alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



To Board of Directors
Saxton Incorporated:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement 
(No. 333-68325) on Form S-8 of Saxton Incorporated of our report dated March 
24, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Saxton Incorporated 
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997, and the related consolidated 
statements of income, stockholders equity and cash flows for each of the 
years in the two-year period ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in 
the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Saxton Incorporated.


                                          KPMG LLP


Las Vegas, Nevada
March 30, 1999
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 COS 

RUXQAA 

DE RUXQBAA 078 3371946 

ZNY XXXXX YYY 

R 0319232 

BT 

xxxxx 

GUARD 984 

S-f CR 

WHIG 

GAMBIT 

FOR OR. NAKA FROM (;EN Kl NG. 

SAFss 

CHARGE .4921. 

1. IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEIR VISIT TO LOS ANGEI..ES, I HAVE TAKEN 

THE OPPORTUNITY TO REViEW WITH MR. GEORGE At-0 MR. SELBY THE IMPACT 

OF THE GE STRIKE ON THE GAMBIT LAUNCH SCHEDULE. 

2. AT PRESENT THERE ARE THREE COMMAND SYSTEMS AT LMSC TO SUPPORT 

GM181T VEHICLES 25, 26, AND 27. TWO ADDITIONAL $YSTEMS ARE COMPLETELY ASSEMBLED AM) IN TEST IN UTICA WITH NON-UNION PERSONNEL. 

ONE OF TtlESE IS SCHEDULED FOR DEL I VERY LATE IN DECEMBER TO SUPPORT 

VEHICLE 28 ANO THE SECOND IS SC~DULEO FOR DELI VERY EARLY IN 

JANUARY TO SUPPORT VEHICLE 29. VEHICLE 29 IS SCl-£0ULEO FOR LAUNCH 

IN JULY 1970. 

3. COMPONENTS Af\i'O MODULES ARE AVAILABLE FOR TWO ADDITIONAL SYSTEMS 

WHICH CM! BE ASSD1BLED AND TESTED LARGELY WITH NON-UNION PERSONNEL. 

DELI VERY OF THESE SYSTEMS AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN ASSEMBLED ANO 

TESTED SHOULD BE IN FEBRUARY 1970 TO SUPPORT VEHICLES 30 Al\lO 31 fOR 

LAU NCH IN OCT OBER 197vJ A ND FEBRUARY 1971 RESPECTIVELY. 

4., THE NEXT COMMAMJ SYSTEM REQUIRED TO SUPPORT A VEHICLE 32 

PAGE 2 CITE CHARGE 4921 S E e R E T 

LAUNCH IN APRIL 1971 Will REQUIRE UNION PERSONNEL FOR FABRICATION. 

THERE IS ABOUT ONE YEAR LEAD TIME FROM START OF FABRICATION UNTIL 

LAUNCH ANO THIS UNIT SHOULD BEGt N FABRICATION BY APRIL 1970. THIS · 

ALLOCATION DOES NOT INCLUDE A SPARE UNIT OR SUPPORT A PIPELINE '.• 

C'OMMAtl) SYSTEI!, FOR VEHICLE 32. 

5. IT IS MY ESTIMATE THAT THE COMMAND SYSTEM FOR VEHICLE 32 

SHOULD BEG!~ FABRICATION NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 1970 MD A CON~tdrr;-j 

Tl NUANCE OF"THE STRIKE, OR ITS EFFECTS, BEYOND JANUARY 1970 COULD.• 

IMPACT OUR LAUNCH SCHEDULES. MR. GEORGE AND MR. SELBY HAVE 

REPORTED TO ME THAT ADDITIONAL UNION PERSONNEL ARE RETURNING DAILY, 

THAT THEY ARE CONTINUING TO UPDATE THEIR SKILLS INVENTORY, AND 

THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO KEEP ME ADVISED OF THE IMPACT AS THE 

STRIKE PROGRESSES. / / 

SEe~ET 6//1-/4~--00y Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111709
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1203

DONALD VAN METER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KATHERINE VAN METER; BARBARA GREIG,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-03-104)

Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 24, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Van Meter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Van Meter appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Van Meter v.

Van Meter, No. CA-03-104 (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 31, 2003; entered

Feb. 3, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### K. H. WORTHY, Adm’r, v. A. S. McINTOSH, Adm’r.

*Executors and Administrators.*

(See syllabus iu preceding ease).

Civil Action upon the bond of an administrator tried at December Special Term, 1883, of Moore Superior Court, before *MacRae, J.*

Tbe question is, upon the facts stated in the opinion here, whether the action ivas barred by the statute of limitations, and from the ruling of the court below that it was not, the defendant 'appealed.

*Messrs. John Manning*and *J. W. Hinsdale,*for plaintiff.

*Messrs. M. S. Robins*and *Mclver & Blade,*for defendant,

Smith, C. J.

"W. R. Seawell died intestate in 1859, and shortly thereafter administration of his estate was committed to J. J. McIntosh, who, with the other defendant as surety, executed the bond nowin suit, for the proper discharge of the trusts assn med.

J. J. McIntosh, without having settled the estate in his hands, also died intestate in 1870, and the defendant, Asa McIntosh, was, on September 13th of that year, appointed administrator of his estate, and proceeded at once to advertise for creditors as required by law. Bat. Rev., ch. 45, §§45, 46, 47.

Letters of administration *de bonis non*on the estate of *W.*R. Seawell were issued on March 15,1871, to the relator who instituted this action on November 13, 1879, to recover the unad-ministered estate which is or ought to be in the hands of the first administrator, the intestate of the defendant Asa McIntosh.

The defence set up as a bar to the recovery is the statute of limitations prescribed inC.-C. P., §32, more than seven years *537having elapsed since the right of action vested in the relator by his appointment. The facts stated are found by the court, the parties waiving a trial by jury and consenting to such finding.

The court adjudged that the action was not barred, and ordered a reference to the clerk to state and report an account of the administration of the estate of the said J. J. McIntosh in the hands of the defendant Asa McIntosh, from which judgment the latter appeals.

The precise point now before us was presented at the present term in the case of *Lawrence*v. *Norfleet, ante,*533, and it is held that the action of the administrator *de bonis non*against the administrator of a1 former representative’of the deceased stands upon the same footing in this regard as the action of any other creditor, and is within the meaning of the second clause of section 32, C. C. P., and must be commenced within seven years next after the right of action vested in the plaintiff under his, appointment, there being already a person against whom it could ■be brought.

The present statute is an absolute and unqualified bar, when .its conditions are complied with, and gives, as was intended, a repose to the estate and puts an end to the claims against it, ■unless suspended under the provisions of section 164 of The Code.'

.There is error. The defendants must have judgment that they go without day and recover their costs, and it is so ordered.

Error. Reversed.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2082 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2082

                   For the relief of Daniela Vargas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2017

 Mr. Thompson of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Daniela Vargas.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF, OR DENIAL OF ADMISSION TO, 
              DANIELA VARGAS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 212(a) and 237(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, Daniela Vargas may not be removed from 
the United States, or denied admission to the United States, by reason 
of any act of hers, or on her behalf during the period of infancy, that 
is a ground for removal or denial of admission and is reflected in the 
records of the Department of Homeland Security, or the Visa Office of 
the Department of State, on the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Rescission of Outstanding Order of Removal.--The Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall rescind any outstanding order of removal, or 
any finding that Daniela Vargas is inadmissible or subject to removal, 
that has been entered against Daniela Vargas by reason of any act 
described in subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
# C_2005124EN.01S00201.xml

| 23.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 124/s2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 124/s2

---

The Court of Auditors adopted this Opinion together with a table containing the detailed observations. The table is available, in the English, French and German versions only, on the Court's website (http://www.eca.eu.int).

The Court of Auditors adopted this Opinion together with a table containing the detailed observations. The table is available, in the English, French and German versions only, on the Court's website (http://www.eca.eu.int).

---
# C_2005093EN.01002402.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/24

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 3 February 2005

in Case T-139/01 Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Imports from ACP States and third countries - Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1121/2001 - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Person individually concerned - Action for damages)

(2005/C 93/48)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-139/01: Comafrica SpA, established in Genoa (Italy) and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co., established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by B. O'Connor, Solicitor, and P. Bastos-Martin, Barrister, supported by Simba SpA, established in Milan (Italy), represented by S. Carbone and F. Munari, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: initially L. Visaggio, M. Niejahr and K. Fitch, and subsequently L. Visaggio and K. Fitch, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the Kingdom of Spain, (Agents: initially R. Silva de Lapuerta, and subsequently L. Fraguas Gadea, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action, first, for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of 7 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community (OJ 2001 L 126, p. 6), and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1121/2001 of 7 June 2001 fixing the adjustment coefficients to be applied to each traditional operator's reference quantity under the tariff quotas for imports of bananas (OJ 2001 L 153, p. 12), and, second, an action for compensation for damage allegedly caused to the applicants by the adoption of Regulations No 896/2001 and No 1121/2001 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 February 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses as inadmissible the claim for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses as inadmissible the claim for annulment;

| 2. | Dismisses as unfounded the claim for compensation; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses as unfounded the claim for compensation;

| 3. | Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those incurred by the Commission in the main proceedings and in the interim proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those incurred by the Commission in the main proceedings and in the interim proceedings;

| 4. | Orders the intervening parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the intervening parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 6768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02460]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Heterogeneous System Architecture Foundation

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 19, 2014, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Heterogeneous System 
Architecture Foundation (``HSA Foundation'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, National Taiwan 
University, Taipei, TAIWAN, has been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and HSA Foundation intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On August 31, 2012, HSA Foundation filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61786).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 
29, 2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on October 22, 2014 (79 FR 63169).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-02460 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0077

CITY OF WHITEFISH,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

PHILIP ARGALL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 8, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 1 2020

09/01/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0077
ANIMAL ID TREATMENT FINAL CYCLE PIT UTERINE Progestero

RAT TIME BODY WT. WEIGHT(MG) WEIGHT (G) ng/ml 

33687 ATR 6.25 mg/kg 2000 279 PRO 12.5 0.4789 9.33710 ATR 6.25 mg/kg 2000 285 D 13.6 0.4556 3.533754 Control 2000 279 D 13.5 0.3548 40.833774 ATR 6.25 mg/kg 2000 294 PRO 11.9 0.4864 7.233779 ATR 1.5 mg/kg 2000 288 PRO 13.3 0.4366 9.33650 Control 1400 272 D 12.3 0.3394 3.33701 ATR 1.5 mg/kg 1400 266 D 11.9 0.3148 5.933755 Control 1400 317 D 12.6 0.3358 10.833759 ATR 1.5 mg/kg 1400 286 D 12 0.3088 19.033677 ATR 1.5 mg/kg 1600 228 D 10.8 0.2987 12.833695 Control 1800 247 D 12.4 0.3587 26.333715 ATR 1.5 mg/kg 1800 257 PRO 11.6 0.376 8.133763 ATR 1.5 mg/kg 1800 270 PRO 10.6 0.4911 75.833778 ATR 3.12 mg/kg 1800 281 D 11.9 0.3501 14.133769 ATR 1.5 mg/kg 1600 266 D 14 0.3166 4.833751 ATR 6.25 mg/kg 1600 294 D 15.5 0.3582 26.233768 Control 1600 253 PRO 11.4 0.4468 15.833773 ATR 3.12 mg/kg 1600 275 D 13.1 0.3664 8.233790 ATR 6.25 mg/kg 1600 285 PRO 14.5 0.3644 9.433660 ATR 6.25 mg/kg 1200 281 D 14.1 0.4078 12.233694 ATR 3.12 mg/kg 1400 319 D 12.9 0.3628 3.633696 ATR 6.25 mg/kg 1400 276 D 13.3 0.374 25.33720 ATR 1.5 mg/kg 1400 226 D 10.6 0.357 21.433714 ATR 6.25 mg/kg 1600 257 D 8.8 0.321 10.033735 ATR 1.5 mg/kg 1600 262 D 11.7 0.4269 4.33762 Control 1800 309 D 12.2 0.3627 7.033722 ATR 1.5 mg/kg 1800 257 D 10.7 0.3867 14.4

Rats not achieving proestrous criteria in groups receiving 1..56, 3.121 and 6.25 mg.kg A
33738 ATR 3.12 mg/kg 1800 264 PRO 12.9 0.7205 45.

33811 ATR 6.25 mg/kg 1800 273 PRO 10.6 0.3565 23.233802 Control 1800 212 PRO 9.3 0.5571 6.833835 ATR 1.5 mg/kg 1800 227 PRO 10.7 0.9611 9.7
LH

dil #2-100+400

0.1440.1190.4940.1930.3450.3110.3090.1540.448

0.26

0.1390.159

27.304

0.2110.3340.9880.7230.1940.4130.2680.427

0.52

0.461

0.4

0.18

0.2210.379
46.741

0.2310.3880.752
#### Neumann, Respondent, vs. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Appellant.

For the appellant: *North, Parker, Bie, Duqtiaine, Welsh & Trowbridge,*attorneys, and *Samuel D. Hastings,*of counsel, all of Green Bay.

For the respondent: *Quarles, Spence & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Arthur B. Doe,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
#### Berry, Respondent, vs. Darling, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county dated April 20, 1927: James Wickham, Judge.

Malpractice. Judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals.

For the appellant: *Lines, Spooner & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Willet M. Spooner,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Slensby & Zaidins*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
) 

A 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 <2.95107100 

illllllllllllllllllill 1111111111111111111111111 11111 1111111111111 14 000504250 

ZCZCFTC23S/2J1900Z 

BT 

XXXXX 

GUARD 682 

, i ; . , 

"- , mE 

- PM;E ? I \0756- sEe ReT TEP,~'H'ATt SIJCH A.RRANGEMENTS SINCE THE: NASA GUt j'-:[S INDIC:\Tt MAXI-

. VU~} PUCLltiTY SHOULD BE aSTAINED FRC1fJ EACH OPERATl • EVE:"} 'i PREP!... Ml\~CQ Rr.:LEfiSES APE SOMEWHAT COUNTER TO OUR OES! R[~; IN PUrL I G lr'iFOR- ~;AT!ON RElEASES. FOR EXAMPLE QUOTE: ESSA LAUNCH nELAYED AT VANOENFiEqG. VAtJDtNBERG AIR fORCE BASE (AP) - SPACE OFF IC lt\LS YESTERDAY 

A'j':mu;'iCtD A 24-H0!JR OELAY iN TDOAY'S SCHEDULED UI.UNCK Of THE EIGHTH 

ESSA WEATER SATELLITE, rOS-F. 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 071 00 

. 

-

-- -

I I 

j , 

1-1-

I -,-

, f"'·: ,j' "' '~ ;;- :<, • 

. 

r ; . , • I I, I 

t I ! I 

I

'"'" ,I 

: I 

1 

• 

f: r 

{ , 

,, -, 

f~ l:'~ ~ I j 
) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

, t. . .J • ,t, E IS N OW SET TOGO UP AT 

9:21 A. H. TO~df\RRh Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 071 00 

THE TOS-r, WHU CARRIES AUTO~~ATlC PICTURE TR~Vl<JSION CA11ERAS. 

WILU/lLl 8E CARRIE\) AlOn (H~ A D[LTA ROCKET. UNQU0T£. THE HIGHER 

PRiOqlTY LAUNCH WAS CORO~A. 

m~E 0F THE LOCAL 'v£lrPAP£R REPORTERS HAD A Ot'JE LI Nt" "GL H~PSE' IN' 

THE NEXT OAV'S PAPER ~TOKYn NEWSMAN AT NASA WEATHER SATELLITE LAUNCH· ~ 

SITE THE ~~I)R~INr,." THE SA'."[ P},PER CMHIED THIS AKTICLE QUOTE: TIROS""': LAU~jCIi SCRUl'iBfD fOR SArETY REASDN. FEAR ftnH THE SAFETY OF' CmtSTRUC- TI(,)~ )\It\f:lKt!'?~ MI THr MA~lrHW f.lHfH'l'iN~ LM FF/.('lJEtf ON ~QiJrH VANQ~NG.gflG 

f"Ir;U~f.D PR(i?,q~JCnlY IN THE DECISiON TO "SCRUB" THE LAUNCH OF A NASA 

'NEATHE'R SATELL ITE FR('IM HERE TODAY. 

r.nUNTOnWN ON THE TIROS SATE:LLITE WAS BROUGHT TO WITHIN riVE 

PAGE 31 10756 SEC RET ~·HNUTES or: LAUNCH AND HELD WHILE SAFETY OfFICIALS WEIGHED THE 

D~,\!GERS TO THE '~IORKERS SHOULD THE VEHICLE HAVE TO BE DESTRUCTED 

SHORTLY AFTER LEAVtNG THE PAD. ~AS,~ (lFFiClf~L$ SAID THC DECISI8N TO 

POSTPONE THE LAUNCH WAS plAOE AFTER IT WAS flETERM INED THAT EXTREJ1EL Y 

HIGH "VINDS AT HIGH ALTITUDE MIGHT BLOW OEF:RIS iNTO THE CONSTRUCTION 

AREA IF AN A~ORT TOOK PLACE. . MINUTES BEFORE, A SHIP PASS'~G THROUGH THE LAUNCH SAtETV ZONE ALSO 

CAUSED A SHORT DELAY. THE SATElliTE ORIGINALLY HAn BEEN SCHE.nULED 

FOR lAU~ICH YESTEf.'DAY EUT WAS POST?Df·,tED TO ALLow THE AIR F'DRCE TO 

lllU',lCH A SECRET MIUTARY SATELLITE. Uf\JQUOTE. , f;~. ! 

PECUEST YO!) ESTMl.ISHAN INFORt.MTIO!~ AND N[\1S MEDIA POLICY ON VAF'S 

THAT IS APPlICA8LE TO ~.LL INDIViDUALS M1JD AGPICIES. TI-{IS SHOULD 

n~FINtTElV BE A WHITE POLICY, WITH WHATEVER CLASSIFICATION YOU DESIRE, TO ENA.BLE NEGOTtATIOM WITH THE N,4SA PERSONNEL AND OTHER N[',,{S 

VEDIA AT THtS LEVEL. 

TH I $ SUBJECT l S T I MEL Y OUE TO THE NEGOT I ft.T I eNS Nml UNnERWAY WHEREBY NASA IS ATTEMPTI NG TO ASSUME A GREATER DEGREE OF' CONTROL ON SLC 2. ~ E eRe T 

BT 

N 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 071 00 

., 

!:'~j<~rCtil
#### Auburn Sales & Service Company, Respondent, vs. Wisconsin Power & Light Company, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Bowler & Bowler,*attorneys, and *Buchen & Schlichting,*of counsel, all of Sheboygan.

For the respondent: *Bassuener & Humke*of Sheboygan.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2005115EN.01001701.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/17

---

Action brought on 29 March 2005 by Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union

(Case C-139/05)

(2005/C 115/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 March 2005 by Kingdom of Spain, represented by Enrique Braquehais Conesa, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul Council Regulation (EC) No 27/2005 (1) of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required, in so far as it does not allocate quotas to Spain in relation to the fishing opportunities which were distributed before the accession of that State in respect of the North Sea; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul Council Regulation (EC) No 27/2005 (1) of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required, in so far as it does not allocate quotas to Spain in relation to the fishing opportunities which were distributed before the accession of that State in respect of the North Sea;

1

| 2. | order the defendant institution to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those in Case C-133/04 (2).

2

---

(1)  OJ L 12 of 14.1.2005, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 106, of 30.04.2004, p. 38.

2

---