

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Mulching is applying plant residues or other suitable 

materials to the land surface.

Practice Information

This practice is used on all lands subject to erosion 

and high runoff that need the additional protection. 

Mulching can be applied to achieve one or a 

combination of purposes. Purposes for utilizing this 

practice are— 

• To help control soil erosion.

• Protect crops.

• Improve moisture management.

• Reducing irrigation energy.

• Prevent excessive bank erosion from water conveyance channels.

• Maintain or increase organic matter.

• Improve plant productivity and health.

Mulch materials may consist of natural or artificial materials of sufficient dimension (depth or 

thickness) and durability to achieve the intended purpose for the required time period.

Common Associated Practices

Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Mulching (Code 484) is commonly applied with practices 

associated with a vegetation establishment such as CPSs Critical Area Planting (Code 342), 

Diversion (Code 362), Tree/Shrub Establishment (Code 612), Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment 

(Code 380), and others. 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
# C_2005045EN.01001702.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/17

---

Action brought on 14 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

(Case C-511/04)

(2005/C 45/32)

Language of the case: Portuguese

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to implement Commission Directive 2000/56/EC (1) of 14 September 2000, which amends Council Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences, and in any event by failing to give notice thereof to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to implement Commission Directive 2000/56/EC (1) of 14 September 2000, which amends Council Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences, and in any event by failing to give notice thereof to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2000/56/EC expired on 30 September 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 237 of 21.9.2000, p. 45.

1

---
NUMBER 13-18-00246-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JORGE ALBERTO CLEMENTE 

GUAJARDO, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 398th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

ORDER TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

This cause is currently before the Court on appellant's motion for extension of time 

to file the brief. Appellant’s brief was originally due on November 5, 2018, and this Court 

has previously granted appellant six extensions for the filing of appellant’s brief in this 

cause, including three extensions which were granted for appellant’s current counsel. 
2

Appellant’s counsel was appointed to represent appellant in June 2019. 

The Court most recently ordered the brief to be filed on or before January 27, 2020, 

and notified counsel that the Court looks with disfavor on the delay caused by counsel’s 

failure to timely file a brief in this matter. Appellant has now filed his fourth motion, with 

present counsel, requesting additional time to file the appellate brief in this cause. 

The Court, having fully examined and considered appellant's motion for extension 

of time to file the brief and the extensions previously granted in this cause, is of the opinion 

that, in the interest of justice, appellant's seventh motion for extension of time to file the 

brief should be granted with order. The Court, however, looks with disfavor upon the delay 

caused by counsel's failure to have filed a brief in this matter. 

Appellant's motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED, and the 

Honorable Rolando Garza, counsel for appellant, is ORDERED to file the appellate brief 

with this Court on or before March 2, 2020. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE 

GRANTED IN THIS MATTER absent exigent circumstances. If counsel fails to file the 

brief within the specified period of time, the Court will act appropriately to ensure that 

appellant's rights are protected. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(4). 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

7th day of February, 2020.
Exhibit
32.1
   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 Annual Report of China Education Technology,
Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
  Date: May
13,
2010                                                                                      By: /s/ Yanbin
Guo
 Yanbin
Guo
 Chief
Executive Officer
#### Espenhains Dry Goods Company, Appellant, vs. Kurzon, Respondent.

*March 7*

June *6, 1933.*

*643For the appellant there was a brief by *Robert A. Hess,*attorney, and *Benjamin Poss, Clement Winzenburg,*and *Joseph P. Brazy*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Brazy, Mr. Poss,*and *Mr. Winzenburg.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Rubin & Zabel,*attorneys, and *W. B. Rubin*and *R. R. Staii-ff*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Stauff*and *Mr. Rubin.*

The following opinion was filed April 11, 1933 :

Nelson, J.

The issues in this case were tried at the same time that the issues in *Kurzon v. Espenhains Dry Goods Co.,*
      *644decided this day *(ante,*p. 629, 248 N. W. 149), were tried. The outcome of this action was obviously bound up with that of the other action. Had the judgment in the Kurzon action been sustained it would then follow that the judgment herein would have to be affirmed. However, the judgment in the Kurzon action was reversed with directions to dismiss the complaint therein. It therefore follows that the judgment herein which dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint was erroneous.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.

Wickhem, J., took no part.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, without costs, on June 6, 1933.