alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         861,560
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,276,797
<ALLOWANCES>                                   535,088
<INVENTORY>                                  2,047,639
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,786,945
<PP&E>                                         974,249
<DEPRECIATION>                                 304,169
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,621,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,641,557
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<COMMON>                                     1,731,538
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,079,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,621,814
<SALES>                                      4,733,558
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,733,558
<CGS>                                        4,258,981
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,258,981
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               535,088
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,081
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,085,756)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,085,756)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,085,756)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2020201EN.01000501.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/5

---

Appeal brought on 10 December 2019 by European Food SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2019 in Case T-536/18, Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (FITNESS)

(Case C-908/19 P)

(2020/C 201/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Food SA (represented by: R. Dincă, I. Speciac, V. Stănese, I.-F. Cofaru, avocați)

Other parties to the proceedings: Société des produits Nestlé, European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 18 March 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 04-0854

&

No. 04-0856

IN RE  FLOWSERVE U.S., INC. AND TEAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.

*consolidated with*

IN RE  PUFFER-SWEIVEN INC.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relator’s motion for temporary relief and stay, filed March 22, 2005, is granted as supplemented.   All trial court proceedings in Cause No. 03-3304-E, styled *Diamond Shamrock Refining Company, L.P. v. Cecorp. Inc. f/k/a Collier Equipment Corporation, Dresser, Inc., Puffer-Sweiven, Inc., a/k/a Verde Holdings, Inc., Team Industrial Services, Inc., and Butch Crawford*, in the 148th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, are stayed pending further order of this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this April 8, 2005.

Andrew Weber, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
01C4805 Whitley vs. Velasco, et al. Page 1 of 1

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Joan B. Gottschall Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 01 C 4805 DATE 10/25/2005

CASE

TITLE

Whitley vs. Velasco, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Defendants’ motion to dismiss [105] is granted.

O [ For further detail see attached order.] Docketing to mail notices.

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

rj/jck

Case: 1:01-cv-04805 Document #: 148 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:766
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6725

RUSSELL LEON DAVID, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JON E. OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of 

Corrections; DONALD R. SAMPSON, Dr.; A. G. ALEWINE, Dr.; K. 

MCCULLOUGH, Nurse; S. SHERMAN, Nurse,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(9:10-cv-01976-RBH)

Submitted: September 11, 2012 Decided: September 14,2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Russell Leon David, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Mason Abram Summers, 

RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Russell Leon David, Sr. seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, which advised summary judgment in favor of the 

Defendants named in David’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. We 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice 

of appeal was not timely filed. 

In a civil case where the United States, a federal 

agency, or a federal officer is not a party, the notice of 

appeal must be filed no more than thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period 

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period 

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice 

of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

Here, the district court’s order was entered on the 

docket on April 12, 2011. As the district court has 

subsequently determined, David did not file a notice of appeal 

as to that order until May 31, 2011. Because David failed to 

file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or 

reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Official Journal L 52/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 52 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5225 February 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 52

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5225 February 2009

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 156/2009 of 24 February 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

Commission Regulation (EC) No 156/2009 of 24 February 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

| | | II   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is not obligatory |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | Commission |
| | | 2009/155/EC |
| | * | Commission Decision of 12 November 2008 on the loan of EUR 300 million granted by Italy to Alitalia No C 26/08 (ex NN 31/08)
  (notified under document number C(2008) 6743)

   (1) | 3 |

II   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is not obligatory

DECISIONS

Commission

2009/155/EC

*

Commission Decision of 12 November 2008 on the loan of EUR 300 million granted by Italy to Alitalia No C 26/08 (ex NN 31/08)
  (notified under document number C(2008) 6743)

   (1)

(notified under document number C(2008) 6743)

3

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Note to the reader (see page 3 of the cover) | s3 |

*

Note to the reader (see page 3 of the cover)

Note to the reader

s3

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Case 09-75777 Doc 47 Filed 08/18/10 Entered 08/18/10 13:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 12Case 09-75777 Doc 47 Filed 08/18/10 Entered 08/18/10 13:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 12Case 09-75777 Doc 47 Filed 08/18/10 Entered 08/18/10 13:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 3 of 12Case 09-75777 Doc 47 Filed 08/18/10 Entered 08/18/10 13:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 4 of 12Case 09-75777 Doc 47 Filed 08/18/10 Entered 08/18/10 13:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 5 of 12Case 09-75777 Doc 47 Filed 08/18/10 Entered 08/18/10 13:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 6 of 12Case 09-75777 Doc 47 Filed 08/18/10 Entered 08/18/10 13:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 7 of 12Case 09-75777 Doc 47 Filed 08/18/10 Entered 08/18/10 13:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 8 of 12Case 09-75777 Doc 47 Filed 08/18/10 Entered 08/18/10 13:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 9 of 12Case 09-75777 Doc 47 Filed 08/18/10 Entered 08/18/10 13:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 10 of 12Case 09-75777 Doc 47 Filed 08/18/10 Entered 08/18/10 13:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 11 of 12Case 09-75777 Doc 47 Filed 08/18/10 Entered 08/18/10 13:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 12 of 12
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nelson Santiago, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from four judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Coffinas, J.), all rendered March 5, 1984, convicting him of attempted burglary in the first degree under indictment No. 3374/83, burglary in the second degree under indictment No. 4909/83, attempted burglary in the second degree under indictment No. 6579/83, and burglary in the second degree under indictment No. 6634/83, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
23.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form
S-3 No. 333-157078, 333-133890, Form S-8 No. 33-99214, 333-32039, 333-83193,
333-85320, 333-109186, 333-63076, 333-112139, 333-126157, 333-131097,
333-136491, 333-138978 pertaining to the amended and restated 1995 Stock Option
Plan, Employee Stock Purchase Plan and International Employee Stock Purchase
Plan, 1995 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan, Special Stock Option Plan,
SanDisk Corporation 2005 Incentive Plan, SanDisk Corporation 2005 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, SanDisk Corporation 2005 International Employee Stock Purchase
Plan, Rhombus, Inc. 1998 Long Term Equity Incentive Plan, Matrix Semiconductor,
Inc. 1999 Stock Plan, Matrix Semiconductor, Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan,
msystems Ltd. 2003 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Incentive Plan and the
msystems Ltd. Section 102 Stock Option/Stock Purchase and Stock Option Plans) of
SanDisk Corporation, of our reports dated February 25, 2010, with respect
to the Consolidated Financial Statements of SanDisk Corporation and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of SanDisk
Corporation, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended January 3, 2010.











/s/ Ernst
& Young LLP








San Jose,
California


February 25,
2010
IIA 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 35 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative 

to authorizing regulation of contributions to candidates for State public 

office and Federal office by corporations, entities organized and operated 

for profit, and labor organizations, and expenditures by such entities 

and labor organizations in support of, or opposition to such candidates. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2012 

Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. TESTER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relative to authorizing regulation of contributions 

to candidates for State public office and Federal office 

by corporations, entities organized and operated for profit, and labor organizations, and expenditures by such 

entities and labor organizations in support of, or opposition to such candidates. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:56 Jan 25, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ35.IS SJ35

rfrederick on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 35 IS 

1 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

2 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

3 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

4 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

5 by the Congress: 

6 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

7 ‘‘SECTION 1. Congress shall have the power to regu8 late the contribution of funds by corporations, entities or9 ganized and operated for profit, and labor organizations 

10 to a candidate for election to, or for nomination for elec11 tion to, a Federal office, and the power to regulate the 

12 expenditure of funds by corporations, entities organized 

13 and operated for profit, and labor organizations made in 

14 support of, or opposition to, such candidates. 

15 ‘‘SECTION 2. A State shall have the power to regulate 

16 the contribution of funds by corporations, entities orga17 nized and operated for profit, and labor organizations to 

18 a candidate for election to, or for nomination for election 

19 to, public office in the State, and the power to regulate 

20 the expenditure of funds by corporations, entities orga21 nized and operated for profit, and labor organizations 

22 made in support of, or opposition to, such candidates. 


rfrederick on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SJ 35 IS 

1 ‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing contained in this Amendment 

2 shall be construed to allow Congress or a State to make 

3 any law abridging the freedom of the press.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Premier Holding Corporation(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin B. Donovan, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

August 20, 2012

 

/s/ Kevin B. Donovan

Kevin B. Donovan

Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
# C_2019312EN.01004801.xml

| 16.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/48

---

Action brought on 30 July 2019 — H.R. Participations v EUIPO — Hottinger Investment Management (JCE HOTTINGUER)

(Case T-535/19)

(2019/C 312/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: H.R. Participations SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Wilhelm and J. Rossi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hottinger Investment Management Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark JCE HOTTINGUER — EU trade mark No 10 093 391

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2019 in Case R 2078/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear all the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear all the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of essential procedural requirements, in so far as the application for a declaration of invalidity before the Cancellation Division was flawed. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of essential procedural requirements, in so far as the application for a declaration of invalidity before the Cancellation Division was flawed.

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 8(4) of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 8(4) of that regulation.

---
#### Joseph Santola, Individually and as Parent of Joshua Santola, an Infant, Respondent, v Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Central New York, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

—Order and judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and summary judgment granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term erred in granting plaintiff summary judgment, declaring that defendants were equitably estopped from refusing to pay for physical therapy provided to his birth-injured son by therapists not qualified under the benefit plan pursuant to collective bargaining agreements between Chrysler and the UAW because a prior plan administrator had paid those therapists for some *975eight years. Plaintiff was given notice in advance that payments to those therapists would cease. Furthermore, covered sources of physical therapy exist, and the only possible prejudice shown was that the original therapists’ staff had good rapport with the boy and that he had shown improvement. This falls far short of the unconscionable injury to plaintiff required to justify equitable estoppel *(see, American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co.,*59 NY2d 716). Accordingly, defendants are entitled to judgment declaring that they are not estopped from denying plaintiff’s claim for physical therapy benefits under the benefit plan *(see, Holliswood Care Center v Whalen,*58 NY2d 1001, 1004). (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Tenney, J.—declaratory judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Pine, JJ.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 60 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an 

adjournment of the House of Representatives. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2012 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the 

Senate and an adjournment of the House of Representatives. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns 

3 on any day from Thursday, November 15, 2012, through 

4 Friday, November 16, 2012, on a motion offered pursuant 

5 to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 

6 designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon 

7 on Monday, November 26, 2012, or such other time on 

8 that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or 

9 his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until 

10 the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

SCON 60 ATS 

1 concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that 

2 when the House adjourns on any legislative day from Fri3 day, November 16, 2012, through Friday, November 23, 

4 2012, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent res5 olution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 

6 adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 27, 

7 2012, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to sec8 tion 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. 

9 SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the 

10 Speaker of the House, or their respective designees, acting 

11 jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the 

12 Senate and the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify 

13 the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, to re14 assemble at such place and time as they may designate 

15 if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 136 

To authorize document production in United States v. Douglas D. Hampton 

(D.D.C.). 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 7 (legislative day, APRIL 5), 2011 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize document production in United States v. 

Douglas D. Hampton (D.D.C.). 

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Douglas D. Hampton, Crim. No. 11–085 (D.D.C.), pending in the United 

States District Court for the District of Columbia, documents that have been produced to the United States Department of Justice by offices of the Senate in earlier related proceedings may be needed for use in this proceeding; 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be 

taken from such control or possesion but by permission 

of the Senate; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 136 ATS 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That records that have been produced by 

2 offices of the Senate in connection with investigation by 

3 the Department of Justice are authorized to be used in 

4 the case of United States v. Douglas D. Hampton and 

5 any related proceedings. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS