alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-2438

CHRISTOPHER LEE JOHNSON; VERONICA MOODY

JOHNSON,

Defendants & Third Party Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

EMERALD GREENS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, jointly and severally and

in their individual capacity, personally

(immediate past and present members); MIKE

LEWIS, President; RICHARD MATTHEWS; CRAIG

POPPIN; MARK WILLIAMS; PETER NICHOLS; KATHY

THOMAS; ANNE DEL CORE; DAVID THOMPSON,

Third Party Defendants - Appellees,

versus

EMERALD GREENS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

MARY E. COX,

Movant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (CA-00-514-2)

Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: May 14, 2002
2

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Lee Johnson, Veronica Moody Johnson, Appellants Pro Se.

Barry Randolph Koch, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Gerrit W. Benson,

Michael Allen Inman, INMAN & STRICKLER, P.L.C., Virginia Beach,

Virginia; Alexander William Stiles, WILLIAMS, MULLEN, CLARK &

DOBBINS, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia; David C. Burton, WILLIAMS,

MULLEN, CLARK & DOBBINS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Lee Johnson and Veronica Moody Johnson appeal the

district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Emerald

Greens Property Owners Association on the Johnsons’ cross-claims,

granting summary judgment to the Board of Directors of the Emerald

Greens Property Owners Association and to its individual members,

denying the Johnsons’ motion for summary judgment, and remanding

the remaining claims to state court. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Johnson v. Emerald Greens Prop. Owners Ass’n, No. CA-00-514-2 (E.D.

Va. filed Oct. 25, 2001 & entered Oct. 26, 2001; Oct. 30, 2001).

We deny the Johnsons’ motions to stay review of the case and to

consolidate the case with No. 02-1371, Johnson v. City of

Chesapeake. 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
EXHIBIT 10.18.2

 

ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC.

 

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

 

Updated as of May 1, 2012

 

SCHEDULE 1

 

SERP

 

A.  Executive Officers (as defined under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)

 

Blake Larson

 

Deborah Moeschl
ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT

TO THE

ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION OF

ATRISCO OIL AND GAS, L.L.C.

   

Pursuant to the provisions of the New Mexico Limited Liability Company Act, the undersigned limited liability company adopts the following Articles of Amendment for the purpose of amending its Articles of Organization:

   

ARTICLE ONE: The name of the limited liability company is Atrisco Oil and Gas, L.L.C.

   

ARTICLE TWO: The date the Articles of Organization were filed is September 8, 2006.

   

ARTICLE THREE: The Articles of Organization are amended as follows:

   

Article I is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

   

I.

NAME

   

The name of the Company will be Atrisco Oil & Gas, L.L.C.

   

Dated: February 27, 2009.

   

ATRISCO OIL AND GAS, L.L.C.               

By   /s/ Randolph M. Sanchez                   Randolph M. Sanchez,                   Director, Board of Directors               

By   /s/ Ray Mares, Jr.

       Ray Mares, Jr.,

       Director, Board of Directors   

By   /s/ Troy K.Benavidez                   Troy K.Benavidez,                   Director, Board of Directors               By  /s/ Charles K. Pena                   Charles K. Pena,                   Director, Board of Directors

By   /s/ Brent Lesley                   Brent Lesley,                   Director, Board of Directors

 

**AKNOWLEDGEMENT**

**BY WESTLAND DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.**

**OF THE**

**ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT**

**TO THE**

**ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION OF**

**ATRISCO OIL & GAS, L.L.C.**

 

**Westland Development Co., Inc., a New Mexico corporation (“Westland”), in its capacity as the holder of the sole Class B unit of Atrisco Oil & Gas, L.L.C., a New            Mexico limited liability company, hereby acknowledges, agrees to, adopts, ratifies and confirms each amendment contained in The Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Organization of Atrisco Oil & Gas, L.L.C., filed March 6, 2009.**

Westland further represents that the undersigned has the requisite authority to acknowledge, agree to, adopt, ratify and confirm the aforementioned amendments on behalf of Westland.

Date: April 9, 2009                                       WESTLAND DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.

 
| By:    | /s/ Brent Lesley |
|--------|------------------|
|   | Name:            | Brent Lesley |
|   | Title:           | VP Dispositions, NM |
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I, Robert P. May, the Interim President and Chief Executive Officer of Charter Communications
Holdings, LLC and Charter Communications Holdings Capital Corporation (the Company) in compliance
with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify that, the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004
(the Report) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:  
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. /s/ Robert P. MayRobert P. MayInterim President and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 31, 2005
#### KUJAWSKI *v.*BOYNE MOUNTAIN LODGE.

1. Appeal and Error — Instructions—Review.

The trial court’s charge to the jury will be considered in its entirety, and if it fairly presents the questions involved for jury determination in a wrongful death action, the verdict will not be disturbed.

2. Same — Jury Instructions.

A eharge to the jury meets the requirements to pass appellate review if it gives a fair presentation of questions involved and if requested instructions were given in substance.

3. Death — Evidence.

Evidence presented in action for wrongful death from fall down defendant’s stairway *held,*sufficient to support jury’s verdict for plaintiff.

References for Points in Headnotes

[1,2] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 891, 894.

[3] 22 Am Jur 2d, Death •§§ 241-243.

Appeal from Charlevoix, Brown (Charles L.), J.

Submitted Division 3 April 2, 1968, at Grand Rapids.

(Docket No. 441.)

Decided June 10, 1968.

Appli*642cation for leave to appeal dismissed August 14, 1968, by stipulation.

Declaration by Edward Kujawski, administrator of tbe estate of John S. Kujawski, Sr., deceased, against Boyne Mountain Lodge, Inc., a Michigan corporation, for wrongful death of the decedent caused by a fall on defendant’s stairway. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial by Court of Appeals. Plaintiff appeals to Supreme Court.

Reversed, and remanded to Court of Appeals for further proceedings. Verdict and judgment of circuit court affirmed by Court of Appeals.

*Norman D. Anee*and *Charles H. Menmuir,*for plaintiff. • ■

*Martin B. Breighner*and *Benjamin V. Halstead,*for defendant.

Per Curiam.

Pursuant to the remand by the Supreme Court,1 this cause has been resubmitted to the Court of Appeals for decision of the questions raised': on the original appeal but not considered by this Court in its opinion found at 3 Mich App 333. Pacts pertinent to present decision are found in 3 Mich App 333, 334, 335. The questions not formerly considered all deal with jury instructions given or requested but not given and with the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict for plaintiff.

The rule on appellate review of jury instructions is1 that, the trial court’s charge to the jury will be considered in its entirety, and, if it fairly presented the questions involved for jury determination, the *643verdict will not be disturbed. *Zebell*v. *Krall*(1957), 348 Mich 482. A review of the charge here involved convinces us that it complies with the rule, and that requested instructions allegedly not given were given in substance.

A review of the trial record discloses evidence, which, if believed by the jury, supports its verdict. Affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.

Burns, P. J., and Quinn and Ziem, JJ., concurred.

1

**Kujawski v. *Boyne Mountain Lodge, Inc.*(1967), 379 Mich 381.
Exhibit23.1

CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

 

The Board of Directors and StockholdersFTD.COM INC.:

We consent to incorporation by referencein the registration statement on Form S-8 of FTD.COM INC. of our report dated July 20, 2001, relating to the balancesheets of  FTD.COM INC. as of June 30,2001 and 2000, and the related statements of operations, shareholders’ equity(deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period endedJune 30, 2001, which report appears in the June 30, 2001 annual report on Form10-K of FTD.COM INC.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, IllinoisAugust 3, 2001

** **
15442

#### WEBER v. PERRY

(21 S. E. (2d), 193)

*13
      *Mr. T. B. Bryant*and *Messrs. Felder*and *Rosen,*all of Orangeburg, Counsel for Appellant,

*Messrs. Zeigler*and *Brailsford,*of Orangeburg, counsel for Respondent,

July 9, 1942.

The Opinion of the'Court was delivered by

Mr. Associate Justice Stukes:

This Court is satisfied with the correctness of the conclusions of his Plonor, Judge Greene, who heard the demurrer in this case on circuit. His order, dated December 22, 1941, will be reported. The exceptions have been carefully considered and are overruled.

Affirmed.

Mr. Chieb Justice Boni-iam, Mr. Associate Justice Fishburne and Circuit Judges Phieip H. Stoee and E. H. Henderson, Acting Associate Justices, concur.
1 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. -1- United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________ No. 03 - 60195 SUMMARY CALENDAR

_________________________ ANDREW JAMES, Petitioner,

v. JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

______________________________________________________________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A78-553-395

______________________________________________________________________________ Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 In this appeal we review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying Andrew James’ motion to reopen his removal proceedings. When James failed to attend his removal hearing, the Immigration Judge issued an in absentia removal order. James claims that his absence was due to a viral infection, and that the illness constitutes an exceptional circumstance justifying rescission of the removal order and reopening of his proceedings.-2-

The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision without an opinion, so we review the Immigration Judge’s decision. See Mikhael v. INS , 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5 th Cir. 1997). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. De Morales v. INS , 116 F.3d 145, 147 (5 th Cir. 1997). An order of removal will be rescinded only if the alien demonstrates that his failure to appear was due to exceptional circumstances beyond his control. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(b)(5)©) and 1229a(e)(1). James has failed to establish that he is entitled to rescission of the Immigration Judge’s order based upon exceptional circumstances because he delayed almost six weeks in contacting the court regarding his absence due to illness. See De Morales , 116 F.3d at 149. The petition for review is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TANIELA F. KIVALU, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

DAVID J. SHULKIN,

* Secretary, Veterans 

Administration; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-17359 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02929-DJH 

MEMORANDUM**

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 23, 2017***

Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Taniela F. Kivalu appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his claims related to the Veterans Administration’s denial of his 

 

* David J. Shulkin has been substituted for his predecessor, Eric 

Shinseki, as Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

OCT 30 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-17359 

benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 

dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox 

Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm in part, vacate in 

part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Kivalu’s action for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction because the United States Courts of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims and the Federal Circuit have exclusive jurisdiction over questions that 

relate to benefits administered by the Veterans Administration. See Veterans for 

Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1022-25 (9th Cir. 2012) (the Veterans’ 

Judicial Review Act precludes district court jurisdiction over claims relating to or 

affecting veterans’ benefits decisions). However, we vacate the judgment to the 

extent that it dismissed Kivalu’s action with prejudice, and remand for entry of 

dismissal without prejudice. See Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 

656 (9th Cir. 2017) (“In general, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is 

without prejudice.”). 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We treat Kivalu’s contention regarding the denial of his motion for official 
3 16-17359 

transcripts as a motion for reconsideration, and deny the motion.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           8,187
<SECURITIES>                                     5,425
<RECEIVABLES>                                      580
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        584
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,079
<PP&E>                                           4,698
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,073
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,194
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,229
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       112,069
<OTHER-SE>                                   (111,219)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,194
<SALES>                                         11,656
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,435
<CGS>                                            4,279
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,936
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 749
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,696)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,696)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.88)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     3/28/99  CONDENSED   CONSOLIDATED   BALANCE  SHEET  AND  THE  STATEMENT  OF
     OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
     BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-02-2000
<CASH>                                           18,907
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    20,522
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1,012
<INVENTORY>                                      12,998
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 57,697
<PP&E>                                           18,815
<DEPRECIATION>                                    8,257
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   75,997
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            20,630
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                            308
<OTHER-SE>                                       54,953
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     75,997
<SALES>                                          18,005
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 18,005
<CGS>                                             6,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     6,433
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 18,112
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (6,093)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (6,093)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (6,093)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.20)




</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0326

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ROBERT EARL SNYDER,

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 January 27, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 22 2022

12/22/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0326
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the “Company”)hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)                         Theaccompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the threemonths ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii)                      The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  November 1, 2010 | /s/  Todd Newton                                   |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                         | Todd  Newton                                       |
|                         | Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of the written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to ArthroCare Corporation and will beretained by ArthroCare Corporation and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
# Az Európai Unió C 34/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0979
  doi:10.3000/19770979.C_2014.034.hun |
| --- | --- |
| Az Európai Unió
  Hivatalos Lapja | C 34 |
| | |
| Magyar nyelvű kiadás | Tájékoztatások és közlemények | 57. évfolyam2014. február 5. |

ISSN 1977-0979

doi:10.3000/19770979.C_2014.034.hun

Az Európai Unió

Hivatalos Lapja

C 34

Magyar nyelvű kiadás

Tájékoztatások és közlemények

57. évfolyam2014. február 5.

---

| Közleményszám | Tartalom | Oldal |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Hirdetmények |
| | KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK |
| | Európai Parlament |
| 2014/C 034/01 | Határozat | 1 |

Közleményszám

Tartalom

Oldal

V   Hirdetmények

KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK

Európai Parlament

2014/C 034/01

Határozat

1

| HU | |
| --- | --- |

HU

---

V Hirdetmények

KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK

Európai Parlament

| 5.2.2014 | HU | Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja | C 34/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2014

HU

Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja

C 34/1

---

HATÁROZAT

2014/C 34/01

AZ EURÓPAI PARLAMENT FŐTITKÁRA,

tekintettel a 723/2004/EK, Euratom tanácsi rendelettel (1) és legutóbb az Európai Közösségek tisztviselőinek személyzeti szabályzata és az e Közösségek egyéb alkalmazottaira vonatkozó alkalmazási feltételek módosításáról szóló, 2010. november 24-i 1080/2010/EU, Euratom európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelettel (2) módosított 259/68/EGK, Euratom, ESZAK tanácsi rendeletre (3),

tekintettel a kinevezésre jogosult hatóság (AIPN) és a munkaszerződések megkötésére felhatalmazott hatóság (AHCC) hatásköreinek átruházására vonatkozó 2004. május 3-i, legutóbb 2009. május 4-én módosított elnökségi határozatra,

tekintettel arra, hogy az Európai Parlament alábbi tartaléklistái 2013. december 31-én érvényüket vesztik:

PE/99/S, PE/109/S, AD/4/08, AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, AST/5/08, PE/119/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S, PE/121/S,

mivel a vegyes bizottság felkérést kapott, hogy a személyzeti szabályzat 10a. cikkének megfelelően 15 munkanapon belül fogalmazza meg álláspontját,

A KÖVETKEZŐKÉPPEN HATÁROZOTT:

1. cikk

A következő tartaléklisták érvényessége

AD/4/08, AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S, PE/121/S,

2014. december 31-ig meghosszabbításra kerül.

2. cikk

A következő tartaléklisták érvényessége

PE/99/S, PE/109/S, AST/5/08, PE/119/S,

nem kerül meghosszabbításra.

Kelt Luxembourgban, 2013. december 20-án.

Klaus WELLE

főtitkár

---

(1)  HL L 124., 2004.4.27., 1. o.

1

(2)  HL L 311., 2010.11.26., 1. o.

2

(3)  HL L 56., 1968.3.4., 1. o.

3

---