alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015229EN.01000301.xml

| 14.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

13 July 2015

(2015/C 229/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1049 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,30 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4624 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,71150 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3884 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0478 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9035 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,102 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,90 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1469 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4289 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9391 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4874 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4055 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5653 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6470 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4955 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 252,35 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,7985 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,8597 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5750 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 694,28 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2059 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 49,874 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 62,6920 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,599 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5091 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,4077 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,2075 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1049

JPY

Japanese yen

136,30

DKK

Danish krone

7,4624

GBP

Pound sterling

0,71150

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3884

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0478

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9035

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,102

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,90

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1469

RON

Romanian leu

4,4289

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9391

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4874

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4055

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5653

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6470

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4955

KRW

South Korean won

1 252,35

ZAR

South African rand

13,7985

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,8597

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5750

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 694,28

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2059

PHP

Philippine peso

49,874

RUB

Russian rouble

62,6920

THB

Thai baht

37,599

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5091

MXN

Mexican peso

17,4077

INR

Indian rupee

70,2075

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
|   | (1) | the      Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|        |   |                                                                      |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                      |   |
|   |   | /s/      David A. Martin                                                  |   |
|   |   | David      A. Martin                                                      |   |
|   |   | Senior      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                    |   |
|   |   | (Principal      Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)  |

|   |
|--------|
|        |
AARON S. HOPE SR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2743

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 3, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Levy County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

Aaron S. Hope Sr., pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
CEDRIC C. MITCHELL, Claimant

- Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2015

- 7084

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 13

- 3389, Judge Alan G. Lance , Sr.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

K ENNETH M. C ARPENTER , Law Offices of Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant

- appellant.

J EFFREY L OWRY , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washin gton, DC, argued for respondent

- appellee. Also represented by B ENJAMIN C. M IZER
, R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN
, J R
., M ARTIN F. H OCKEY ; B RIAN D. G RIFFIN
, M ARTIN J AMES S ENDEK , Office of General Counsel, United States D epartment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST
, Chief Judge, M OORE and S TOLL
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

April 12 , 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
# C_2014407EN.01001401.xml

| 15.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 407/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 407/14

---

Criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers

2014/C 407/07

On 1 October 2014, in accordance with Article 4 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal decided to assign cases, as soon as the application has been lodged, to the First, Second and Third Chambers in turn according to the order in which they are lodged at the Registry and without prejudice to referrals to the full court or to a single judge.

The President of the Tribunal may derogate from the above rules on assignment for reasons of connections between cases and to ensure a balanced and consistent workload within the Tribunal.

---
#### Mary Coughlin, an Infant, by John Coughlin, Her Guardian ad Litem, and John Coughlin, Respondents, *v.*William J. Jones, Appellant.*

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 8, 1937.

*Joseph S. Robinson,*for the appellant.

*Samuel Justin Jackman,*for the respondents.

*

Revg. 162 Misc. 843.

*205Per Curiam.

The fact that the landlord permitted or invited the children of his tenants to use the yard as a playground did not by implication authorize his tenants or their children to invite strangers to make a similar use of the yard. Plaintiff was at best a mere licensee to whom the landlord was not liable for defects in the premises.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

All concur. Present — Lydon, Levy and Hammer, JJ.
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 quarterly  report of China  Biopharmaceuticals  Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  ("SEC") on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

         i. the Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a)or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         ii. the  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the  Company and will be  furnished  to the SEC or its staff
upon request.

 /s/ MAO Peng
------------------------------------
MAO Peng
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
November 22, 2004

This  Certification  of Chief Executive  Officer  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 is not  "filed"  for  purposes  of Section 18 of the
Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934  but is  instead  furnished  as  provided  by
applicable rules of the Securities Exchange Commission.
# C_2015178EN.01000101.xml

| 1.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 178/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 171, 26.5.2015

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 155, 11.5.2015

OJ C 146, 4.5.2015

OJ C 138, 27.4.2015

OJ C 127, 20.4.2015

OJ C 118, 13.4.2015

OJ C 107, 30.3.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7143

JOHNNY MULL, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
MR. HENSPATH, Unit Manager; MR. JONES, Captain; MR. DANIELS, Captain; MR. GATLING, Sergeant; MR. BATTLE; SERGEANT DRAOUGHN; NURSE TAYLOR; DOCTOR SWANTON; OFFICER WILLIAM; JOHN DOE; OFFICER TOMADAKIS; LIEUTENANT TUCK; NURSE SHIELD; NURSE ALLEN; NURSE MCALISTER; NURSE CARMON; NURSE RICHARDSON; OFFICER RICHARDSON; SUPERINTENDENT BUMGARNER; OFFICER GILBERT; OFFICER ARWOOD; DOCTOR SOBEL; NURSE ELEY; SERGEANT HUNTER; SERGEANT JUSTICE; SERGEANT WOOD; M. J. HOWARD; MR. JONES, Unit Manager; SERGEANT STOKLEY; CAPTAIN MURPHY; SERGEANT HOWARD; JERRY SAUNDERS, Notary; SERGEANT RILEY; OFFICER SMALL; OFFICER BECKNELL; KEITH E. WERNER, District Attorney; MR. DORSEY, Unit Manager; CAPTAIN JOHNSON; OFFICER MAY; OFFICER CREEF; MR. BARNES, Acting Superintendent; NURSE SATZ; NURSE RAPER; DENTIST CIANWILLI; OFFICER TYNCH; DR. ANDERSON; NURSE BUCHANAN; OFFICER RUSSELL; OFFICER STEWART; SERGEANT WHITAKER; DOCTOR BASSETT; OFFICER WYNN; MR. CASTELOW, Unit Manager; MS. BRYANT; OFFICER CLARK; JANE DOE; MR. CARTER, Unit Manager, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-99-373-5-HO)2 Submitted: January 11, 2000 Decided: February 8, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny Mull, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Johnny Mull appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion. See Mull v. Henspath , No. CA-99-373-5-HO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 10, 1999). We affirm the order on the reasoning of the district court but modify it to provide that the dismissal of Mull’s complaint is without prejudice. In addition, we deny Mull’s motions for appointment of counsel. 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 AS MODIFIED
REF ID:A521376 ADDRESS ONLY 

THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS 

WASHINGTON, D. C. • 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

WASHINGTON 

November 3, 1938. 

Ex ~arte ';1111a.~ F'. Friedman, "Ser al No. 682,096, 

Filed July 25, 1933, 

Cryptographic System. 

• • 

. • 

. . 

In compliance wi~h the request in the 

letter of the Acting Secretary of War, dated 

Septeaber 7, 1938, this application is continued under the provisions of u. s. Code, 

Title 35, Section 37• 

This application will not beco~e abandoned before November l, 1941, that is, 

three years from the date or the last Office 

action. 

Commissioner. 

!f:essrs. Francie TI. Vanderwerker 

and Charles A. Rowe, 

c/o Chief of the Air Corps, 

Munitions Building, Washington, D. C. 

JA'pproved for Release by NSA on 12-16-2013 pursuant to E.O. 1352§
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCELINO ECHEVERRIABARBOZA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71738

Agency No. A079-805-425

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 15, 2011** 

Pasadena, California

Before: RYMER, TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Appellant Marcelino Echeverria-Barboza petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying him adjustment of status under the

FILED

AUG 03 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), Pub. L. No. 107-208, 116 Stat. 927 (2002). 

We deny the petition.

On July 27, 1992, Echeverria’s father, a lawful permanent resident of the

United States, filed an F2A immigrant visa petition on Echeverria’s behalf. See 8

U.S.C. § 1153(a)(2)(A). When his priority date became current on August 1, 1997,

Echeverria was older than twenty-one and had thus “aged-out” of the F2A

preference category. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1) (an F2A beneficiary must be a

“child” under age twenty-one). No further petition or application for adjustment of

status was filed by Echeverria or his father. Echeverria claims he is nonetheless

entitled to protection under the CSPA.

It is undisputed that Echeverria was over age twenty-one at the time his

priority date became current and a visa was then available to him. Because he had

aged-out of the F2A preference category, he could not claim a visa as an adult

beneficiary under his father’s petition. Nor does the CSPA provide Echeverria

relief because he sought to adjust status on January 28, 2004, well over one year

after his visa number became available on August 1, 1997. See 8 U.S.C. §

1153(h)(1)(A); see also Park v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 1384 (9th Cir. 2008) (adopting

the opinion and order of the district court in Park v. Gonzalez, 450 F. Supp. 2d

1153, 1158, 1163 (D. Or. 2006)). Even if we were inclined to accept Echeverria’s

theory that he only needed to adjust status within one year of the CSPA’s date of
enactment, the record shows he nevertheless failed to do so. He did not apply for

adjustment of status until January 28, 2004, roughly a year and a half after the law

was enacted on August 6, 2002. For these reasons, there is no legitimate basis for

extending CSPA protections to him.

Accordingly, his petition is DENIED.
#### State ex rel. Curran, and Curran, vs. Palmer.

*Pleading in*quo warranto, *before the new rule.*— Relator *need not be entitled to the office.*

1. Under tlie statutes and tlie rules oí court heretofore in force in tliis state, it was not necessary in *quo*warranto, where the complaint alleged that a certain number of illegal votes had been cast for the defendant, to state the names of the alleged illegal voters.

2. Where the relator in such action joins with the state as plaintiff, and the complaint states a good cause of action in favor of the state, a demurrer on the ground that it does not show the other plaintiff entitled to the office, is bad.

*D. W. Small,*for tlie demurrer.

*The Attorney General, contra.*

Paiue, J.

This is an action of *quo warranto,*brought to oust the respondent from the office of coroner of Waukesha county; and the relator, who claims title to the office, joins with the state as plaintiff.

The respondent demurs to the complaint upon two grounds. The first is, that the allegations are not specific enough to enable him to know what votes the plaintiff claims to have been illegal. And his argument undoubtedly showed, that where the result of an election in an entire county was involved, neither party would be able to know what his adversary intended to prove, upon a mere general allegation that a certain number of illegal votes had been given. But the difficulty is one growing out of the wide range which the proof may take in such a case, rather than out of any defect in the allegation.

It was decided by this court in the case of *The State v. Hilmantel,*21 Wis. 566, that under the established rules of pleading, the party was not bound in such cases to state in Ms pleading the names of the voters whose votes he claimed to be illegal. But at the same time the propriety of some further provision, requiring a list of *64such names to be famished, was suggested. The legislature, at its last session, made a partial provision of that character; and this court has, by a rule just adopted, made a still further provision, which, it is believed, will remedy the evil suggested by counsel. ***
      **But according to the rules of pleading as they have long been established in such cases, the demurrer cannot be sustained upon this ground.

The other ground was, that it did not appear from the complaint that the relator had qualified according to law; and therefore it did not appear that he was entitled to the office. But whether he is or not, the complaint shows a good cause of action in behalf of the state; and that is a sufficient answer to the demurrer.

*By the Qov/rt.*— The demurrer is overruled.

See 22 Wis., Appendix B., p. 709.
1 

## RVAAC **Communications Subcommittee**  **- Meeting**  **#3**

**April 10,**  **2014 (afternoon)** 

**Agenda** Continuing discussions from agenda of March 13, 2014, conference call (Communications meeting #1). Link to March 13 agenda and material: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=ATBCB - 2013 - 0006 -0037 . [Not in original agenda] If above link doesn’t work, also filed in “Supporting Documents” section of t he RVAAC electronic docket ( http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=ATBCB - 2013 -0006 ) under file title “Communications Subcommittee Meeting #1 - Agenda and Handouts - 2014 Mar 13 ”.2 

## Additional **April 10**  **Material** 

## Signage Images Submited by Frank Maldari34567
# C_2014260EN.01000801.xml

| 9.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7290 — Apple/Beats)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 260/08

On 25 July 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7290. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7290. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 10

- 00280

- CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF

BUFORD SCOTT, JR.

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

FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered “ Appellant's Amended Motion To Dismiss .” It is the

court = s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

iss ue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DELIVERED: December 8, 2011

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
#### Kelly vs. The West Wisconsin Railway Company.

Appeal for delay. Extra damages on affirmance of judgment.

APPEALS from, the Circuit; Court for *Chippewa*County.

*Baker & Spooner,*for appellants.

*L. P. Wheiherby,*with *Vilas & Bryant,*of counsel, for respondents.

*By the Court.*

Since taking these appeals, the defendant has done nothing whatever in the cases. There are no bills of exception in the records, no argument has been submitted, and no briefs or abstracts of the cases furnished. Manifestly the appeals were taken for delay. We therefore affirm the judgments with five per cent, damages, in addition to the seven per cent, damages given by law on the affirmance of judgments in all cases. R. S., ch. 189, see. 29; Laws of 1860, ch. 264, sec. 87; *Slocum v. Carlton,*1 Chand., 165 (2 Pinney, 203); *Ramsay v. Davis,*20 Wis., 34.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
United States Code), I, Michael G. Long, Chief Financial Officer of Edge Petroleum Corporation, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:



|Dated: March 13, 2008 |  | /s/MICHAEL G. LONG
|--------------------- |  | ------------------
|                      |  | Name:             

---



QuickLinks
-

_I 

Dr. JI. • • ...... C&l.1fond& i.titute or 'fecJ:mologr 

Puadea1 CalUand& 

near loba 

I 

f 

j 

,( 

'1'be CuwUu J.1•1aoD otticer, Alzdn- 1mt1'U11::tiom 

trm h1a ~ autbari:tid, has aslitM '18 tor & con Gt 

tlle Report. ot the Special &tuq _,Oraup unda 7fNr 

cllairanal:dp. / 

1 am vr1t1Jl6 to uk ~ opinion and recoi11MM&tion 

u to tbe a4TUaJ:)U1t7 ct _pjeking a can a'Vailal>le to 

C-mda. tt Cueda pta t&, cow' 'tbeD llbculd - not al9o 

tunWlh • can to u .x:. t<R1lrt &U'tllcwitieat , 

With beat ~· tor the lroli4q Saa80D, I aa, 

/ 

/ 

/ 

l/ 

/' 

cc: AG 

c/s 

S/ASST (Mr. Friedm.n)i-----

M/R: Selt-explam.tory. 

DY0UJJC/S/ASST/6o493/18 Dec 53 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 10-17 2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

I
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 07-1218

ESSO STANDARD OIL CO. (PUERTO RICO),

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

CARLOS W. LÓPEZ-FREYTES, in his personal and 

official capacities as President of the Puerto Rico

Environmental Quality Board; FLOR DEL VALLE-LÓPEZ, in her

official capacity as Associate Member of the Puerto Rico

Environmental Quality Board; ANGEL BERRÍOS-SILVESTRE, in his

official capacity as Associate Member of the Puerto Rico

Environmental Quality Board; NORMAN VELÁZQUEZ-TORRES, in his

official capacity as Attorney of the Puerto Rico

Environmental Quality Board,

Defendants, Appellants.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on April 10, 2008, is

amended as follows:

On page 25, line 14: "defendants assertions" should be

"defendants' assertions"